[M T]

BC, did you mean to draw attention to the etymology of "jerk".   General sex-related derogatory words and location-related derogatory words were relegated to "Additional Considerations".  Such categories are lacking in this collection. 

I notice that in their list of "...man" words, they left out "human" (and "woman").

What does one think of a document like this if it perpetuating and institutionalizing something contrary to history?  Would it be just spreading false rumors?  For what appears to be a well-researched history of the use of "Indian Summer", see this source.  Is it enough that some individual or set of individuals believe that a phrase means something hurtful to them, when history gives no substance to that?  (Correction: when I said "hurtful to them", I made the incorrect assumption that they are the ones asserting the word is hurtful to them.  In this case, it may be that a third party is making the assertion that it may be hurtful to some other group. No clear attribution is given for who claims it "may have unintended impact".)

[M T]

BC, did you mean to draw attention to the etymology of "jerk".   General sex-related derogatory words and location-related derogatory words were relegated to "Additional Considerations".  Such categories are lacking in this collection. 

I notice that in their list of "...man" words, they left out "human" (and "woman").

What does one think of a document like this if it perpetuating and institutionalizing something contrary to history?  Would it be just spreading false rumors?  For what appears to be a well-researched history of the use of "Indian Summer", see this source.  Is it enough that some individual or set of individuals believe that a phrase means something hurtful to them, when history gives no substance to that?  (Correction: when I said "hurtful to them", I made the incorrect assumption that they are the ones asserting the word is hurtful to them.  In this case, it may be that a third party is making the assertion that it may be hurtful to some other group. No clear attribution is given for who claims it "may have unintended impact".)

[Madera86]

Earlier in this thread, a conservative poster made a joke about the fact that virtually all departments grant “masters” degrees, despite it being on the list as potentially offensive, joking that it was a sign that institutional racism was alive and well at Stanford. Since he was vague about what he was referring to, another poster assumed it was a reference to ethnic studies programs.

The lesson I draw from this is that we have a tendency to project intent on the basis of others’ political beliefs, without asking about it.  I see that as well in the people who ascribe intent (to stifle speech) to the list, when it could just be an earnest, if overeager attempt to compile a list of things that could, in some contexts, be considered exclusionary or harmful.  I’ve had as much fun as anyone with the more extreme examples on the list, but I also take the CIO at face value.

My guess is that the origin of this (in an IT context) comes from the use of “master” and “slave” to describe servers, which I think most people agree seems ripe to retire.  While that’s an obvious example, when you look more closely, the industry, which lets face it, doesn’t exactly have a sparkling history of inclusiveness, realized that “master/slave” is but one example.  At that point, it seems logical that one would want to compile a systematic list, and once that happens, it is not hard to see how it would spiral into over-inclusion of even very marginal examples, that are ripe for mockery.

As I read this, I don’t think it is meant to have me never use the word “stupid” again.  For the over sensitive examples for which there is not good alternative language, I’m not about to change the way I go about doing things.  And for many of the clearly offensive terms that are already falling into disuse anyways, I wasn’t going to use them anyways.  But there are clearly some terms that in certain contexts could be offensive, and knowing those contexts I think is helpful to not be a jerk.

I do get the point that language is this fabulous tool that we have whose primary purpose is communication, and the substitution of clunky, ill-fitting alternative terminologies just to avoid potential offense does not aid in its primary function.  But being a jerk about using certain terms just because you don’t want to be told not to also doesn’t help in communication, especially when there is a disconnect as to the meaning or origin of a term between the person using it, and the person hearing or reading it. And to the extent that being aware of potentially offensive contexts of terms in common use can help us all get along, then I think it is a positive.

So yeah, we can all have a little bit of fun calling out some of the more ludicrous examples.  But maybe regardless of intent, might I suggest that we might want to take the CIO at face value and not assume the goal is to police language and not assume that their goal was to denigrate the term “American” because of assumptions about where the list came from.

BC

Interesting that you declare that you will strive to avoid certain words because of your new knowledge of their etymology, yet caution us about assuming ill-intent behind the CIO. 

Perhaps it's fitting to begin with the etymology part. Am I offending people whose ancestral homes were raided by Vikings when I mention the days of the week? Is it ok to use a word if the hearer or reader is ignorant of that word's problematic origins? Would it be equally harmful to "educate" them, so that they can realize that they've been oppressed for their entire lives without knowing it?  I like to give people credit for being able to discern whether any offense was intended based on the totality of my communication. Conversely, I know of no one, thankfully, who purposely examines the etymology of the words I use in order to find a reason to feel victimized. 

Yet it seems such people exist. Which brings me to the ill-intent part. Why should I believe that this isn't the beginning of something more sinister? If our moral betters declare that something is harmful, why would they settle for gentle persuasion and half-measures to eliminate it? Have you seen any evidence that they would stop at guidelines? I haven't.

[Madera86]

Earlier in this thread, a conservative poster made a joke about the fact that virtually all departments grant “masters” degrees, despite it being on the list as potentially offensive, joking that it was a sign that institutional racism was alive and well at Stanford. Since he was vague about what he was referring to, another poster assumed it was a reference to ethnic studies programs.

The lesson I draw from this is that we have a tendency to project intent on the basis of others’ political beliefs, without asking about it.  I see that as well in the people who ascribe intent (to stifle speech) to the list, when it could just be an earnest, if overeager attempt to compile a list of things that could, in some contexts, be considered exclusionary or harmful.  I’ve had as much fun as anyone with the more extreme examples on the list, but I also take the CIO at face value.

My guess is that the origin of this (in an IT context) comes from the use of “master” and “slave” to describe servers, which I think most people agree seems ripe to retire.  While that’s an obvious example, when you look more closely, the industry, which lets face it, doesn’t exactly have a sparkling history of inclusiveness, realized that “master/slave” is but one example.  At that point, it seems logical that one would want to compile a systematic list, and once that happens, it is not hard to see how it would spiral into over-inclusion of even very marginal examples, that are ripe for mockery.

As I read this, I don’t think it is meant to have me never use the word “stupid” again.  For the over sensitive examples for which there is not good alternative language, I’m not about to change the way I go about doing things.  And for many of the clearly offensive terms that are already falling into disuse anyways, I wasn’t going to use them anyways.  But there are clearly some terms that in certain contexts could be offensive, and knowing those contexts I think is helpful to not be a jerk.

I do get the point that language is this fabulous tool that we have whose primary purpose is communication, and the substitution of clunky, ill-fitting alternative terminologies just to avoid potential offense does not aid in its primary function.  But being a jerk about using certain terms just because you don’t want to be told not to also doesn’t help in communication, especially when there is a disconnect as to the meaning or origin of a term between the person using it, and the person hearing or reading it. And to the extent that being aware of potentially offensive contexts of terms in common use can help us all get along, then I think it is a positive.

So yeah, we can all have a little bit of fun calling out some of the more ludicrous examples.  But maybe regardless of intent, might I suggest that we might want to take the CIO at face value and not assume the goal is to police language and not assume that their goal was to denigrate the term “American” because of assumptions about where the list came from.

BC

Interesting that you declare that you will strive to avoid certain words because of your new knowledge of their etymology, yet caution us about assuming ill-intent behind the CIO. 

Perhaps it's fitting to begin with the etymology part. Am I offending people whose ancestral homes were raided by Vikings when I mention the days of the week? Is it ok to use a word if the hearer or reader is ignorant of that word's problematic origins? Would it be equally harmful to "educate" them, so that they can realize that they've been oppressed for their entire lives without knowing it?  I like to give people credit for being able to discern whether any offense was intended based on the totality of my communication. Conversely, I know of no one, thankfully, who purposely examines the etymology of the words I use in order to find a reason to feel victimized. 

Yet it seems such people exist. Which brings me to the ill-intent part. Why should I believe that this isn't the beginning of something more sinister? If our moral betters declare that something is harmful, why would they settle for gentle persuasion and half-measures to eliminate it? Have you seen any evidence that they would stop at guidelines? I haven't.

[Leftcoast]

I'm sure Stanford's IT department, like much of Silicon Valley, is staffed by many people for whom English is a second or third language.  It's easy to see how a list like that was useful in it's initial form.  It may have even started as a semi-formal wiki for internal use that later spiraled into it's current easy to mock form. I'm sure the CIO is mortified that his department is bringing such bad PR to Stanford.

I see how this happened - It's still kind of funny though with a bit of a warning hidden under the wrapper.

[Leftcoast]

I'm sure Stanford's IT department, like much of Silicon Valley, is staffed by many people for whom English is a second or third language.  It's easy to see how a list like that was useful in it's initial form.  It may have even started as a semi-formal wiki for internal use that later spiraled into it's current easy to mock form. I'm sure the CIO is mortified that his department is bringing such bad PR to Stanford.

I see how this happened - It's still kind of funny though with a bit of a warning hidden under the wrapper.

[Mick]

I just won't say anything. I feel effectively silenced on the matter. That's it for me.

[Mick]

I just won't say anything. I feel effectively silenced on the matter. That's it for me.

[dabigv13]

At least you got your posts in before the Stanford IT department silenced you somehow.

[dabigv13]

At least you got your posts in before the Stanford IT department silenced you somehow.

[2006alum]

So proud to see my Alma mater continuing to tackle the hard problems in society.

[2006alum]

So proud to see my Alma mater continuing to tackle the hard problems in society.

[BostonCard]

BC, did you mean to draw attention to the etymology of "jerk".   General sex-related derogatory words and location-related derogatory words were relegated to "Additional Considerations".  Such categories are lacking in this collection. 

Thanks for the link to jerk. Perhaps given its use to describe people who suffer from involuntary spasms, it might be considered ableist, but it also for me falls under the category of words that are hard to replace.  Other options, like a-hole, have their own issues, and saying “don’t be a meanie” doesn’t quite capture the essence of it. I might, however, watch it, if I was with someone I knew suffered from certain neurological disorders that produce myoclonus.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC, did you mean to draw attention to the etymology of "jerk".   General sex-related derogatory words and location-related derogatory words were relegated to "Additional Considerations".  Such categories are lacking in this collection. 

Thanks for the link to jerk. Perhaps given its use to describe people who suffer from involuntary spasms, it might be considered ableist, but it also for me falls under the category of words that are hard to replace.  Other options, like a-hole, have their own issues, and saying “don’t be a meanie” doesn’t quite capture the essence of it. I might, however, watch it, if I was with someone I knew suffered from certain neurological disorders that produce myoclonus.

BC

[82lsju]

work on IT words to use/not use has been going on for at least a couple of years, this from APril 2021

‘Master,’ ‘Slave’ and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing

Nearly a year after the Internet Engineering Task Force took up a plan to replace words that could be considered racist, the debate is still raging.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/techn...-ietf.html

[82lsju]

work on IT words to use/not use has been going on for at least a couple of years, this from APril 2021

‘Master,’ ‘Slave’ and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing

Nearly a year after the Internet Engineering Task Force took up a plan to replace words that could be considered racist, the debate is still raging.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/techn...-ietf.html

[81alum]

When I skimmed over the list, I missed "American."  Stanford is now becoming--literally--associated with anti-American language.

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-critic...st-1768543

I do understand the problem with "American," after living in Mexico for a time and hearing Mexicans refer to us as Norte Americanos since the Americas included many other countries.  (Although I always thought at the time that the Mexican term was itself reductionist, given that it lumped United States people and Canadians together.)

In any case, the problem with this list--other than the fact that it had no political sensitivity and as a result is proving to be a major embarrassment to the university--is that it places way too much emphasis on structure and not enough on culture.  For example, using the term "American" to refer to citizens of the United States is indeed structurally reductionist, since it is true that there are dozens of other countries in the Americas other than the United States.  But, culturally, none of those other countries call their citizens "Americans" in the same way, none have the word "America" in the official name of their country, and when average, everyday people use that term--whether they are citizens of the US or of Argentina--everyone knows exactly what is meant.  Furthermore, the term "residents of the United States" is 9 syllables long vs "Americans" which is 4, and common parlance will simply not embrace a term that is more than twice as long as the convenient current term. 

I can hardly imagine Stanford (well, one group at Stanford) doing something better designed to inflame the heartland of "America" against it and to put itself in the middle of massive  political debate.

Too bad, since in general I think we do need to bring the culture along to promote a language that supports greater equality, but this list seems like a parody of a thoughtful effort in that regard.  In fact, I can see the backlash being wide and deep, and the list may wind up being decidedly counterproductive. 

Sheesh, "American"?  I'm almost surprised they did not figure out how to put baseball, mother, and apple pie on the list too.

[81alum]

When I skimmed over the list, I missed "American."  Stanford is now becoming--literally--associated with anti-American language.

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-critic...st-1768543

I do understand the problem with "American," after living in Mexico for a time and hearing Mexicans refer to us as Norte Americanos since the Americas included many other countries.  (Although I always thought at the time that the Mexican term was itself reductionist, given that it lumped United States people and Canadians together.)

In any case, the problem with this list--other than the fact that it had no political sensitivity and as a result is proving to be a major embarrassment to the university--is that it places way too much emphasis on structure and not enough on culture.  For example, using the term "American" to refer to citizens of the United States is indeed structurally reductionist, since it is true that there are dozens of other countries in the Americas other than the United States.  But, culturally, none of those other countries call their citizens "Americans" in the same way, none have the word "America" in the official name of their country, and when average, everyday people use that term--whether they are citizens of the US or of Argentina--everyone knows exactly what is meant.  Furthermore, the term "residents of the United States" is 9 syllables long vs "Americans" which is 4, and common parlance will simply not embrace a term that is more than twice as long as the convenient current term. 

I can hardly imagine Stanford (well, one group at Stanford) doing something better designed to inflame the heartland of "America" against it and to put itself in the middle of massive  political debate.

Too bad, since in general I think we do need to bring the culture along to promote a language that supports greater equality, but this list seems like a parody of a thoughtful effort in that regard.  In fact, I can see the backlash being wide and deep, and the list may wind up being decidedly counterproductive. 

Sheesh, "American"?  I'm almost surprised they did not figure out how to put baseball, mother, and apple pie on the list too.

[murky]

When I skimmed over the list, I missed "American."  Stanford is now becoming--literally--associated with anti-American language.

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-critic...st-1768543

I do understand the problem with "American," after living in Mexico for a time and hearing Mexicans refer to us as Norte Americanos since the Americas included many other countries.  (Although I always thought at the time that the Mexican term was itself reductionist, given that it lumped United States people and Canadians together.)

In any case, the problem with this list--other than the fact that it had no political sensitivity and as a result is proving to be a major embarrassment to the university--is that it places way too much emphasis on structure and not enough on culture.  For example, using the term "American" to refer to citizens of the United States is indeed structurally reductionist, since it is true that there are dozens of other countries in the Americas other than the United States.  But, culturally, none of those other countries call their citizens "Americans" in the same way, none have the word "America" in the official name of their country, and when average, everyday people use that term--whether they are citizens of the US or of Argentina--everyone knows exactly what is meant.  Furthermore, the term "residents of the United States" is 9 syllables long vs "Americans" which is 4, and common parlance will simply not embrace a term that is more than twice as long as the convenient current term. 

I can hardly imagine Stanford (well, one group at Stanford) doing something better designed to inflame the heartland of "America" against it and to put itself in the middle of massive  political debate.

Too bad, since in general I think we do need to bring the culture along to promote a language that supports greater equality, but this list seems like a parody of a thoughtful effort in that regard.  In fact, I can see the backlash being wide and deep, and the list may wind up being decidedly counterproductive. 

Sheesh, "American"?  I'm almost surprised they did not figure out how to put baseball, mother, and apple pie on the list too.

Yeah, seems like they didn't place any value on succinctness or directness.  "person who is affected by" just doesn't work, for many uses,  in place of a one word noun.

[murky]

When I skimmed over the list, I missed "American."  Stanford is now becoming--literally--associated with anti-American language.

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-critic...st-1768543

I do understand the problem with "American," after living in Mexico for a time and hearing Mexicans refer to us as Norte Americanos since the Americas included many other countries.  (Although I always thought at the time that the Mexican term was itself reductionist, given that it lumped United States people and Canadians together.)

In any case, the problem with this list--other than the fact that it had no political sensitivity and as a result is proving to be a major embarrassment to the university--is that it places way too much emphasis on structure and not enough on culture.  For example, using the term "American" to refer to citizens of the United States is indeed structurally reductionist, since it is true that there are dozens of other countries in the Americas other than the United States.  But, culturally, none of those other countries call their citizens "Americans" in the same way, none have the word "America" in the official name of their country, and when average, everyday people use that term--whether they are citizens of the US or of Argentina--everyone knows exactly what is meant.  Furthermore, the term "residents of the United States" is 9 syllables long vs "Americans" which is 4, and common parlance will simply not embrace a term that is more than twice as long as the convenient current term. 

I can hardly imagine Stanford (well, one group at Stanford) doing something better designed to inflame the heartland of "America" against it and to put itself in the middle of massive  political debate.

Too bad, since in general I think we do need to bring the culture along to promote a language that supports greater equality, but this list seems like a parody of a thoughtful effort in that regard.  In fact, I can see the backlash being wide and deep, and the list may wind up being decidedly counterproductive. 

Sheesh, "American"?  I'm almost surprised they did not figure out how to put baseball, mother, and apple pie on the list too.

Yeah, seems like they didn't place any value on succinctness or directness.  "person who is affected by" just doesn't work, for many uses,  in place of a one word noun.

[Phogge]

I’m having trouble with the penal system.

[Phogge]

I’m having trouble with the penal system.

[Canalejas]

My thoughts on American is that it would be cool if it really did mean a more all-encompassing label for people from the continent(s) called America. I don't think wishing so makes me anti-American, either.  But I'm also not hopeful that my preference will ever catch on. Language is a funny thing.  It follows trends and changes.  But I'm aware that I'm left hoping that a trickle will somehow turn away a tsunami.

[Canalejas]

My thoughts on American is that it would be cool if it really did mean a more all-encompassing label for people from the continent(s) called America. I don't think wishing so makes me anti-American, either.  But I'm also not hopeful that my preference will ever catch on. Language is a funny thing.  It follows trends and changes.  But I'm aware that I'm left hoping that a trickle will somehow turn away a tsunami.

[TreesAndBirds]

The guidelines have been rescinded….

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...d-backlash

[TreesAndBirds]

The guidelines have been rescinded….

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...d-backlash

[lex24]

Every once in a while I read something that underscores the absurdity of taking “political correctness” or whatever you want to call it to extremes. That list is one of those events.  Not just for “American”. Sanitizing language in the extreme, or attempting to, based on some persons notion of being more “sensitive” is, in the end counter productive.  Because it’s absurdity allows folks (can I use that word or is it Human Centric) to slough off real issues of language, and action.

Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used.  But this…?  

BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw.  Just different perspectives.  

The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.

That list is absurd. Can I say that?  Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word.  We all have one….

---

If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.

As an exercise think of all the uses of master. Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.

This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course. Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why? Does that help solve the horrific situation? Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better. It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves. Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it. Not in reality.

[lex24]

Every once in a while I read something that underscores the absurdity of taking “political correctness” or whatever you want to call it to extremes. That list is one of those events.  Not just for “American”. Sanitizing language in the extreme, or attempting to, based on some persons notion of being more “sensitive” is, in the end counter productive.  Because it’s absurdity allows folks (can I use that word or is it Human Centric) to slough off real issues of language, and action.

Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used.  But this…?  

BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw.  Just different perspectives.  

The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.

That list is absurd. Can I say that?  Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word.  We all have one….

---

If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.

As an exercise think of all the uses of master. Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.

This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course. Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why? Does that help solve the horrific situation? Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better. It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves. Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it. Not in reality.

[Goose]

Every once in a while I read something that underscores the absurdity of taking “political correctness” or whatever you want to call it to extremes. That list is one of those events.  Not just for “American”. Sanitizing language in the extreme, or attempting  to, based on some persons notion of being more “sensitive” is, in the end counter productive.  Because it’s absurdity allows folks (can  I use that word or is it Human Centric) to slough off real issues of language, and action.

Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used.  But this…?  

BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw.  Just different perspectives.  

The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.

That list is absurd. Can I say that?  Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word.  We all have one….

---

If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.

As an exercise think of all the uses of master.  Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.

This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course.  Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why?  Does that help solve the horrific situation?  Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better.  It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves.  Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it.  Not in reality.

+1

[Goose]

Every once in a while I read something that underscores the absurdity of taking “political correctness” or whatever you want to call it to extremes. That list is one of those events.  Not just for “American”. Sanitizing language in the extreme, or attempting  to, based on some persons notion of being more “sensitive” is, in the end counter productive.  Because it’s absurdity allows folks (can  I use that word or is it Human Centric) to slough off real issues of language, and action.

Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used.  But this…?  

BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw.  Just different perspectives.  

The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.

That list is absurd. Can I say that?  Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word.  We all have one….

---

If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.

As an exercise think of all the uses of master.  Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.

This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course.  Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why?  Does that help solve the horrific situation?  Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better.  It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves.  Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it.  Not in reality.

+1

[lex24]

Well, per the guide, both prostitute (noun), and prostitute (verb) are terms to be avoided, the former to avoid referring to someone by a single characteristic (eg they engage in sex work), while the latter because it correlates corrupt or unworthy purposes with sex work.

BTW, the page does helpfully have an email address for suggestions: ehli-suggestions@stanford.edu
In context it sounds more like they are soliciting more terms for inclusion, but I don't see why someone who earnestly pointed out some of the problems in the list couldn't send feedback.

BC

Because my suggestion - go get a real job, probably wouldn’t be appreciated.  

There are some words on the list that are obvious slurs that anyone with a brain (whoops that’s probably abelist),  know shouldn’t be used.  Most of this, however is nonsense, thought up by people with way too much time on their hands.

I particularly liked “she” and “he” being on the list. Next time I see a non male person, I will be sure to ask their pronoun preference. In fact, it would be a great first line: “Hi, I’m Lex, Im a He, whats your pronoun”?

(When I originally posted I had only seen the few words. Not the 13 page list. If I had not known otherwise, I’d have thought it was an Onion bit.)

And “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative “ sounds like something out of a Monty Python skit. I wish it was.

---

[quote="dabigv13" pid='376814' dateline='1671571546']
They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

The list says to say "become adept in" instead of "master."
[/quote

[lex24]

Well, per the guide, both prostitute (noun), and prostitute (verb) are terms to be avoided, the former to avoid referring to someone by a single characteristic (eg they engage in sex work), while the latter because it correlates corrupt or unworthy purposes with sex work.

BTW, the page does helpfully have an email address for suggestions: ehli-suggestions@stanford.edu
In context it sounds more like they are soliciting more terms for inclusion, but I don't see why someone who earnestly pointed out some of the problems in the list couldn't send feedback.

BC

Because my suggestion - go get a real job, probably wouldn’t be appreciated.  

There are some words on the list that are obvious slurs that anyone with a brain (whoops that’s probably abelist),  know shouldn’t be used.  Most of this, however is nonsense, thought up by people with way too much time on their hands.

I particularly liked “she” and “he” being on the list. Next time I see a non male person, I will be sure to ask their pronoun preference. In fact, it would be a great first line: “Hi, I’m Lex, Im a He, whats your pronoun”?

(When I originally posted I had only seen the few words. Not the 13 page list. If I had not known otherwise, I’d have thought it was an Onion bit.)

And “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative “ sounds like something out of a Monty Python skit. I wish it was.

---

[quote="dabigv13" pid='376814' dateline='1671571546']
They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

The list says to say "become adept in" instead of "master."
[/quote

[BostonCard]

Apparently Stanford has some company.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/omni_american/status/1613039152550780930?s=20&t=v6qcURVqwJ-9aWQ5roygww[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Apparently Stanford has some company.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/omni_american/status/1613039152550780930?s=20&t=v6qcURVqwJ-9aWQ5roygww[/tweet]

BC

[Phogge]

Brandon Crawford can sure practicum those grounders.

[Phogge]

Brandon Crawford can sure practicum those grounders.

[winflop]

The guidelines have been rescinded….

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...d-backlash

Has anyone who was involved in either the creation or approval of this document been rescinded? Because that's the REAL problem

[winflop]

The guidelines have been rescinded….

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023...d-backlash

Has anyone who was involved in either the creation or approval of this document been rescinded? Because that's the REAL problem

[martyup]

Might as well just ban the word "work" and the practice thereof.  After all, working is inherently oppressive.  

We all know that food comes from the grocery store and not the field.  It should be delivered to your front door by a drone so you don't have to drive one of those anti-environmental internal combustion transportation machines to go fetch it.  And, you shouldn't have to pay for it because food is a fundamental right.  

[/Rant]

[martyup]

Might as well just ban the word "work" and the practice thereof.  After all, working is inherently oppressive.  

We all know that food comes from the grocery store and not the field.  It should be delivered to your front door by a drone so you don't have to drive one of those anti-environmental internal combustion transportation machines to go fetch it.  And, you shouldn't have to pay for it because food is a fundamental right.  

[/Rant]