4 ms·

Oh come on. The page itself recognizes that it’s only advice. There were a few things on the list I didn’t know the history of (e.g. ‘grandfathered’) that I’ll

• fallingknife 4y ago
  But it's only ever people who come from the same history as I do (white upper-middle class) that are offended by them.
  • jrmg 4y ago
    I really don’t think that’s true of the entire list.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      There are exceptions, such as the handful of obvious slurs that they added (tar baby, hermaphrodite, etc) but the vast majority of the list is exactly like this. Probably even things like policeman, man-in-the-middle etc are not offensive or patriarchal to the vast majority of women (especially since many such words are probably older than the current use of "man" to mean male person, and refer to the older sense of person, as in the US constitution).
      • kelnos 4y ago
        > especially since many such words are probably older than the current use of "man" to mean male person, and refer to the older sense of person, as in the US constitution I feel like that use is... complicated. Why, exactly, did "man" mean "person"? Why not "woman", then? It feels like using "man" to mean "person" -- including and especially in historic usage -- is itself patriarchal. Given the time period you reference -- the writing of the US Constitution -- I think it's even more stark, as it was written by men who were not inclined to allow women any sort of participation in the government (and I expect many of them did not feel that women were as entitled to many of the rights they were enumerating). But really, the semantics aren't the primary issue. If a lot of women feel excluded by "man"-terms, then that's a problem. To be fair, though, I have never asked a female police officer or firefighter if she felt that "policeman" or "fireman" made her feel excluded, so I don't really know. I think "excluded" is a better term than "offended" in some cases. "Offended" is a very squishy, subjective, imprecise, emotional term. What matters is why someone might feel offended by a particular term, and I could certainly sympathize with a woman who felt like "policeman" was implicitly telling her that she wasn't fit for the job, that women should be excluded from consideration for that job, or that women should intentionally exclude themselves from considering wanting that job. As much as I disagree with a lot of the things on Stanford's list, I think calling words "harmful" is better and more descriptive than calling them "offensive".
        • mogrim 4y ago
          It's amusing to try turning it round, makes you realise just quite how sexist it actually is: "No, of course I'm not offended by being called a firewoman, why would I be? It's clearly referring to both women and men" - Jake Miller, Firewoman, Springfield Fire Department
          • tsimionescu 4y ago
            The words woman/women refer explicitly to a group where every single member is a woman (female). The words man/men, at least historically, can refer either to a group of unknown composition OR to a group where every member is a man (male). Basically it is a homonym with two separate meanings, just like mouse (animal or input device) or chair (object or leader of a committee). Point being, policeman being ambiguous doesn't mean that we would expect policewoman to be considered ambiguous as well, since woman is not a homonym.
          • saberience 4y ago
            You would probably feel differently if you had learned the term man and mankind also refer to all human beings and that usage had been normal and active for your entire life. Of course saying womankind sounds funny now because we haven’t heard it used for our whole lives. The term mankind derives from Sanskrit meaning children of Manu (a god). It’s not a sexist term and we’ve gone 2000 years without people finding it offensive, it’s only one that people with no other issues in their life need something to be offended about and decide to make a war on words.
        • tsimionescu 4y ago
          Etymologically, in Old English, man used to mean person, and there were explicit terms for a (male) man and a woman - wer and wif. Wer fell out of use[0], and the generic "man" started referring both to all people, and to men (males) in particular. This conflation found in early modern English uses of "man" started being seen as problematic in the early 20th century, and style guides started preferring other words to refer to people in general, thus relegating "man" to mean only male person somewhat artificially. [0] the only remaining usage is in werewolf - though few would assume a werewolf has to be male. [1] note that I am using "male person" only to make it clearer when I'm using the generic or specific meaning of "man". I'm not trying to conflate sex with gender or any other kind of subtle transphobia.
  • sethherr 4y ago
    I think this could be rewritten as “only white upper-middle class people complain about these things” which doesn’t mean they’re the only ones offended or upset
  • imiric 4y ago
    They're not even offended by this language. They just want to appear progressive and sympathetic. It's virtue signalling. Allowing these people to police language is mass insanity.
  • vineyardmike 4y ago
    Genuine question, because I hear this sentiment a lot. Are they the only ones who tell you, a fellow white man, or are they the only ones who are offended? I strongly suspect (this is not meant to be insulting) that you may not have a relationship with the people who this language impacts. It takes an emotional toll to confide with someone that something is upsetting to hear, even with coworkers or casual friends, especially if you don't think they'd understand. Also, language has the opportunity to shape and influence how we structure society, even unintentionally. Thats why there's a lot of emphasis on teaching children about what words are appropriate. Even if naming your git branch "master" won't realistically impact racism and the history of slavery, describing some bad event in your day a word that has an origin in describing people can lead to negative associations.
    • fallingknife 4y ago
      Tons of black people where I come from, and I've talked to a lot. The idea that somehow that black people are afraid to tell white people what pisses them off is racist and incorrect. Again, comes only from upper class white people who don't actually talk to anyone other than other upper class white people. Here's a tip for you. Don't spout woke shit to minorities you meet IRL (as in outside of SV). It's cringe AF, and will make people dislike you. Just talk to them like normal people, which they are. I mean, you do realize that 99% of black people have no idea where "grandfathered in" comes from, right? You do realize that going into etymology to find offense is something only snobby linguistics cunts that you would find at elite universities would do, right?
    • yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
      > I strongly suspect that you may not have a relationship with the people who this language impacts. In society we have come to a collective understanding that “I’m not racist; some of my best friends are black” is an invalid dismissal of a person’s potential for racism. Somehow, however, we have also decided that if someone does not have a sufficient quantity nor quality of relationships with black people, then that is a strong signal of racism. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
    • d0100 4y ago
• tsimionescu 4y ago
  A good long part of the list is dedicated to avoiding black/white words as if the negative connotations of the color black, and the positive connotations of the color white, have anything to do with their use in racial contexts. I find this deeply disturbing and absurd. A blacklist, a black-hat hacker etc have nothing to do with racialized use of these terms. The color black is deeply associated with death in European cultures, and as such it has clear negative usages. Trying to make it seem like this somehow reflects negatively on black people is simply wrong, ahistorical, and encourages a kind of extreme thinking that really does seem like a slippery slope. The logic used to even suggest these words are harmful to black people directly leads to the conclusion that dressing in black at a funeral or representing Death as a figure hooded in black should be avoided, as they perpetuate this association.
  • mdiesel 4y ago
    Language absolutely affects how we think, the brain makes links subconsciously and learns all the time from all inputs, so I don't think it's sensible to dismiss the idea of language making small differences to how we think. The most likely cause of death for me on the next 20 years, as a white man in his 20s, is suicide. A major part of the reasoning for that is men typically struggle to reach out and talk about issues. A contributing factor I think is growing up around phrases like "man up" or "stop being a girl". Obviously anyone who says them isn't saying "bottle up serious issues until it becomes too much" but that repeated learning does stick and despite times changing and there being far less pressure now to be an alpha head of family type guy, the issues continue to affect us. I don't see any reason that same repeated learning from a young age wouldn't also apply to black/white language if there's an overwhelming imbalance. Muhammad Ali famously gave a speech on exactly this, though he also covered cultural references as well which is a broader scope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52988605 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52988605
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      The link between the color black and negative feelings exists beyond language, and it has 0% to do with anyone's race. Furthermore, the negative association is with the deep black color of funeral clothes, not with the brown color of most black people's skin. Even more, the color black itself has many different connotations, and not all are negative. It is for example a color of formal prestige (black belt, black ribbon). It is high-contrast (the situation is black and white). It is the color of things which don't emit light (black body radiation, black hole). It is also the color of many bronze statues, and also of ebony - both often used to depict saints and Jesus himself all in black since medieval times. Humans are perfectly capable of keeping context in mind, and connotations from one context don't actually bleed into other contexts all that much. The missing representation of black people in European and American art is a different problem, and it is a real problem that won't be addressed by replacing black box with opaque box.
• kelnos 4y ago
  I was surprised to learn about "grandfathered" here, too. But, frankly, I am skeptical of their explanation, after reading their incredibly specious reasoning for avoiding "tarball". Not to mention my skepticism over whether any serious numbers of black people would actually be offended by "grandfathered". But hey, I'm a white guy, so I could easily be wrong about that. (It's just that I feel like the majority of people who might jump down my throat for believing "grandfathered" isn't a big deal are more often than not likely to also be white people who don't actually know if the word is truly offensive, either.) > but on the whole this list is basically just ‘try to be kind to others’. It’s disappointing to see it so badly received. I think it's being so poorly received specifically because it doesn't come off as a "try to be kind to others" list. I do agree with quite a few of the things on their list, but many of the items are so out there and tenuous that it makes it seem like a list put together by some severely out-of-touch people who get off controlling others. Which, unfortunately, I suspect is actually the case. And I think overall it undermines the efforts of people who are trying to get others to stop using some of the legitimately harmful words on the list.
• hoseja 4y ago
  You should probably stop using language whatsoever, it was made by people who lived human lives. Switch to something like Lojban.
• jkingsbery 4y ago
  That might be the intent, but in a lot of ways it expresses the opposite. For at least half of the terms flagged by this page, one would have to construe the meaning uncharitably for it to be a problem. If I call someone a paraplegic, I only imply that the person cannot walk, not that the person cannot accomplish other great things. If you try to tell me that I meant that that person isn't a person at all, then you are the one being unkind, not me. It is not the case that "masters enslaved people" - some masters did, but some masters also served as teachers to an apprentice, and if you tell me that I meant the kind that enslaved people when I clearly meant the kind that taught apprentices, then you are the unkind one, not me.