4 ms·

Some further examples that stood out to me as being too far-fetched, fashion, and/or excessive to be part of any reasonable "Elimination of harmful language ini

by 3np 4y ago

Some further examples that stood out to me as being too far-fetched, fashion, and/or excessive to be part of any reasonable "Elimination of harmful language initiative" (explanations verbatim qouted from TFA): > abusive relationship (The relationship doesn't commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.) > rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.) > trigger warning (The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.) > no can do (Originated from stereotypes that mocked non-native English speakers.) > yellow team ("Yellow" is often used disparagingly against people of Asian descent.) > survivor (Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their experiences. If the person identifies with the term, then use it.) > preferred pronouns (The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.) > spirit animal > calling a spade a spade (Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.) Also not really a fan of forcing ethnical identity by institutionalizing "Black" or denying individuals to own their sexual/gender/whatever-the-appropriate-word-will-be-next-year identity as a choice ("preferred pronouns") Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. While many of the entries make perfect sense and should be avoided for the sakes of inclusiveness, respect, and compassion, the content and format makes this have the exact opposite effect of the communicated intention... > Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community Yeah, no, they did not do their homework on the tarball I think. To paraphrase parents other comment: This could have been good but this is executed poorly enough to be completely counterproductive. The one technical source they quote[0] is a blog post by former CISO of UW-Madison that comes across as fundamentally more leveled and reasonable to the point where I find they (apparently unintentionally) misrepresent it. [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20221219233220/https://it.wisc.edu/cybersecurity/the-colors-of-cybersecurity/ http://web.archive.org/web/20221219233220/https://it.wisc.ed...

cipheredStones 4y ago
> Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. Yeah, many of these feel extremely "fashionable" to me, in the sense that there was already a term intended to be thoughtful and compassionate, and the latest "preferred alternative" is driven by the latest academic framework to achieve popularity rather than any change in values or the preferences of the people being addressed. In addition to "survivor", as you highlighted, I know and know of people who would certainly prefer "sex worker" to "prostitute" but would roll their eyes at "person who engages in sex work" - and point out that it actually carries more of an assumption of stigma, since nobody would say "person who engages in office work".
- nicolas_t 4y ago
  In a much less extreme way, this sometimes reminds me of the cultural revolution where what was fully accepted as being non-bourgeois and non-capitalistic would then be banned the next year for being ignorant of class struggle. The reasoning seems to me to be the same, it's signalling of a subgroup's belief running amok where people end up competing as to who can be the more culturally sensitive person by denigrating terms that were previously seen as culturally sensitive. At first, the initiative can easily be seen as good, after all who wouldn't want to give more consideration to disenfranchised people by making such a small effort to alter one's language but pushing this to extreme is more than a little problematic. It's fascinating to see but it's very sad that an institution of higher learning is pushing this and ignoring logic, common sense and restraint.
  - jamincan 4y ago
    In another world, I feel that being thoughtful about how we use language in this way could be a good thing. I might say something, and my counterpart could point out the history of the word and why it might be hurtful to someone, and I would walk away more aware and be more considerate in the future. Sadly, the reality seems to be that the bleeding edge of sensitive language is more often wielded combatively to try to discredit someone.

by 3np 4y ago

cipheredStones 4y ago

> Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. Yeah, many of these feel extremely "fashionable" to me, in the sense that there was already a term intended to be thoughtful and compassionate, and the latest "preferred alternative" is driven by the latest academic framework to achieve popularity rather than any change in values or the preferences of the people being addressed. In addition to "survivor", as you highlighted, I know and know of people who would certainly prefer "sex worker" to "prostitute" but would roll their eyes at "person who engages in sex work" - and point out that it actually carries more of an assumption of stigma, since nobody would say "person who engages in office work".

nicolas_t 4y ago
In a much less extreme way, this sometimes reminds me of the cultural revolution where what was fully accepted as being non-bourgeois and non-capitalistic would then be banned the next year for being ignorant of class struggle. The reasoning seems to me to be the same, it's signalling of a subgroup's belief running amok where people end up competing as to who can be the more culturally sensitive person by denigrating terms that were previously seen as culturally sensitive. At first, the initiative can easily be seen as good, after all who wouldn't want to give more consideration to disenfranchised people by making such a small effort to alter one's language but pushing this to extreme is more than a little problematic. It's fascinating to see but it's very sad that an institution of higher learning is pushing this and ignoring logic, common sense and restraint.
- jamincan 4y ago
  In another world, I feel that being thoughtful about how we use language in this way could be a good thing. I might say something, and my counterpart could point out the history of the word and why it might be hurtful to someone, and I would walk away more aware and be more considerate in the future. Sadly, the reality seems to be that the bleeding edge of sensitive language is more often wielded combatively to try to discredit someone.