6 ms·

Yeah I still don’t think that’s harm. Feeling offended is not harm. It’s just information about the world. Learning that someone has prejudices or is rude or j

by imgabe 4y ago

Yeah I still don’t think that’s harm. Feeling offended is not harm. It’s just information about the world. Learning that someone has prejudices or is rude or just careless about their speech does not harm you.

makeitdouble 4y ago
That rhetoric is incredibly similar to bullies in school arguing that they were just playing and nobody is harmed by their little jokes. You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Wether them being hurt justify such and such action is another issue.
- 4bpp 4y ago
  > You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Are you trying to suggest that this is a dichotomy? It seems to me that the common-sense position is (used to be?) that neither the person performing an action nor the person at the receiving end can be considered impartial and trusted to make that call. Either way, the idea that "being hurt" is a state that the individual has full discretion to declare themselves as being in seems incompatible with our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A; otherwise, anyone could trivially claim constantly being hurt by everyone and therefore entitle themselves to an arbitrary amount of restitution. One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end. IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps. That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      > IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. > As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent. > That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
      - ryanbrunner 4y ago
        > There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        > I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread: > One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you. Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    That doesn't really make sense to me. Of course the person at the receiving end is capable of determining without bias what impact something had on them - practically by definition they are the only ones. If they're hurt by words, maybe it's irrational that they're hurt by them, but they still are. Assuming that they're being honest, "you weren't actually hurt by that" is a nonsensical statement - the person saying that has absolutely 0 evidence to make that call, and the hurt person has perfect knowledge. I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      Have you ever seen a little kid fall down? And they start bawling uncontrollably? So you go over and check them out, make sure nothing is broken, and maybe you say something like "it's all right buddy, you're ok", because they aren't actually hurt. The kid, despite having perfect knowledge, has incorrectly judged the severity of the situation. This happens with kids, because they don't have enough experience or emotional maturity to appropriately gauge their emotional responses, much like the people who write lists like this.
      - mbg721 4y ago
        With my toddler, the perfectly-okay response is "No. I am NOT okay," just to hold onto the grievance, which also happens online.
    - 4bpp 4y ago
      If you define being hurt via the subjective mental state, then the statement indeed becomes trivially true, as you point out - but then it seems quite misleading to have a single word ("hurt") cover objectively measurable physical injury, qualia of pain that we understand to be a proxy for the former (and so we have, at least in the current revision of "Elimination of Harmful Language" lists, no qualms with terminology such as "phantom pain" which implies that pain which does not correspond to real injury is in some sense less legitimate), and purely psychogenic phenomena. This makes it seem like it is a matter of consistency or principledness to respond to the last category similarly to how you would to the first, even though they are not very alike. > I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here. What exactly is a "real punishment"? It seems like there are certainly calls for extrajudicial liability, insofar as there is no shortage of examples where people call for damage to be done to those who "engage in harmful behaviours" (referring to hurtful words) that is in excess of what would be necessary to stop the "harmful behaviours" and more seems to be aimed at causing disutility to someone who is taken to deserve it. I assume that a Stanford employee, in any capacity, who refuses to abide by this guideline and draws any amount of attention in the process would find themselves at the receiving end of the actions of a large number of people who would try to get them fired rather quickly. Is this not a real punishment?
- imgabe 4y ago
  "My emotional response is your responsibility" is incredibly similar to what abusers tell their victims. "This is your fault, you made me angry".
  - dtoma 4y ago
    I’m sure everyone would agree it’s a bit of both? We’re responsible for not intentionally hurting others, and we’re responsible for not being excessively controlling or sensitive about others’ behaviours?
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Precisely. And weaponizing the ambiguity - whether by hurting others with words and saying "but it's up to their reaction", or being excessively controlling and justifying it by saying words can hurt more than physical attacks - that's abusive behavior. Intent matters.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    As you point, that’s also a toxic extreme. Assigning blames is IMO different from judging one’s mental state.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    The equity training I've experienced says it's not the intent that matters, but rather the impact, which sounds a lot like, "you made me angry". It turns the whole you're responsible for how you react to things on it's head, making other people responsible for your reactions.
- mikewarot 4y ago
  It's not the words the bully uses, but the intent and context that matter. Civilization runs on grace, removing the ability to express yourself freely removes some of that grace, and lessens all of us.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    I would assume a larger portion of being graceful would be to not intentionally use words that you know have a negative impact on someone.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      How does the term "handicap parking" have a negative impact on someone?
      - makeitdouble 4y ago
        Not fully agreeing with parent, so it's more adressing directly your comment. In casual conversation with people you have the context on, it's probably fine. As a wording for official documents and dispkay that will sit prominently on public/semi-public places it might have wider effects: some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc. Signaling disabilities or special conditions is a real minefield to navigate properly. And thing is, you're putting time and effort yo have the widest acceptance possible, so what people think is kinda central.
        dahfizz 4y ago
        > some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc. I'll accept this premise for the sake of discussion. How does replacing the word 'handicapped' fix any of these issues? Lets say we re-print all the signs to say 'accessible parking' and all the hangtags to say 'requires accessible parking'. People still may potentially get upset that a seemingly able-bodied person used the special parking spot. People who require the special parking spot may still potentially feel bad about it and choose a regular spot. Playing games with the labels does nothing to help people, and serves only to satisfy the self-righteous people writing the new labels.
- roenxi 4y ago
  But, categorically speaking, the issue with bullies is more the bullying and less their word choice. If someone is bullying using bland language that is exactly the same magnitude of problem as any other form of bullying. All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. Telling someone that they are uncool will have as much sting as retarded, because it will mean exactly the same thing if the word retarded leaves the lexicon. > You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. I've spent a huge amount of time, literal years, learning to think in a flexible way so that I can wind my mind away from taking offence. It takes a lot of practice to develop that sort of engulfing calm. Also very rewarding, I recommend the practice. Good for a comfortable life and all that. Sure they can make the call that they are offended, but I am conciously making the call that I am not offended. Is it really fair that after all that effort I have to contort my speech to avoid setting people off? I'm already worrying about my own offended-ness and now I'm supposed to be working around theirs as well. What are they going to do to balance all that effort out? It is better if we all worry about our own emotions and work with what other people say. We all have responsibilities to civil discourse. Those responsibilities include tolerant listening. Getting antsy because someone runs a blind study is a long way from tolerant listening and an academic setting deserves better than that.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    You’re right that bullying will never be eradicated by any kind of rigid policies, be it by policing communication, or banning specific behaviors. Someone with enough motivation will find other ways. Now those ways might not be as efficient or bring the same results or require way more work, but all in all that’s a complicated matter. On being hurt or not…I think your efforts will mostly benefit you, and not being easily hurt should make it that much easier for you to reach your goals I’d assume. I’d compare it to physical fitness, being able to avoid people’s punches is an advantage in itself, you wouldn’t feel unfair that the others are getting hit in the face as they haven’t worked as hard.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. This is called the euphemism treadmill. Soon, lots of the recommended new phrases in this list will be considered offensive and harmful.
- ramblerman 4y ago
  > You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Well that's precisely the problem isn't it? Anyone can get offended over anything, and the solution is not to try and compile a list to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    I’m kinda surprise people react so strongly to stylistic guidelines of an academic institution. It’s stated clearly that the initiative applies to “Stanford websites and code.”, so they’re not declaring new rules for the world, they’re telling their very select community to avoid a set of words in writing. To answer your point, no, I don’t think they’re trying to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - eclipxe 4y ago
      It’s because a segment of our population is fighting a culture war and these sorts of lists are like atomic bombs dropped by their enemy (the work, educated left)
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      Are we pretending this phenomenon is strictly relegated to stylistic guidelines of academia? Be serious.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      That's what I thought 5 years ago, that these kind of things are just restricted to select communities. Now my workplace has a bot that yells at you if you put the words "dummy value" into your code. The current list of banned terms is small enough that it's not a huge burden, but if we get to a point where there's 50 or 100 niche subcultural heresies that I have to keep in mind when I'm coding, that's going to severely impact how productive I can be.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  There is a nuance which is motive and intent. If I say, "can we bury the hatchet on this one." I am trying to solve a problem. My intent isn't to offend anyone, it isn't to harm anyone. A bully who attacks you verbally only goal is to hurt you. If you dig a bit deeper it is likely the bully has very low self worth and attacks others to try and have control in their lives which they feel is out of control. Ultimately both the victim and the bully deserve our sympathy because they are both hurting.
- bakugo 4y ago
  > You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Your comment is harming me. It's my call, and I say so. Therefore you should be banned.
JohnBooty 4y ago
Feeling offended is not harm It really depends on the context, right? If a stranger on the internet uses some controversial word, you can decide it's no big deal. But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people. (It is also worth noting that this list of harmful language is targeted specifically at the "Stanford IT Community" which is a workplace. This is not their attempt to regulate the speech of the world at large.) Now, having said that, I also understand the flip side of things. Some of the entries such as "tarball" struck me as absurd. And on a personal note, I'm partially blind and I don't give a rat's ass about terms like "blind studies" and so forth. In fact, the phrase "keep an eye on things" always makes me chuckle since I'm blind in one eye: if you tell me to keep an eye on things, I'm likely to ask you "which one" because you're going to get a very different level of attention depending on which eye we choose. I also don't mind that we as a society have decided that "see" is a synonym for "understand."
- naasking 4y ago
  > But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people. You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically. If anything, letting people use the word makes it easier to gather evidence of any prejudice against you, so making the word taboo makes such prejudice easier to hide.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically Yes, but there's a cyclical relationship between words and actions. Words can reinforce attitudes and actions. When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people. I do not support some kind of zero-tolerance approach to language. (After all, "tolerance" is the goal!) However, I do find quite a few of these changes worthwhile. For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad." So I've tried to weed that one out. Is it going to solve all of her problems? Is that even in her top 100 problems in life? No and no. But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?

by imgabe 4y ago

makeitdouble 4y ago

That rhetoric is incredibly similar to bullies in school arguing that they were just playing and nobody is harmed by their little jokes. You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Wether them being hurt justify such and such action is another issue.

4bpp 4y ago
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Are you trying to suggest that this is a dichotomy? It seems to me that the common-sense position is (used to be?) that neither the person performing an action nor the person at the receiving end can be considered impartial and trusted to make that call. Either way, the idea that "being hurt" is a state that the individual has full discretion to declare themselves as being in seems incompatible with our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A; otherwise, anyone could trivially claim constantly being hurt by everyone and therefore entitle themselves to an arbitrary amount of restitution. One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end. IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps. That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. > As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent. > That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
    - ryanbrunner 4y ago
      > There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        > I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread: > One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you. Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  That doesn't really make sense to me. Of course the person at the receiving end is capable of determining without bias what impact something had on them - practically by definition they are the only ones. If they're hurt by words, maybe it's irrational that they're hurt by them, but they still are. Assuming that they're being honest, "you weren't actually hurt by that" is a nonsensical statement - the person saying that has absolutely 0 evidence to make that call, and the hurt person has perfect knowledge. I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    Have you ever seen a little kid fall down? And they start bawling uncontrollably? So you go over and check them out, make sure nothing is broken, and maybe you say something like "it's all right buddy, you're ok", because they aren't actually hurt. The kid, despite having perfect knowledge, has incorrectly judged the severity of the situation. This happens with kids, because they don't have enough experience or emotional maturity to appropriately gauge their emotional responses, much like the people who write lists like this.
    - mbg721 4y ago
      With my toddler, the perfectly-okay response is "No. I am NOT okay," just to hold onto the grievance, which also happens online.
  - 4bpp 4y ago
    If you define being hurt via the subjective mental state, then the statement indeed becomes trivially true, as you point out - but then it seems quite misleading to have a single word ("hurt") cover objectively measurable physical injury, qualia of pain that we understand to be a proxy for the former (and so we have, at least in the current revision of "Elimination of Harmful Language" lists, no qualms with terminology such as "phantom pain" which implies that pain which does not correspond to real injury is in some sense less legitimate), and purely psychogenic phenomena. This makes it seem like it is a matter of consistency or principledness to respond to the last category similarly to how you would to the first, even though they are not very alike. > I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here. What exactly is a "real punishment"? It seems like there are certainly calls for extrajudicial liability, insofar as there is no shortage of examples where people call for damage to be done to those who "engage in harmful behaviours" (referring to hurtful words) that is in excess of what would be necessary to stop the "harmful behaviours" and more seems to be aimed at causing disutility to someone who is taken to deserve it. I assume that a Stanford employee, in any capacity, who refuses to abide by this guideline and draws any amount of attention in the process would find themselves at the receiving end of the actions of a large number of people who would try to get them fired rather quickly. Is this not a real punishment?
imgabe 4y ago
"My emotional response is your responsibility" is incredibly similar to what abusers tell their victims. "This is your fault, you made me angry".
- dtoma 4y ago
  I’m sure everyone would agree it’s a bit of both? We’re responsible for not intentionally hurting others, and we’re responsible for not being excessively controlling or sensitive about others’ behaviours?
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Precisely. And weaponizing the ambiguity - whether by hurting others with words and saying "but it's up to their reaction", or being excessively controlling and justifying it by saying words can hurt more than physical attacks - that's abusive behavior. Intent matters.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  As you point, that’s also a toxic extreme. Assigning blames is IMO different from judging one’s mental state.
- goatlover 4y ago
  The equity training I've experienced says it's not the intent that matters, but rather the impact, which sounds a lot like, "you made me angry". It turns the whole you're responsible for how you react to things on it's head, making other people responsible for your reactions.
mikewarot 4y ago
It's not the words the bully uses, but the intent and context that matter. Civilization runs on grace, removing the ability to express yourself freely removes some of that grace, and lessens all of us.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  I would assume a larger portion of being graceful would be to not intentionally use words that you know have a negative impact on someone.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    How does the term "handicap parking" have a negative impact on someone?
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      Not fully agreeing with parent, so it's more adressing directly your comment. In casual conversation with people you have the context on, it's probably fine. As a wording for official documents and dispkay that will sit prominently on public/semi-public places it might have wider effects: some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc. Signaling disabilities or special conditions is a real minefield to navigate properly. And thing is, you're putting time and effort yo have the widest acceptance possible, so what people think is kinda central.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        > some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc. I'll accept this premise for the sake of discussion. How does replacing the word 'handicapped' fix any of these issues? Lets say we re-print all the signs to say 'accessible parking' and all the hangtags to say 'requires accessible parking'. People still may potentially get upset that a seemingly able-bodied person used the special parking spot. People who require the special parking spot may still potentially feel bad about it and choose a regular spot. Playing games with the labels does nothing to help people, and serves only to satisfy the self-righteous people writing the new labels.
roenxi 4y ago
But, categorically speaking, the issue with bullies is more the bullying and less their word choice. If someone is bullying using bland language that is exactly the same magnitude of problem as any other form of bullying. All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. Telling someone that they are uncool will have as much sting as retarded, because it will mean exactly the same thing if the word retarded leaves the lexicon. > You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. I've spent a huge amount of time, literal years, learning to think in a flexible way so that I can wind my mind away from taking offence. It takes a lot of practice to develop that sort of engulfing calm. Also very rewarding, I recommend the practice. Good for a comfortable life and all that. Sure they can make the call that they are offended, but I am conciously making the call that I am not offended. Is it really fair that after all that effort I have to contort my speech to avoid setting people off? I'm already worrying about my own offended-ness and now I'm supposed to be working around theirs as well. What are they going to do to balance all that effort out? It is better if we all worry about our own emotions and work with what other people say. We all have responsibilities to civil discourse. Those responsibilities include tolerant listening. Getting antsy because someone runs a blind study is a long way from tolerant listening and an academic setting deserves better than that.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  You’re right that bullying will never be eradicated by any kind of rigid policies, be it by policing communication, or banning specific behaviors. Someone with enough motivation will find other ways. Now those ways might not be as efficient or bring the same results or require way more work, but all in all that’s a complicated matter. On being hurt or not…I think your efforts will mostly benefit you, and not being easily hurt should make it that much easier for you to reach your goals I’d assume. I’d compare it to physical fitness, being able to avoid people’s punches is an advantage in itself, you wouldn’t feel unfair that the others are getting hit in the face as they haven’t worked as hard.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  > All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. This is called the euphemism treadmill. Soon, lots of the recommended new phrases in this list will be considered offensive and harmful.
ramblerman 4y ago
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Well that's precisely the problem isn't it? Anyone can get offended over anything, and the solution is not to try and compile a list to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  I’m kinda surprise people react so strongly to stylistic guidelines of an academic institution. It’s stated clearly that the initiative applies to “Stanford websites and code.”, so they’re not declaring new rules for the world, they’re telling their very select community to avoid a set of words in writing. To answer your point, no, I don’t think they’re trying to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eclipxe 4y ago
    It’s because a segment of our population is fighting a culture war and these sorts of lists are like atomic bombs dropped by their enemy (the work, educated left)
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Are we pretending this phenomenon is strictly relegated to stylistic guidelines of academia? Be serious.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    That's what I thought 5 years ago, that these kind of things are just restricted to select communities. Now my workplace has a bot that yells at you if you put the words "dummy value" into your code. The current list of banned terms is small enough that it's not a huge burden, but if we get to a point where there's 50 or 100 niche subcultural heresies that I have to keep in mind when I'm coding, that's going to severely impact how productive I can be.
mnky9800n 4y ago
There is a nuance which is motive and intent. If I say, "can we bury the hatchet on this one." I am trying to solve a problem. My intent isn't to offend anyone, it isn't to harm anyone. A bully who attacks you verbally only goal is to hurt you. If you dig a bit deeper it is likely the bully has very low self worth and attacks others to try and have control in their lives which they feel is out of control. Ultimately both the victim and the bully deserve our sympathy because they are both hurting.
bakugo 4y ago
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call. Your comment is harming me. It's my call, and I say so. Therefore you should be banned.

JohnBooty 4y ago

Feeling offended is not harm It really depends on the context, right? If a stranger on the internet uses some controversial word, you can decide it's no big deal. But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people. (It is also worth noting that this list of harmful language is targeted specifically at the "Stanford IT Community" which is a workplace. This is not their attempt to regulate the speech of the world at large.) Now, having said that, I also understand the flip side of things. Some of the entries such as "tarball" struck me as absurd. And on a personal note, I'm partially blind and I don't give a rat's ass about terms like "blind studies" and so forth. In fact, the phrase "keep an eye on things" always makes me chuckle since I'm blind in one eye: if you tell me to keep an eye on things, I'm likely to ask you "which one" because you're going to get a very different level of attention depending on which eye we choose. I also don't mind that we as a society have decided that "see" is a synonym for "understand."

naasking 4y ago
> But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people. You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically. If anything, letting people use the word makes it easier to gather evidence of any prejudice against you, so making the word taboo makes such prejudice easier to hide.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically Yes, but there's a cyclical relationship between words and actions. Words can reinforce attitudes and actions. When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people. I do not support some kind of zero-tolerance approach to language. (After all, "tolerance" is the goal!) However, I do find quite a few of these changes worthwhile. For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad." So I've tried to weed that one out. Is it going to solve all of her problems? Is that even in her top 100 problems in life? No and no. But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?