5 ms·

> the vast majority of the words on this list do not have the claimed negative connotations in the slightest Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, b

> the vast majority of the words on this list do not have the claimed negative connotations in the slightest Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, but this community is notably not necessarily the most diverse (edit: by diverse I mean has notable blindspots and well-known biases). For example a lot of people here on HN have no problem using terms like “master” and “slave” in a technological context, but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable. I don’t want my students to feel that way so I don’t use those words in a classroom context, even if every single person on HN is okay using them. Maybe we can all appreciate that perhaps the people who wrote this list are in fact expressing a genuine concern about language that is held by others, even if you do not personally see the concern? > it will sooner or later be adopted by many other places looking for a list of "safe words". First, I appreciate the slippery slope, but at this point it’s behind a Stanford login, and is really only addressed to Stanford IT. Then again it says it’s in line with peer institutions so perhaps the slope has already slipped. But even if more people want to do this, so what? It’s their choice. These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Your comments about “ridiculing” and “nipping it in the bud” are closer to policing the speech of others than this list is.

swayvil 4y ago
Vowels make me uncomfortable (due to an encounter with a quartet of yodelers at an early age). Please refrain.
coldtea 4y ago
>Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, but this community is notably not necessarily the most diverse The communities deciding those terms as "potentially harmful" are even less diverse: mostly white, mostly of the aspirational classes, mostly of a certain ideological bent and demographic, with the token social climber members that don't represent their communities thrown in for good measure... It's like the white people deciding on "latinx" for latinos, when majority real world latinos consider it idiotic (and don't find the term "latino" or "latin america" insulting). >But even if more people want to do this, so what? It’s their choice. These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Hardly
- rmellow 4y ago
  No one ever asked me if I liked being called 'Latinx'. I don't like the sound of it, and I feel I'd be seen as 'difficult' if I were to tell people in my company I don't like it. How is 'Latin' offensive? There is a loud minority within the Latin group who wants the term so they can feel powerful, and of course, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In the end, all society is accomplishing is rewarding outrage.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Latin/Latino itself actually isn't inclusive since it is commonly used to refer to basically anyone from central/South America, even though many people there have no Latin heritage and may not even speak a Latin language(eg descendents of the Mayans)
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Is Latinx any better from this point of view?
      - googlryas 4y ago
        Not at all, I was just pointing out the irony of trying to make an intrinsically non-inclusive word marginally more inclusive.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Shouldn't matter, words are defined by their use (what we use them to refer to), not their etymology. And of course the Spanish or Portuguese aren't "latin" either (white Argentinians, who many are of Italian origin would be closer to being "latin". That said, modern Italians aren't latins either). We won't be renaming "Latin America" either, so latin/latino is just that, inhabitant of latin america - or from a place "predominantly speaking a latin-derived language". Note that Latinx has the same exact root anyway - and iirc it was never about the concerns above, just a BS misunderstanding of gendered nouns in other languages (because latino being "male" somehow excluded others). In any case, it should up to the populations to decide if they wanted another term not "white saviours" and a number of privileged activists in a totally different country. And if the locals themselves wanted to correct a historical injustice, instead of playing with words, they can give rights to indigenous people, stop killing them and taking their land, or they could even move out of Latin America and back into Europe all together...
enchiridion 4y ago
Corporations are going to see this list save start applying it. The new DEI corporate officers need something to do. It’s not a personal choice and I’m sure it will be enforced in short order. If someone can’t distinguish in context that words mean different things, they need to change, not everyone else.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  So.. a little before Covid hit, some of our leaders decided ( so they were a little ahead of the curve ) to attempt to change names like blacklist to something more neutral in tone. What they quickly found out is that it would cost actual cash money as the change would reverberate throughout the system used. All of a sudden, the proposal was quietly dropped.
allturtles 4y ago
> First, I appreciate the slippery slope, but at this point it’s behind a Stanford login, and is really only addressed to Stanford IT. Then again it says it’s in line with peer institutions so perhaps the slope has already slipped. This isn't a hypothetical, these kinds of lists are already being applied in industry. Google even tried to apply such a list to a user-facing product earlier this year, to highlight 'inappropriate' words in Google Docs, but the feature was retracted [0]. It's only a matter of time before some well-meaning do-gooder takes a look at an even broader list like this and decides it needs to be applied to their company's code and documentation, or to their product. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31123323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31123323
- LanceH 4y ago
  These lists are like tax evasion charges for drug runners. If they can't get you for any actual crime, they'll tag you for using the wrong words and run you out of the university. If you're in good standing and not disagreeable, they may forgive you. If you express problematic views like some other viewpoints should be considered, they can use a wrong word to investigate you non-stop until you quit, or just fire you outright for not representing the values of the university.
skeeter2020 4y ago
When you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow, it feels like they might be going too far. When you can't use words because they share some letters with negative ones, maybe it's gone too far.
- rpdillon 4y ago
  > When you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow Made even more tragic since it turns out they're not particularly effective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33745267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33745267
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow It's particularly ironic given that this was the whole purpose of this phrase in the first place. A trigger warning isn't just a random content note or metadata - its specifically to give vulnerable people chance to disengage with content that could otherwise cause them distress. If they feel "anxious about what might follow", that means the trigger warning is working, and they should steel themselves or disengage with the content right now. (And yes, I understand the tension one might feel between a warning and FOMO, but this is not something you can solve by removing the warning.)
- ModernMech 4y ago
  You and I are free to use whatever phrases are or aren't on this or any other lists. Unless that list is that of your direct employer, then you must use only the words they want you to use. And yes, your employer whomever they are has a list just like this one. Maybe it's implied and has different words on it, but it's still a list of banned words you can't say in the context of your employment nonetheless. Imagine being an employee at Coke, and then getting mad they fired you because your advertisements you wrote contained profanity adjacent to the Coke logo. Woke mind virus gone too far? Personally I say "fuck" all the time in my daily life, I can't see why Coke would get all twisted about it. Sub in "Coke" with "Stanford" and "fuck" with any word on this list. These are the same things. Stanford doesn't want Stanford using certain words on Stanford websites. This apparently has made a lot of people on the Internet who neither work for Stanford nor have any conceivable association with Stanford to become very angry. Because "what if" they come for you next? Sorry but the wonderful truth is that your words are not being policed by Stanford. Go ahead and say/write all the words on this list, no bad will come to you. There are no woke boogeymen at Stanford out to get you.
rayiner 4y ago
> Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, but this community is notably not necessarily the most diverse HN, like the American tech industry in general, is almost certainly more diverse than the Stanford administration and faculty. Moreover, diversity in HN is organic. Folks on here may happen to be Laotian American (or even Laotian—HN is international). Nobody selected them for inclusion in the community. By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty. Your average immigrant from a former colony may not care about eliminating “colonial language.” But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.” The faculty system and widespread use of race and nationality conscious hiring gives white people at elite universities tremendous power. There’s few other organizations where the white leadership gets to hand pick any minority representation based on its own ideological priors.
- eclipxe 4y ago
  Really really bad take. Really bad.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    It’s not only a correct take, but a critical one. Elite universities taking over the discourse has the perverse effect of diverting political and cultural power from minority groups to elite whites (along with a small group of elite minorities hand picked by those whites).
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The use of "Latinx" is one of the best examples of just how disconnected these people are from those they seek to represent/protect.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        The discourse around policing is another one. Eric Adams addressed this in his recent op ed on moving the Democratic primary to South Carolina: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/opinions/democrats-2024-primary-calendar-black-voters-adams/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/opinions/democrats-2024-prima.... Adams writes that the move could help “address[] the concerns of all people of color and working-class people, many of whom feel the party has misrepresented their beliefs.” Adams is talking about white political elites rather than white academics, but as Elizabeth Warren illustrates, there’s a lot of ideological overlap between the two.
boredumb 4y ago
If you aren't teaching students about how master/slave terminology is applied to tech then you are doing them a much MUCH bigger disservice than the horrors of them having to read words they were taught to react to poorly.
concordDance 4y ago
> but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable The question is, is the sum of their discomfort more or less than those who are discomforted by these kinds of lists? (Maybe also add in the trivial annoyance of those like me who when "cd"ing into a folder now have to remember whether this one uses "main" or "master" instead of just being able to instantly swap)
concordDance 4y ago
The diversity of culture and ideas on HN likely substantially exceeds that of the Stanford administration.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> For example a lot of people here on HN have no problem using terms like “master” and “slave” in a technological context, but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable. I don’t want my students to feel that way so I don’t use those words in a classroom context, even if every single person on HN is okay using them. I am actually sympathetic to avoiding the master/slave dichotomy when naming software systems, exactly because I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons. The same can NOT be said, to any extent, about user, submit, Scrum Master, master branch, Master's degree, webmaster, white space, black box, and the vast majority of other examples on the list. > These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Your comments about “ridiculing” and “nipping it in the bud” are closer to policing the speech of others than this list is. These documents are about policing the speech of all members of the organization, not self-censoring by the authors of this ridiculous list. And no, my seeking to ridicule this list is not in itself an attempt at policing speech - as in the old tradition of intolerance against the intolerant. That is, they are a small group seeking to use their position of authority to police the speech of many many others, and I am seeking to defend myself pre-emptively by seeking to stop them from propagating the concept - not the speech itself. They're welcome to maintain and publish their silly little list, they're not welcome to actually impose it on anyone - including the Stanford organization. And I should note I am just some atheist gay programmer in a Eastern European nation. Not exactly a member of the American cultural hegemony seeking to avoid thinking about their past crimes.
- circlefavshape 4y ago
  "I am actually sympathetic to avoiding the master/slave dichotomy when naming software systems, exactly because I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons." The reasons honestly aren't obvious to me. Doesn't everyone knows slavery existed? I don't really get it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I can't say I understand exactly myself, but it is a real feeling real people have, and that matters to me, even if can't directly understand it.
MockObject 4y ago
> Maybe we can all appreciate that perhaps the people who wrote this list are in fact expressing a genuine concern about language that is held by others, even if you do not personally see the concern? No, I do not believe that anyone is genuinely offended by "master" and "slave" in the technical sense. I believe that's a bad faith argument that should be ridiculed.

swayvil 4y ago

Vowels make me uncomfortable (due to an encounter with a quartet of yodelers at an early age). Please refrain.

coldtea 4y ago

>Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, but this community is notably not necessarily the most diverse The communities deciding those terms as "potentially harmful" are even less diverse: mostly white, mostly of the aspirational classes, mostly of a certain ideological bent and demographic, with the token social climber members that don't represent their communities thrown in for good measure... It's like the white people deciding on "latinx" for latinos, when majority real world latinos consider it idiotic (and don't find the term "latino" or "latin america" insulting). >But even if more people want to do this, so what? It’s their choice. These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Hardly

rmellow 4y ago
No one ever asked me if I liked being called 'Latinx'. I don't like the sound of it, and I feel I'd be seen as 'difficult' if I were to tell people in my company I don't like it. How is 'Latin' offensive? There is a loud minority within the Latin group who wants the term so they can feel powerful, and of course, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In the end, all society is accomplishing is rewarding outrage.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Latin/Latino itself actually isn't inclusive since it is commonly used to refer to basically anyone from central/South America, even though many people there have no Latin heritage and may not even speak a Latin language(eg descendents of the Mayans)
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Is Latinx any better from this point of view?
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Not at all, I was just pointing out the irony of trying to make an intrinsically non-inclusive word marginally more inclusive.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Shouldn't matter, words are defined by their use (what we use them to refer to), not their etymology. And of course the Spanish or Portuguese aren't "latin" either (white Argentinians, who many are of Italian origin would be closer to being "latin". That said, modern Italians aren't latins either). We won't be renaming "Latin America" either, so latin/latino is just that, inhabitant of latin america - or from a place "predominantly speaking a latin-derived language". Note that Latinx has the same exact root anyway - and iirc it was never about the concerns above, just a BS misunderstanding of gendered nouns in other languages (because latino being "male" somehow excluded others). In any case, it should up to the populations to decide if they wanted another term not "white saviours" and a number of privileged activists in a totally different country. And if the locals themselves wanted to correct a historical injustice, instead of playing with words, they can give rights to indigenous people, stop killing them and taking their land, or they could even move out of Latin America and back into Europe all together...

enchiridion 4y ago

Corporations are going to see this list save start applying it. The new DEI corporate officers need something to do. It’s not a personal choice and I’m sure it will be enforced in short order. If someone can’t distinguish in context that words mean different things, they need to change, not everyone else.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
So.. a little before Covid hit, some of our leaders decided ( so they were a little ahead of the curve ) to attempt to change names like blacklist to something more neutral in tone. What they quickly found out is that it would cost actual cash money as the change would reverberate throughout the system used. All of a sudden, the proposal was quietly dropped.

allturtles 4y ago

> First, I appreciate the slippery slope, but at this point it’s behind a Stanford login, and is really only addressed to Stanford IT. Then again it says it’s in line with peer institutions so perhaps the slope has already slipped. This isn't a hypothetical, these kinds of lists are already being applied in industry. Google even tried to apply such a list to a user-facing product earlier this year, to highlight 'inappropriate' words in Google Docs, but the feature was retracted [0]. It's only a matter of time before some well-meaning do-gooder takes a look at an even broader list like this and decides it needs to be applied to their company's code and documentation, or to their product. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31123323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31123323

LanceH 4y ago
These lists are like tax evasion charges for drug runners. If they can't get you for any actual crime, they'll tag you for using the wrong words and run you out of the university. If you're in good standing and not disagreeable, they may forgive you. If you express problematic views like some other viewpoints should be considered, they can use a wrong word to investigate you non-stop until you quit, or just fire you outright for not representing the values of the university.

skeeter2020 4y ago

When you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow, it feels like they might be going too far. When you can't use words because they share some letters with negative ones, maybe it's gone too far.

rpdillon 4y ago
> When you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow Made even more tragic since it turns out they're not particularly effective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33745267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33745267
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> you can no longer use the (ridiculous) phrase "trigger warning" because it make some anxious about what might follow It's particularly ironic given that this was the whole purpose of this phrase in the first place. A trigger warning isn't just a random content note or metadata - its specifically to give vulnerable people chance to disengage with content that could otherwise cause them distress. If they feel "anxious about what might follow", that means the trigger warning is working, and they should steel themselves or disengage with the content right now. (And yes, I understand the tension one might feel between a warning and FOMO, but this is not something you can solve by removing the warning.)
ModernMech 4y ago
You and I are free to use whatever phrases are or aren't on this or any other lists. Unless that list is that of your direct employer, then you must use only the words they want you to use. And yes, your employer whomever they are has a list just like this one. Maybe it's implied and has different words on it, but it's still a list of banned words you can't say in the context of your employment nonetheless. Imagine being an employee at Coke, and then getting mad they fired you because your advertisements you wrote contained profanity adjacent to the Coke logo. Woke mind virus gone too far? Personally I say "fuck" all the time in my daily life, I can't see why Coke would get all twisted about it. Sub in "Coke" with "Stanford" and "fuck" with any word on this list. These are the same things. Stanford doesn't want Stanford using certain words on Stanford websites. This apparently has made a lot of people on the Internet who neither work for Stanford nor have any conceivable association with Stanford to become very angry. Because "what if" they come for you next? Sorry but the wonderful truth is that your words are not being policed by Stanford. Go ahead and say/write all the words on this list, no bad will come to you. There are no woke boogeymen at Stanford out to get you.

rayiner 4y ago

> Sure I see a lot of hand waving here about that, but this community is notably not necessarily the most diverse HN, like the American tech industry in general, is almost certainly more diverse than the Stanford administration and faculty. Moreover, diversity in HN is organic. Folks on here may happen to be Laotian American (or even Laotian—HN is international). Nobody selected them for inclusion in the community. By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty. Your average immigrant from a former colony may not care about eliminating “colonial language.” But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.” The faculty system and widespread use of race and nationality conscious hiring gives white people at elite universities tremendous power. There’s few other organizations where the white leadership gets to hand pick any minority representation based on its own ideological priors.

eclipxe 4y ago
Really really bad take. Really bad.
- rayiner 4y ago
  It’s not only a correct take, but a critical one. Elite universities taking over the discourse has the perverse effect of diverting political and cultural power from minority groups to elite whites (along with a small group of elite minorities hand picked by those whites).
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The use of "Latinx" is one of the best examples of just how disconnected these people are from those they seek to represent/protect.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      The discourse around policing is another one. Eric Adams addressed this in his recent op ed on moving the Democratic primary to South Carolina: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/opinions/democrats-2024-primary-calendar-black-voters-adams/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/opinions/democrats-2024-prima.... Adams writes that the move could help “address[] the concerns of all people of color and working-class people, many of whom feel the party has misrepresented their beliefs.” Adams is talking about white political elites rather than white academics, but as Elizabeth Warren illustrates, there’s a lot of ideological overlap between the two.

boredumb 4y ago

If you aren't teaching students about how master/slave terminology is applied to tech then you are doing them a much MUCH bigger disservice than the horrors of them having to read words they were taught to react to poorly.

concordDance 4y ago

> but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable The question is, is the sum of their discomfort more or less than those who are discomforted by these kinds of lists? (Maybe also add in the trivial annoyance of those like me who when "cd"ing into a folder now have to remember whether this one uses "main" or "master" instead of just being able to instantly swap)

concordDance 4y ago

The diversity of culture and ideas on HN likely substantially exceeds that of the Stanford administration.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> For example a lot of people here on HN have no problem using terms like “master” and “slave” in a technological context, but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable. I don’t want my students to feel that way so I don’t use those words in a classroom context, even if every single person on HN is okay using them. I am actually sympathetic to avoiding the master/slave dichotomy when naming software systems, exactly because I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons. The same can NOT be said, to any extent, about user, submit, Scrum Master, master branch, Master's degree, webmaster, white space, black box, and the vast majority of other examples on the list. > These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Your comments about “ridiculing” and “nipping it in the bud” are closer to policing the speech of others than this list is. These documents are about policing the speech of all members of the organization, not self-censoring by the authors of this ridiculous list. And no, my seeking to ridicule this list is not in itself an attempt at policing speech - as in the old tradition of intolerance against the intolerant. That is, they are a small group seeking to use their position of authority to police the speech of many many others, and I am seeking to defend myself pre-emptively by seeking to stop them from propagating the concept - not the speech itself. They're welcome to maintain and publish their silly little list, they're not welcome to actually impose it on anyone - including the Stanford organization. And I should note I am just some atheist gay programmer in a Eastern European nation. Not exactly a member of the American cultural hegemony seeking to avoid thinking about their past crimes.

circlefavshape 4y ago
"I am actually sympathetic to avoiding the master/slave dichotomy when naming software systems, exactly because I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons." The reasons honestly aren't obvious to me. Doesn't everyone knows slavery existed? I don't really get it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I can't say I understand exactly myself, but it is a real feeling real people have, and that matters to me, even if can't directly understand it.

MockObject 4y ago

> Maybe we can all appreciate that perhaps the people who wrote this list are in fact expressing a genuine concern about language that is held by others, even if you do not personally see the concern? No, I do not believe that anyone is genuinely offended by "master" and "slave" in the technical sense. I believe that's a bad faith argument that should be ridiculed.