3 ms·

I clicked on the link thinking: "sigh, another woke propaganda campaign". "Brave", oh wow, and no alternatives either. "Geronimo", ok, I can kinda get behind t

I clicked on the link thinking: "sigh, another woke propaganda campaign". "Brave", oh wow, and no alternatives either. "Geronimo", ok, I can kinda get behind that one: I mean, we don't want someone using "Gandalf" or "Gandhi" in similar vein, I suppose. "For god & country, gandhi, gandhi, gandhi" would be kinda weird (chuckled softly). "Guru" -- :O -- I have always felt we diminished the weight of this word in the western, English speaking world. "Pundit"/"Pandit" & "Guru" have the same connotations as "sir" in my home country but when I came to the US I was mildly disappointed they had very different connotations than "sir" did -- even outside formal contexts. Then it hit me: Oh snap! Now I get it! I get why someone else may feel the same way about "Geronimo" or "Brave" or "Bury the hatchet". Those are words that _I_ obviously discovered through Western/English-speaking cultures. Perhaps, if the medium was not-English then those words wouldn't carry with them the same connotations that didn't originate from the rightful heirs of that culture. [The point]: I literally went from thinking "oh, great, more policing of words", when I read the headline, to "Hm, I get it" / "I support this effort". I'm seeing a lot of HN comments tend to lean on the side of taking issue with the post & the effort. I hope sharing my (contrasting) perspective helps.

cuteboy19 4y ago
Pundit can mean the same thing as in English, it's just that it's not the primary meaning
unethical_ban 4y ago
Even if we take some of this list in good faith, this kind of manual is so over-the-top compared to anything in current American society. The cognitive load of constantly having to think about what you are saying in order to avoid microaggressions does more damage to free thought and discourse than any damage it prevents by policing it. And then there are more examples of absolute stupidity than there are legitimate grievances. The policing of color references due to "perceived superiority" is ridiculous. It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession. There was an article yesterday in the New York Times where some people took issue with the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope because he headed NASA when there was a government-wide policy against homosexuals. A well-credentialed and respected black man wrote an article saying "No, JW did not actively participate in purges of gay employees and in fact may have dragged the feet of NASA in any implementations of such policies" (I am paraphrasing). He also expressed frustration toward an unnamed scientist who “propagated unsubstantiated false information" regarding James Webb. The rebuttal from said scientist, a self-proclaimed left wing activist and cosmologist? “The leader of a professional society and a senior scientist,” she wrote, is “going out of his way to justify historic homophobia” and “attack a junior queer Black woman professor.” --- For some people, they only have their perception of their own persecution to lean on. She didn't argue the merits. She makes anyone who disagrees with her out to be someone who abuses power dynamics, hates LGBT people, black people, women, and women in high professions. --- The point: Even if some of this makes sense in a lab setting, it is a net harm on the discourse, and those who would champion it wholeheartedly are the kinds of people who live their lives as perpetually persecuted, and are willing to ruin careers and lives if you do not consent to their total authority over language.
- cafed00d 4y ago
  > it is a net harm on the discourse I fundamentally disagree. >It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession. I will concede to you that society must de-pressurize the situation to make people not feel like apologies are immediately necessary or job-threatening consequences await for getting it wrong. The existence of this list from Stanford doesn't necessarily make the situation worse. This list is a starting point. It's an acknowledgement of past mistakes and an attempt to begin reparations. It is laudable.

cuteboy19 4y ago

Pundit can mean the same thing as in English, it's just that it's not the primary meaning

unethical_ban 4y ago

Even if we take some of this list in good faith, this kind of manual is so over-the-top compared to anything in current American society. The cognitive load of constantly having to think about what you are saying in order to avoid microaggressions does more damage to free thought and discourse than any damage it prevents by policing it. And then there are more examples of absolute stupidity than there are legitimate grievances. The policing of color references due to "perceived superiority" is ridiculous. It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession. There was an article yesterday in the New York Times where some people took issue with the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope because he headed NASA when there was a government-wide policy against homosexuals. A well-credentialed and respected black man wrote an article saying "No, JW did not actively participate in purges of gay employees and in fact may have dragged the feet of NASA in any implementations of such policies" (I am paraphrasing). He also expressed frustration toward an unnamed scientist who “propagated unsubstantiated false information" regarding James Webb. The rebuttal from said scientist, a self-proclaimed left wing activist and cosmologist? “The leader of a professional society and a senior scientist,” she wrote, is “going out of his way to justify historic homophobia” and “attack a junior queer Black woman professor.” --- For some people, they only have their perception of their own persecution to lean on. She didn't argue the merits. She makes anyone who disagrees with her out to be someone who abuses power dynamics, hates LGBT people, black people, women, and women in high professions. --- The point: Even if some of this makes sense in a lab setting, it is a net harm on the discourse, and those who would champion it wholeheartedly are the kinds of people who live their lives as perpetually persecuted, and are willing to ruin careers and lives if you do not consent to their total authority over language.

cafed00d 4y ago
> it is a net harm on the discourse I fundamentally disagree. >It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession. I will concede to you that society must de-pressurize the situation to make people not feel like apologies are immediately necessary or job-threatening consequences await for getting it wrong. The existence of this list from Stanford doesn't necessarily make the situation worse. This list is a starting point. It's an acknowledgement of past mistakes and an attempt to begin reparations. It is laudable.