4 ms·

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

12 points by foofoo4u 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
It is a shame that someone probably lost 15-30 minutes of their life in composing this (much more polite) expansion of "RTFA".
sn0w_crash 4y ago
I have read this twice and still have no idea what is being complained about or clarified. Have we truly run out of real problems to solve? How is this an actual effort by someone at a prestigious university?
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  not a real problem, agreed — but a real response to a bogus problem: > there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Moving the needle towards compelled speech strikes me as a real problem. Ideologically driven language manipulation under the guise of "inclusiveness" is a real problem too. It's like the folks read Orwell and took it as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      The warning of 1984 is that bullies don't bully because they have to, they do so because they wish to, and can. (The Inner Party is secure, so why the boot?) If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y? > But deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought DOUBLETHINK, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists... That motive is not explicitly stated in 1984, but it is in (the posthumous) Such, Such Were the Joys. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part49 https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part49 Is this not the origin of Big Brother? of O'Brien saying it is not enough for Winston to accept; he must love? > Flip and Sambo had chosen to befriend me, and their friendship included canings, reproaches and humiliations, which were good for me and saved me from an office stool. That was their version, and I believed in it. It was therefore clear that I owed them a vast debt of gratitude. But I was not grateful, as I very well knew. On the contrary, I hated both of them. I could not control my subjective feelings, and I could not conceal them from myself. But it is wicked, is it not, to hate your benefactors? So I was taught, and so I believed. A child accepts the codes of behaviour that are presented to it, even when it breaks them.
      - eggy 4y ago
        <<If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y?>> This an oversimplification of something more complex and critical. Because the more you keep trying to avoid hurting or offending others as your first thought or action, you interrupt flow of thought and living. It becomes increasingly harder if the offending word list grows each day. What was X is now Y. Too much effort to pre-filter everything all the time. If someone is offended I try to adjust my word or action choices, but only after, prophylactically, not pro-actively, which can lead to overthinking day-to-day living. That is not to say that I haven't put my foot in my mouth as the words left my mouth, but slips happen.
        082349872349872 4y ago
        It should be no surprise that I take the same approach, and have not met anyone offended by a sincere restatement. (for that matter, my reading of the original FA was that it also was compatible with this forgiveness-over-permission strategy) That said, unless one lives one's life with elbows permanently out, there are really not so many Y's as to be intellectually taxing. Even Gen. Robert E. Lee, whom I suppose very few would accuse of being woke, recommended that gentlemen avoid Y. > What was X is now Y. When in Rome, tempora mutantur.
        eggy 4y ago
        Somewhat. It's ironic you quote tempora mutantur, which is classical and mores and ways changed much more slowly then. The issue now is that a loud minority of people are demanding for the majority to comply. The Minority Rule, where a very small minority by being loud and inflexible, can win and have the flexible majority bend to their demands. This is evident in how far right and far left minorities have achieved more sway than more moderates of each party, or more innocuous, why almost all milk has the U or UD symbol to signify it is a kosher dairy product. I am flexible, but not complacent in accepting all changes especially in today's culture. Drinking Kosher milk is not forbidden, and poses me no harm or inconvenience. My company asking me to choose pronouns for my email seems a bit out of place, and I miss nuts on my flights even though people with nut allergies are the minority.
g42gregory 4y ago
From the article: "To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed." It's pretty clear to me that the above is not a true statement. If the term "American" is/was absolutely welcome, it would not have ended on the "do not use list". You can frame it as "not a ban", but it would not make it "absolutely welcomed". This is a polite non-apology, non-admission, "sorry we put out something too early that we could not get away with right now, but we will try again soon" statement.
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Right the fact that they even need to mention it is bizarre
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Academics have Publish or Perish, administrators have Regulate or Remain (in the same seat while others get promoted over you).
deterministic 4y ago
The idea that you can remove “harmful” person to person interactions by discouraging certain words is beyond naive. It’s as naive as the newspeak idea that removing certain words from a language will make it impossible for the population to revolt. People will simply make up new words or redefine current words to express what they want. The “African American” phrase is a great example of this. Has using this phrase in any way reduced racism, police shootings, or any other harm? Of course not. Racism is in peoples mind. And no amount of word censorship will eliminate it. Racists will simply figure out how to work around the censorship. Using other words to express their hatred. And non-racists will be in constant fear of accidentally saying anything that might be interpreted in some negative way. Making any interactions with outside groups a mine field. I personally feel like I am in a mine field talking to people of a different skin colour. Even though I am married to a person who is of a different skin colour from mine! It’s beyond crazy.

12 points by foofoo4u 4y ago

It is a shame that someone probably lost 15-30 minutes of their life in composing this (much more polite) expansion of "RTFA".

sn0w_crash 4y ago

I have read this twice and still have no idea what is being complained about or clarified. Have we truly run out of real problems to solve? How is this an actual effort by someone at a prestigious university?

082349872349872 4y ago
not a real problem, agreed — but a real response to a bogus problem: > there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Moving the needle towards compelled speech strikes me as a real problem. Ideologically driven language manipulation under the guise of "inclusiveness" is a real problem too. It's like the folks read Orwell and took it as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    The warning of 1984 is that bullies don't bully because they have to, they do so because they wish to, and can. (The Inner Party is secure, so why the boot?) If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y? > But deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought DOUBLETHINK, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists... That motive is not explicitly stated in 1984, but it is in (the posthumous) Such, Such Were the Joys. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part49 https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part49 Is this not the origin of Big Brother? of O'Brien saying it is not enough for Winston to accept; he must love? > Flip and Sambo had chosen to befriend me, and their friendship included canings, reproaches and humiliations, which were good for me and saved me from an office stool. That was their version, and I believed in it. It was therefore clear that I owed them a vast debt of gratitude. But I was not grateful, as I very well knew. On the contrary, I hated both of them. I could not control my subjective feelings, and I could not conceal them from myself. But it is wicked, is it not, to hate your benefactors? So I was taught, and so I believed. A child accepts the codes of behaviour that are presented to it, even when it breaks them.
    - eggy 4y ago
      <<If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y?>> This an oversimplification of something more complex and critical. Because the more you keep trying to avoid hurting or offending others as your first thought or action, you interrupt flow of thought and living. It becomes increasingly harder if the offending word list grows each day. What was X is now Y. Too much effort to pre-filter everything all the time. If someone is offended I try to adjust my word or action choices, but only after, prophylactically, not pro-actively, which can lead to overthinking day-to-day living. That is not to say that I haven't put my foot in my mouth as the words left my mouth, but slips happen.
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        It should be no surprise that I take the same approach, and have not met anyone offended by a sincere restatement. (for that matter, my reading of the original FA was that it also was compatible with this forgiveness-over-permission strategy) That said, unless one lives one's life with elbows permanently out, there are really not so many Y's as to be intellectually taxing. Even Gen. Robert E. Lee, whom I suppose very few would accuse of being woke, recommended that gentlemen avoid Y. > What was X is now Y. When in Rome, tempora mutantur.
        eggy 4y ago
        Somewhat. It's ironic you quote tempora mutantur, which is classical and mores and ways changed much more slowly then. The issue now is that a loud minority of people are demanding for the majority to comply. The Minority Rule, where a very small minority by being loud and inflexible, can win and have the flexible majority bend to their demands. This is evident in how far right and far left minorities have achieved more sway than more moderates of each party, or more innocuous, why almost all milk has the U or UD symbol to signify it is a kosher dairy product. I am flexible, but not complacent in accepting all changes especially in today's culture. Drinking Kosher milk is not forbidden, and poses me no harm or inconvenience. My company asking me to choose pronouns for my email seems a bit out of place, and I miss nuts on my flights even though people with nut allergies are the minority.

g42gregory 4y ago

From the article: "To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed." It's pretty clear to me that the above is not a true statement. If the term "American" is/was absolutely welcome, it would not have ended on the "do not use list". You can frame it as "not a ban", but it would not make it "absolutely welcomed". This is a polite non-apology, non-admission, "sorry we put out something too early that we could not get away with right now, but we will try again soon" statement.

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Right the fact that they even need to mention it is bizarre

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

Academics have Publish or Perish, administrators have Regulate or Remain (in the same seat while others get promoted over you).

deterministic 4y ago

The idea that you can remove “harmful” person to person interactions by discouraging certain words is beyond naive. It’s as naive as the newspeak idea that removing certain words from a language will make it impossible for the population to revolt. People will simply make up new words or redefine current words to express what they want. The “African American” phrase is a great example of this. Has using this phrase in any way reduced racism, police shootings, or any other harm? Of course not. Racism is in peoples mind. And no amount of word censorship will eliminate it. Racists will simply figure out how to work around the censorship. Using other words to express their hatred. And non-racists will be in constant fear of accidentally saying anything that might be interpreted in some negative way. Making any interactions with outside groups a mine field. I personally feel like I am in a mine field talking to people of a different skin colour. Even though I am married to a person who is of a different skin colour from mine! It’s beyond crazy.