3 ms·

>Many are written not by faculty but by ambitious university administrators. I think it's a pretty poor form of argument to immediately impugn the motivations

>Many are written not by faculty but by ambitious university administrators. I think it's a pretty poor form of argument to immediately impugn the motivations of the people you disagree with. It's also quite frankly a little comical to suppose that ambitious university administrators would decide this was how to direct their ambition. One thing that really struck me about this article is that it points to policies, and language lists, but there's one thing that's missing. Any actual details about anything at all that's bad. Like, ok, this policy exists where you can report a book for being offensive and they'll consider your complaint. That sounds... fine? If you want to follow that up and say "Hey look! Here are the books they banned!" I'm interested, but that policy just sounds... fine. What's the actual problem here? I think the problem here is the right wing intellectual sees a harmful word list and thinks "Oh my god they're stifling academic inquisition"- but as the author points out, these word lists don't operate actually within the academic setting. What is actually happening is school administrators don't want you referring to another student in the university cafe as "sugar tits".

Vaslo 4y ago
So a harmful word list like this is acceptable to you? I don’t see any mention of “sugar tits”. What I do see is people trying to use their authority to tell you how to speak. Almost no one is offended by words on the Stanford list, yet it exists and can be used against you when you don’t speak the way they want.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Yeah, I think it's absolutely fine to have a harmful word list. I don't think you're really engaging with the issue of why this type of list exists either. There is a genuine balance to be made between the chilling effect of this list vs the chilling effect of a work/university environment where routine use of racist/sexist/other"ist" language creates an unwelcome environment for minorities. I think a core disagreement here is people on the right say "These academic institutions are being politicized" but that's not true, the institutions were always political, it's just that previously they were political in a way that favoured rich straight white men and now an effort is being made to counteract that.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    Oh yes, because obviously these lists reflect the way that people from minority groups without a degree talk to each other in everyday speech. I’m sure these lists were all written by people from those groups.
throwaway290 4y ago
If they actually engage in a productive argument against banning specific words it might just reveal that really it's about them wanting to say whatever they want and not care about people whom these lists intend to help (by not reminding them how they are different or that their parents were enslaved etc) or about furthering some political agenda of whoever they are affiliated with. So they are stuck with abstract handwavy arguments about word banning in general. Just an observation. I can't say if this or these lists is good or bad at the moment. Anyone can still offend or exclude anyone and cause a great burn, including hinting at ethnicity and ancestry and whatever, with perfectly allowed words...
jimbokun 4y ago
He’s impugning their qualifications, not their motivations.
low_tech_love 4y ago
I like your example of sugar tits, because it shows exactly how you have been coaxed into buying a product that is not what you think it is. "Sugar tits" is so obviously wrong that it is not in any list. It's the same as someone else earlier in this thread who said that not allowing racial slurs is a good thing. Of course it's a good thing; that's so obvious that most common racial slurs are not in any of these lists. Instead they put things like "three amigos" or "war games", because what they are trying to show you is that you need them. It becomes so hard to decide exactly what is ok and what is not that they convince you that you need them to tell you what to do. It is a way to justify their existence. However, the jump from "sugar tits" or racial slurs to "three amigos" and "war games" is simply too large. To be honest, I think that anyone who is actually worried about this problem should be the first to criticize these people, because they are using your perfectly fine motivations in order to fuel their own career and social advancement. By pushing everything to meaningless extremes, they are making your perfectly fine motivations disappear amidst chaotic noise.

Vaslo 4y ago

So a harmful word list like this is acceptable to you? I don’t see any mention of “sugar tits”. What I do see is people trying to use their authority to tell you how to speak. Almost no one is offended by words on the Stanford list, yet it exists and can be used against you when you don’t speak the way they want.

SilverBirch 4y ago
Yeah, I think it's absolutely fine to have a harmful word list. I don't think you're really engaging with the issue of why this type of list exists either. There is a genuine balance to be made between the chilling effect of this list vs the chilling effect of a work/university environment where routine use of racist/sexist/other"ist" language creates an unwelcome environment for minorities. I think a core disagreement here is people on the right say "These academic institutions are being politicized" but that's not true, the institutions were always political, it's just that previously they were political in a way that favoured rich straight white men and now an effort is being made to counteract that.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Oh yes, because obviously these lists reflect the way that people from minority groups without a degree talk to each other in everyday speech. I’m sure these lists were all written by people from those groups.

throwaway290 4y ago

If they actually engage in a productive argument against banning specific words it might just reveal that really it's about them wanting to say whatever they want and not care about people whom these lists intend to help (by not reminding them how they are different or that their parents were enslaved etc) or about furthering some political agenda of whoever they are affiliated with. So they are stuck with abstract handwavy arguments about word banning in general. Just an observation. I can't say if this or these lists is good or bad at the moment. Anyone can still offend or exclude anyone and cause a great burn, including hinting at ethnicity and ancestry and whatever, with perfectly allowed words...

jimbokun 4y ago

He’s impugning their qualifications, not their motivations.

low_tech_love 4y ago

I like your example of sugar tits, because it shows exactly how you have been coaxed into buying a product that is not what you think it is. "Sugar tits" is so obviously wrong that it is not in any list. It's the same as someone else earlier in this thread who said that not allowing racial slurs is a good thing. Of course it's a good thing; that's so obvious that most common racial slurs are not in any of these lists. Instead they put things like "three amigos" or "war games", because what they are trying to show you is that you need them. It becomes so hard to decide exactly what is ok and what is not that they convince you that you need them to tell you what to do. It is a way to justify their existence. However, the jump from "sugar tits" or racial slurs to "three amigos" and "war games" is simply too large. To be honest, I think that anyone who is actually worried about this problem should be the first to criticize these people, because they are using your perfectly fine motivations in order to fuel their own career and social advancement. By pushing everything to meaningless extremes, they are making your perfectly fine motivations disappear amidst chaotic noise.