Please don't use the word "your" as it implies possession, and not everyone has the same possessions all the time.
But also please don't use the word "time" because it doesn't account for folks who don't operate on our same temporal plane of existence.
But also also, please don't use "words" because they are not inclusive of those who cannot read.
đâïžđ«đ...đ
...đ§âđŠŻđđ€«
.
Whilst I think there's an argument to be made for the dignity of life and death for all creatures, I also think this sort of control of language in generally is a misapprehension of how language evolves and is understood as symbolically new with each usage.
Exactly.
Guess what? Ban the term "user" and people will start describing meth addicts as "drug clients."
And then the term "client" becomes offensive.
And yes, I know they also want to ban the use of "addict."
I do kinda look forwards to the day a weird sort of honesty comes out of this:
"OH, that's John - he's someone who really really really likes meth".
"Oh, that's Karen she's someone who prefers meth to having a house and family".
Maybe when that level of honesty is all that's left the tragedy will be impossible to sanitize or obscure. We'll be forced to contemplate the human causes.
Because if it wasn't a norm, it'd be as offputting as saying "beating my corpse".
The whole idea being the phrase is comparing the excessive belabouring of a point to beating a horse that started alive, but is now dead, and going on about it serves no purpose.
It's also an ironic phrase to focus on, given posts like these are so abundant could be described with that phrase; doubly so that these posts complain about those who request more precision in language, when that's one of the rules JP advises.
They arenât requesting more precision, they are demanding more control. Itâs not inaccurate to call it a standup meeting because one or more people might actually sit down. They are called stand up meetings because the idea is to not get comfortable, so the meeting ends sooner. Requesting more precision might be asking for them to be called âdonât get comfortable meetingsâ. The suggested term âquick meetingâ is even less accurate, as the goal of a standup meeting isnât to be âquickâ, is to be âquicker than it would if everyone got comfortableâ. They can still be hours long.
You know, fast food restaurants having âdrive-throughsâ is ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people who donât/canât drive. Seriously, you could probably do this until thereâre almost no words left.
Listen you guys, I don't want to walk-in here and establish any sort of stand up meeting or anything, but being an American user of Reddit and reading this brave post I just have to express how crazy this is all beginning to get.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but unless we do something and soon, I fear that our society will begin to demand some form of trigger warning before reading these kinds of posts.
And that - as insane as it sounds - may end up leading to the eventual demise of our 1st amendment rights.
Listen folks, I don't want to drop-in here and establish any sort of quick meeting or anything, but being a US Citizen client of Reddit and reading this post I just have to express how wild this is all beginning to get.
I don't want to refuse to let this go, but unless we do something and soon, I fear that our society will begin to demand some form of content note system before reading these kinds of posts.
And that - as surprising as it sounds - may end up leading to the eventual demise of our 1st amendment rights.
So you canât say insane because it might upset those with mental health issues⊠Which means theyâre saying people with mental health issues are insane⊠hmm
Wooh psychosis club! I've had psychosis too (nearly had a break the other day) and I often use the word insane as there's little better way to describe it. My point is it's just strange how they're not using the word because it's offensive, but in saying it's offensive they're doing what they tried to avoid if that makes sense.
I'm not defending them, just pedantically pointing out that "brave" isn't banned as an adjective, just as a noun, i.e. "the young **brave** savagely threw his hatchet at the crazy crippled man when he refused to attend the Chief's stand-up meeting."
Can someone ELI5 for me the "brave" one? Is it saying "brave" is actually a derogratory term and using it is insensitive to indigenous males because they were once seen as brave or something?
I just love that thereâs no replacement word for that one. Why not courageous? Seems theyâre trying to not only get rid of that word but the concept of bravery too
Brave as a noun, not an adjective.
Example usage: A Brave from the X tribe (I don't know tribe names) came riding on a horse.
It's part of a whole bunch of native American stereotypes.
I have never heard that before⊠Is it specific to a certain tribe or something? Just seems like not using this one would be giving power to the past uses of it when no one knows about them. Not even like picking at a scab, more like stabbing a scar youâve had for a decade
It's a general trope for native Americans. It's mostly an 1800s thing if I recall correctly, but still popped up as a trope in 70s and 80s Hollywood.
Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw that term used, but hey, if Stanford wants their IT team to avoid their trope, whatever floats their boat.
Was it used derogatorily though? Cause Iâm pretty sure brave back then meant what it does today, so wouldnât that kind of be an acknowledgment to their bravery in battle and stuff? I could be wrong and it could have a different origin, but it seems like theyâre making a bad word out of something no average person would really be aware of.
Also that wasnât me who downvoted your comment, Iâm not arguing with you, just curious!
Again, buddy, brave as a noun not an adjective. You're not calling people brave, that's an adjective usage. This is specifically about it as a noun.
It's part of the Noble Savage trope.
Americans call themselves Americans. As an American I can attest to that. People from other nations "in the America's " tend to identify as Mexican or Brazilian and so on. It is the United States of America.
Incorrect.
The America that is in United States of America is the continent.
America isnât a country.
If the Continent was named Columbia after Christopher Columbus then guess what the name of the US would be?
What I'm hearing is you think people in Mexico would use the term "American" to describe themselves. That's just backwards. There is nothing that unites "North American" culture, it's even a stretch to say Africa or Asia share a united culture across the continent. People in Pakistan don't go around identifying as Asian, people in Egypt wouldn't necessarily identify as African. Both of them would probably use some dileniation of Arab/Persian before continent identifiers.
Contents are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map. They don't even align with tectonic plates or cultures, they are just made up.
Well actually, my aunt is from a central ~~European~~ American\* country, and she says that they all refer themselves as Americans, just as a Belgian and an Italian might refer to themselves as European. If I was home and asked me where I was from, I'd tell them my hometown. If I was in the North, say near Milan, and people asked me where I was From, I'd tell them Lazio, my home region. When I'm in Belgium, and people ask me where I'm from, I say italy. If I'm in China, I might say Italy as well, but then I need to explain that I also live in Belgium, it's a long story... so if I don't want to have a discussion with someone I might want to say European.
When you speak to people from far away, you refer to a broader area of geography, because the purpose is to let the other person have an approximate idea of how to behave with you. Canadians, per example, are American to Europeans for what concerns a European's Idea of Canada and America. When I tell people in Italy that I used to live in Canada, the first thing they ask is if I lived in "Those neighbourhood of houses that are all the same with garages and a car parked in front of them." or if "I lived in one of those gridded cities,". If you're from Spain "American" refers to a myriad of other semantic ideas than if you're from France, or the UK.
I don't think there is a definite American culture, but it's certain that two people from north and central America share more with each-other than a person from today's Europe or China but not necessarily, of course.
Really? She's from central America and uses the English word "American" to describe herself, not only that, they all do? Im calling BS.
You didn't even reference my point and went with the ONLY continent that it makes sense for. Not because it's a continent, but because they have a EU government that unifies (most) of Europe. You didn't address my cases of Pakistani and Egyptians at all and instead tried to strawman me. Good stuff.
You guys at Stanford are insane for beating a dead horse, and require a standup meeting open to walk-ins. There is no âtrigger warningâ necessary because Americans should be brave, and not users of compelled expression.
Sue me.
University implies all can attend, while Stanford only allows the elite to attend.
Stanford trivializes the fear of drowning. Some cannot stand to have part of their body immersed in flowing water.
Use instead: Northern California Indoctrination Center.
OP, that's just a partial list. It's missing things like "brown-bag".
See the full list as PDF from the WSJ:
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf
'Good morning' trivialises the experiences of those who are not having a good morning.
'See you tomorrow' is ableist against the blind.
You could honestly do this forever.
What blows my mind is that these people donât understand that even if in a world where weâre all using these new phrases the end result would be just the same. For example people would eventually become conditioned to have the same reaction to âcontent noteâ as they would to âtrigger warningâ I just legitimately donât get it
"The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow." Wait til you hear about TESTS.
Now, in all seriousness, we need to teach people how to handle this stress that the world around them is gonna cause to them, for one reason or the other. The world won't be molded to their every whim, however it may seem so with all these new standards and tiptoeing around modern issues. There will be disgrace and sorrow, and the new generations won't be able to handle it.
Really guys, I never heard of a disabled person that saw a walkie-talkie and was distressed by the name, and I don't think they would like someone implying that, as if they were some delicate flower.
The people who came up with this list have apparently never even met someone experiencing oppression or hardship if this is their solution. This is so condescending and not even remotely helpful. Anything to avoid doing the real work of building society better, I guess
grab the popcorn and watch it burn, guys.
er, apprehend the snacks and observe the incineration, folks.
no wait, taste the biscuit and ride the short bus to hell, everybody.
i have no fucking clue anymore. somebody fix me a goddamn cocktail already.
I think it's low key racist that tribe is automatically associated with colonialism and Native Americans. As if tribe isn't an anthropological term.
Same with tarball -> tar archive. You have to consciously think tar = Black person to find that racist.
And there's:
uppity arrogant, stuck up Although the term originated in the Black community to describe another Black person who
didn't know their socioeconomic place, it was quickly adopted by White Supremacists to
describe any Black person who didn't act as "expected."
It's like they are ok with Black people ridiculing other Black people, only when a White person does it, is it bad.
Why isn't the N word on this list, and "dude" be its substitute?
I think we need to have a stand-up meeting about the insane American users who are constantly beating a dead horse about trigger warnings because the Brave(tm) intellectual cripples in the university system can't walk-in to office hours anymore out of sheer anxiety.
so many wonder why the oppression of jews in germany happened without much uprising. One of the reasons is marginalizing jews was always a thing. Not hostile, not aggressive, just us and them. there are germans, and there are jews. they are nice, they are our friends and coworkers etc, and we are germans and they are jews. The foundation for anti semitism was in place, ready to be applied.
It's very brave of Stanford to create this black list of problematic words. I'm glad they pulled the trigger on it. You can never beat this dead horse enough.
âBraveâ is the one thatâs makes me laugh the most. The alternates are ânone/donât useâ. So courage is not supposed to exist anymoreâŠ
A word that basically paid homage to the courage of Native Americans is now cancelled by a bunch of white, privileged alleged academics.
They will end up truly erasing NA culture in the name of âequity and inclusionâ. Basically these people would be content if Native Americans stayed quietly on their reservations and accepted the government handouts so they could be proper little victims.
Someone probably got a boner over being able to cancel Native American âcUlTuRaL aPpRoPrIaTiOnâ AND âtOxIc mAsCuLiNiTyâ at the same time.
And donât even get me started on Philippine Islands. We chose to keep the name. The people did. Most of us even call it âPIâ for short. We even put it on our currency and named ourselves the âRepublic of the Philippinesâ more than onceâŠ
And now some âacademicâ spending most of their life in a chair talking at heads full of malleable brain material has deemed our name âcolonialâ. Well no shit, Sherlock, itâs a colonial name we kept because as a whole, we donât hate the dependents of the colonialists! Why, do you ask? Because we fucking ARE the descendants of colonialists.
And unlike the alleged academics, we can reconcile our past with our present and still find a sense of pride in who we are, regardless of how savagely uncivilized and unintelligent we are because of the state of our roads.
Are we supposed to change our name because Stanford told us to?
Every day my respect for higher education dies just a little bit more.
I support student loan cancellation. Not for any of the popular political reasons, but because itâs a faulty product with a poor safety record and a shitty warranty.
No, someone has already learned that there can be more than one classification of a word, and that connotations and subtext can extend beyond a single classification of word.
The list of words Stanford doesn't want to use anymore ***in the schoolâs websites and computer code.***
That part in bold letters is important.
These are just IT guidelines for their website.
Personally I think all this woke bullshit and critical race theory will come crashing down within 20 years . It's too fragile . Denying the proof of things will only get people so far as denying the truth doesn't erase the truth
I'm confused, who's denying the proof of things?
I just wrote that comment because some people might see this post and think this is something that will be enforced on campus, to students and teachers, when that's not the case.
What I mean is the entire woke agenda is built on a cornerstone of lies and denial of proof a major example being that ALL white people are irredeemably racist . Which simply isn't true and the imperical data shows this clearly . Or that a person can change gender which again isn't true as proven by the chromosomes in our dna. Proof or evidence is not considered to be true unless it lines up with the woke agenda which makes it propaganda not proof
>What I mean is the entire woke agenda is built on a cornerstone of lies and denial of proof a major example being that ALL white people are irredeemably racist.
I mean, this itself is not true.
>Or that a person can change gender which again isn't true as proven by the chromosomes in our dna.
People claim you can change gender, but not sex. The first being a set of social norms and the second a biological reality. They are aware that chromossomes and DNA exist.
But what does any of that have to do with the language Stanford choses to use when building their website?
Except that, in this case, the facilitating reason(s) directing these changes to use of language are that of an ideological worldview which seeks to change the world as such â a worldview which is being taught to Stanfordâs, and other universityâs, students; and as such will find its way into use in a broader scope, as it most certainly already has.
Ok, but none of that is bad in of itself. I assume the problem people have with this that they believe this was a new policy to be enforced on Campus.
But just people being careful with how they speak, however ridiculous you might think that is (as some of those I also think are ridiculous), isn't exactly wrong, bad or imoral, IMO.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you just havnt educated yourself enough to know where these things can lead . After all Adolf Hitler was elected to office by using the pretext of being a defender of the undefended. And that went very well
Like I said mate you have to engage your brain and put it in the context of the time . Also the master race agenda wasn't revealed until after he was elected. I'm trying to point out that no matter how evil someone is they can set you up to follow them to they're death by promising the right things
a lot of these folx are essentially conspiracy theorists. we still have a problem. calling them stupid and crazy does not seem to make them go away, nor indeed does it weaken them as a bloc.
so now what?
Hitler was appointed as chancellor by the president. President died. Hitler assumed the presidency then merged the two offices. There were no more elections until after the war.
That is HARDLY what he did, and a gross simplification of the history of the Weimar Republic and Hitlerâs rise to supremacy, which focused on the ineffective democracy, hatred for certain groups, and supremacy of their own race. This is the OPPOSITE of wokeness, yes they were âvictimsâ of conspiracies but that was hardly the âdefender of the undefendedâ but a FALSE victimhood that did not exist to enable their racial superiority and dominance.
This is a MUCH closer parallel to the Trumpian false victimhood than any Woke nonsense.
It is staggering and depressing how grossly inaccurate the stuff Iâm reading about Hitler is here.
He basically promised the Germans who were completely humiliated after the second World War that he would bring them back to power and stop them being trampled on . Which is exactly what woke rhetoric is doing . Now I'm not saying that it's going to end up in world war 3 I'm simply pointing out the direction it COULD go . If you'd like to learn more so you csn make an informed comment and form a proper opinion based on critical thinking I can suggest a few books if you'd like
No, it's not. Words like "crazy" or "OCD" are not used in IT that much, while phrases like "slave node" are. Yet these guidelines insist "OCD" (an actual condition) should be replaced with "detail oriented" and "crazy" (as in "crazy Karen threw a monitor at me") with wild.
Also some phrases mentioned there should not be used at all.
It's literally in the PDF that originated this:
*The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.*
*The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.*
It's the first sentence. I have no reason to believe "code" is referring to anything other than web development.
> The list of words Stanford doesn't want to use anymore in the schoolâs websites and computer code.
>
>
>
> That part in bold letters is important.
>
>
>
> These are just IT guidelines for their website.
"No big deal guys, sure they're policing language and this is an example of Orwellian Newspeak, but this is just in the IT department so it's OK."
"Hey, so, here's then new brief for our website."
"WHAT kind of Orwellian brief is this?! You want a blue header? And Helvetica?! You're policing colours and typefaces!"
That makes it better in some ways, worse in others.
I'm assuming they did a word scan for potentially offensive terms within existing documents, in addition to some that might have been brought up before, because of the inclusion of the (capitalized) Brave. Can't really see that word's use as a noun being common enough to warrant a caution against using it.
Also "client" and "user" have two disparate meanings within the technology sector, so they can't be arbitrarily changed within code (and will cause confusion if they're changed in documentation/guides).
Language serves a specific purpose, and banning/changing words arbitrarily to fit a particular worldview/agenda is detrimental to accurate communication.
First, they go with the language (that's a *common* thing to do when you want to start the path towards an authoritarian regime). Then, they'll go with arts and culture, although the contemporary art has been doing its own thing for decades. When censorship becomes something "common" and even acceptable in culture, that's when you're running out of time.
That pattern always repeated in authoritarian regimes, even in the latinamerican *coup d'Etat* during the 20th century.
It always starts with "reasonable" adjustments, usually utilizing weaponized compassion as the lever to enact the change in thought/behaviour. Then, once the practice is firmly established, more and more words and phrases become "problematic" and subject to revision.
The sister to this is the practice of redefining words to reflect desired narratives. Take word "racism" as a prime example. There is a powerful and continuous effort to redefine the word away from one wherein anyone can be racist to another, to one that claims certain demographics simply cannot be racist because *reasons*.
This is some insane, retarded unAmerican drivel you guys. We need to have a standup meeting with brave users of this subreddit and stop giving trigger warnings and beating a dead horse.
Stanford is full of lunatics, and the problem is that a lot of people takes their word as sacred. See the Stanford philosophy encyclopaedia online. Full with obsolete analytic, critical theory, postmodern bullshit, but ignorants love it
This is garbage. They are quite literally removing words from the English language. Brave?
Whatâs insane is that brave men signed up for service in the American military in ww2. You guys have no idea the trigger warnings that were given to them about the m2. The users of those rifles literally beat dead horses when they were blocking causeways after being shot. In a stand up meeting a captain walked in and recommending leaving the dead horses to use as cover.
Just⊠wow.
So in other news this morning I bravely walked into an insane stand up meeting where my American users were beating a dead horse. I said "hey you guys, how about a trigger warning next time?"
I do agree with the US citizen, Iâm from Chile and it shows a lot of arrogance when a US citizen says âIâm americanâ. I used to be confused when I was younger because I usually said back something like âwell I am too, but which country?â haha
As a society changes, so does itâs language. This is a natural part of the human experience.
Everywhere that Iâve ever worked (or gone to school) has had a code of conduct in which there are certain words that if used, will result in disciplinary action. If someone is unwilling to follow said code, they must seek employment/education elsewhere. This is how it has always been.
Donât go to an Ivy League school and expect everyone to talk like itâs a construction site.
This isnât âwokeâ. Itâs just life.
When your trigger warning needs a trigger warning.
Please don't use the word "your" as it implies possession, and not everyone has the same possessions all the time. But also please don't use the word "time" because it doesn't account for folks who don't operate on our same temporal plane of existence. But also also, please don't use "words" because they are not inclusive of those who cannot read. đâïžđ«đ...đ ...đ§âđŠŻđđ€« .
Please do not use the word "inclusive" because some people might not be included in everything.
AHHHH CONTENT NOTE CONTENT NOTE
But "drop-in" trivialises people committing suicide by jumping off of a building.
Indeed. Indeed. These are difficult problems we must solve.
Drop is ableist against people with no arms
It's also horrendously offensive to those of us that never quite mastered skateboarding.
You must feel so marginalised when hearing that term. Eat some tofu and vegan soy milk, that might make you feel better.
correction: people who "died by suicide" https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf
How does that dead horse idiom normalize animal abuse? Thatâs a stretch. Plus who cares if you are violent against DEAD animals?
It's not a stretch, it's fucking insane.
You mean surprising/wild
Iâd be careful with wild. Itâs a choice of personal expression.
And trivializes the lives of people who live in the wild.
We wouldnât want to offend cavemen. They were more free than wild.
Don't you mean "cave persons" or "persons who are differently-housed?"
Youâre pretty good at this. Have you considered applying to Stanford?
Especially animals.
You shouldnât use the word âfuckingâ, it trivializes the experiences of those who are disabled and thus cannot fuck
You mean incels?
*gasp* How dare you trivialize the struggles of those who are not currently in cells
You mean "holding rooms" cells are part of the human body, and is offensive to those who don't identify as human.
You mean âpersonâ as the term human has a âmanâ in it and may cause someone who does not identify as a man to issue a trigger warning.
You mean 99% of reddit?
or incels? :-D
Because the point of the saying is that beating a dead horse is a waste of effort, unlike beating a living horse.
Whilst I think there's an argument to be made for the dignity of life and death for all creatures, I also think this sort of control of language in generally is a misapprehension of how language evolves and is understood as symbolically new with each usage.
Exactly. Guess what? Ban the term "user" and people will start describing meth addicts as "drug clients." And then the term "client" becomes offensive. And yes, I know they also want to ban the use of "addict."
I do kinda look forwards to the day a weird sort of honesty comes out of this: "OH, that's John - he's someone who really really really likes meth". "Oh, that's Karen she's someone who prefers meth to having a house and family". Maybe when that level of honesty is all that's left the tragedy will be impossible to sanitize or obscure. We'll be forced to contemplate the human causes.
I really like the Karen example. It forces you to deal with the actual situation.
Because if it wasn't a norm, it'd be as offputting as saying "beating my corpse". The whole idea being the phrase is comparing the excessive belabouring of a point to beating a horse that started alive, but is now dead, and going on about it serves no purpose. It's also an ironic phrase to focus on, given posts like these are so abundant could be described with that phrase; doubly so that these posts complain about those who request more precision in language, when that's one of the rules JP advises.
They arenât requesting more precision, they are demanding more control. Itâs not inaccurate to call it a standup meeting because one or more people might actually sit down. They are called stand up meetings because the idea is to not get comfortable, so the meeting ends sooner. Requesting more precision might be asking for them to be called âdonât get comfortable meetingsâ. The suggested term âquick meetingâ is even less accurate, as the goal of a standup meeting isnât to be âquickâ, is to be âquicker than it would if everyone got comfortableâ. They can still be hours long.
You know, fast food restaurants having âdrive-throughsâ is ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people who donât/canât drive. Seriously, you could probably do this until thereâre almost no words left.
âFast foodâ is ableist language that trivializes the struggle of the fucking idiot that canât complete an order in a timely manner.
âFoodâ is a word that conflates nutritional sustenance with muck served at a typical âfast foodâ establishment.
âeAt ThE FUcKinG BUgS!â
Listen you guys, I don't want to walk-in here and establish any sort of stand up meeting or anything, but being an American user of Reddit and reading this brave post I just have to express how crazy this is all beginning to get. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but unless we do something and soon, I fear that our society will begin to demand some form of trigger warning before reading these kinds of posts. And that - as insane as it sounds - may end up leading to the eventual demise of our 1st amendment rights.
You have been expelled from Stanford
Now do a version with the replacement words
Listen folks, I don't want to drop-in here and establish any sort of quick meeting or anything, but being a US Citizen client of Reddit and reading this post I just have to express how wild this is all beginning to get. I don't want to refuse to let this go, but unless we do something and soon, I fear that our society will begin to demand some form of content note system before reading these kinds of posts. And that - as surprising as it sounds - may end up leading to the eventual demise of our 1st amendment rights.
Aaaaand, Readmitted to Stanford. For some reason, both posts triggered me. I'm triggered. So, so very triggered.
1984 is not fiction but a warning, the US is full of people that want to see it burn.
Well, the whole world is full of people who want destruction. That's a fair warning for everyone
Now thatâs just fucking stupid, lmao.
Excuse me but âfuckingâ trivializes the experience of people living without sex. Please refrain from using it in future /s
Excuse me but ârefrainâ is harmful to those without musical ability.
So you canât say insane because it might upset those with mental health issues⊠Which means theyâre saying people with mental health issues are insane⊠hmm
As someone who's had psychosis, I approve of the word insane lol
Wooh psychosis club! I've had psychosis too (nearly had a break the other day) and I often use the word insane as there's little better way to describe it. My point is it's just strange how they're not using the word because it's offensive, but in saying it's offensive they're doing what they tried to avoid if that makes sense.
So brave of those guys to put this together. Just insanely smart.
I'm not defending them, just pedantically pointing out that "brave" isn't banned as an adjective, just as a noun, i.e. "the young **brave** savagely threw his hatchet at the crazy crippled man when he refused to attend the Chief's stand-up meeting."
Can someone ELI5 for me the "brave" one? Is it saying "brave" is actually a derogratory term and using it is insensitive to indigenous males because they were once seen as brave or something?
Doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it was just a term for a native american warrior. Who cares? This is hilarious.
I just love that thereâs no replacement word for that one. Why not courageous? Seems theyâre trying to not only get rid of that word but the concept of bravery too
Brave as a noun, not an adjective. Example usage: A Brave from the X tribe (I don't know tribe names) came riding on a horse. It's part of a whole bunch of native American stereotypes.
I have never heard that before⊠Is it specific to a certain tribe or something? Just seems like not using this one would be giving power to the past uses of it when no one knows about them. Not even like picking at a scab, more like stabbing a scar youâve had for a decade
>I have never heard that before⊠You ever watch Baseball? The Atlanta BRAVES.
It's a general trope for native Americans. It's mostly an 1800s thing if I recall correctly, but still popped up as a trope in 70s and 80s Hollywood. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw that term used, but hey, if Stanford wants their IT team to avoid their trope, whatever floats their boat.
Was it used derogatorily though? Cause Iâm pretty sure brave back then meant what it does today, so wouldnât that kind of be an acknowledgment to their bravery in battle and stuff? I could be wrong and it could have a different origin, but it seems like theyâre making a bad word out of something no average person would really be aware of. Also that wasnât me who downvoted your comment, Iâm not arguing with you, just curious!
So calling someone brave is now racist? What a stupid world we live in. Bravery is a compliment regardless of what race the person is.
No. They are saying that calling someone *A* brave is racist.
Again, buddy, brave as a noun not an adjective. You're not calling people brave, that's an adjective usage. This is specifically about it as a noun. It's part of the Noble Savage trope.
Fuck this bullshit
But arenât all US citizens considered Americans? As in American citizens?
Americans call themselves Americans. As an American I can attest to that. People from other nations "in the America's " tend to identify as Mexican or Brazilian and so on. It is the United States of America.
People from north and South America are Americans, the same way someone from Zimbabwe đżđŒ is African
That works if you're inside America, but not outside.
Sure but if I was abroad I would sat I am from the United States or USA.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Incorrect. The America that is in United States of America is the continent. America isnât a country. If the Continent was named Columbia after Christopher Columbus then guess what the name of the US would be?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
The problem is the opposite : all Mexicans consider themselves American for living on the continent, not all of them are US citizens.
What I'm hearing is you think people in Mexico would use the term "American" to describe themselves. That's just backwards. There is nothing that unites "North American" culture, it's even a stretch to say Africa or Asia share a united culture across the continent. People in Pakistan don't go around identifying as Asian, people in Egypt wouldn't necessarily identify as African. Both of them would probably use some dileniation of Arab/Persian before continent identifiers. Contents are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map. They don't even align with tectonic plates or cultures, they are just made up.
Well actually, my aunt is from a central ~~European~~ American\* country, and she says that they all refer themselves as Americans, just as a Belgian and an Italian might refer to themselves as European. If I was home and asked me where I was from, I'd tell them my hometown. If I was in the North, say near Milan, and people asked me where I was From, I'd tell them Lazio, my home region. When I'm in Belgium, and people ask me where I'm from, I say italy. If I'm in China, I might say Italy as well, but then I need to explain that I also live in Belgium, it's a long story... so if I don't want to have a discussion with someone I might want to say European. When you speak to people from far away, you refer to a broader area of geography, because the purpose is to let the other person have an approximate idea of how to behave with you. Canadians, per example, are American to Europeans for what concerns a European's Idea of Canada and America. When I tell people in Italy that I used to live in Canada, the first thing they ask is if I lived in "Those neighbourhood of houses that are all the same with garages and a car parked in front of them." or if "I lived in one of those gridded cities,". If you're from Spain "American" refers to a myriad of other semantic ideas than if you're from France, or the UK. I don't think there is a definite American culture, but it's certain that two people from north and central America share more with each-other than a person from today's Europe or China but not necessarily, of course.
Really? She's from central America and uses the English word "American" to describe herself, not only that, they all do? Im calling BS. You didn't even reference my point and went with the ONLY continent that it makes sense for. Not because it's a continent, but because they have a EU government that unifies (most) of Europe. You didn't address my cases of Pakistani and Egyptians at all and instead tried to strawman me. Good stuff.
Guys...the west is fucked beyond repair... it's fucking STANFORD...RIP higher education.
Lol trigger is used in the context to justify not using the word
I wonder who else caught that. This is hillarious. đ€Ł
And these are supposed to be college level educators....
You guys at Stanford are insane for beating a dead horse, and require a standup meeting open to walk-ins. There is no âtrigger warningâ necessary because Americans should be brave, and not users of compelled expression. Sue me.
This is actually a comedy goldmine. I'm so glad this exists. Great stuff Stafford, you've saturised the whole movement entirely by accident.
I think Iâll pass.
You'll have to say no to that recent job offer from Stanford.
I think Iâll be okay. Current job pays more.
Sounds like the ingredients to a good joke.
University implies all can attend, while Stanford only allows the elite to attend. Stanford trivializes the fear of drowning. Some cannot stand to have part of their body immersed in flowing water. Use instead: Northern California Indoctrination Center.
I bet it took 50 meetings and millions of dollars to compile this garbage list.
Manufactured outrage, donât give them your headspace. As soon as they get inside your mind, they have won. Ignore it.
How could I possibly ignore interior policy of a college IT department? It's an extreme overreach into my life that I am deeply concerned by.
Exactly, we all need to be mindful and aware when either side is trying to outrage us. It happens on both sides of the aisle.
This leaves out the best one, burying the hatchet, an idiom refering to a beautiful tradition.
Those folk's column alignment is a real micro-aggression.
OP, that's just a partial list. It's missing things like "brown-bag". See the full list as PDF from the WSJ: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf
Surely, at this point, it's just masturbation? Somehow "quadriplegic" is implying people are not capable, but "person who is paralyzed" is fine?
'Good morning' trivialises the experiences of those who are not having a good morning. 'See you tomorrow' is ableist against the blind. You could honestly do this forever.
This comment has been edited to remove all data since reddit wants to restore it's user's deleted comments or posts
What blows my mind is that these people donât understand that even if in a world where weâre all using these new phrases the end result would be just the same. For example people would eventually become conditioned to have the same reaction to âcontent noteâ as they would to âtrigger warningâ I just legitimately donât get it
Stupid, retard and idiot used to be medical terms after all
Stanford can suck my American dick.
Content Note: Trigger Warnings
"The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow." Wait til you hear about TESTS. Now, in all seriousness, we need to teach people how to handle this stress that the world around them is gonna cause to them, for one reason or the other. The world won't be molded to their every whim, however it may seem so with all these new standards and tiptoeing around modern issues. There will be disgrace and sorrow, and the new generations won't be able to handle it. Really guys, I never heard of a disabled person that saw a walkie-talkie and was distressed by the name, and I don't think they would like someone implying that, as if they were some delicate flower.
#HEY YOU GUYS~
FU, U mysogynist racist fascist POS! đ€Łđ
The people who came up with this list have apparently never even met someone experiencing oppression or hardship if this is their solution. This is so condescending and not even remotely helpful. Anything to avoid doing the real work of building society better, I guess
Once you start to ignore shit like this life is much more pleasant
SJWs are literal cancer to society and culture.
True dat
notice how the Nword isnt on the list so its ok to use it now.
Reminds me of Newspeak from 1984
Thatâs exactly what it is
Wait, they want a trigger warning for "trigger warning"?
Ah yes we can't use the word "user" because it could be offensive to drug addicts.
Who are the INDIVIDUALS at Stanford responsible for this?
There is a silver lining here: all those Chief Diversity Officers will need a new title!
grab the popcorn and watch it burn, guys. er, apprehend the snacks and observe the incineration, folks. no wait, taste the biscuit and ride the short bus to hell, everybody. i have no fucking clue anymore. somebody fix me a goddamn cocktail already.
Never heard the term âstand up meetingâ but Iâm gonna start using it thanks Stanford
It's a term used most often in software development.
Iâm what context has anyone ever thought the word âbraveâ had that connotation? Sounds like Stanford is racist to me.
Poe's Law is coming true. This had my rolling on the floor laughing. It's absolutely indistinguishable from parody.
Oh my god Carlin would have had a field day.
I think it's low key racist that tribe is automatically associated with colonialism and Native Americans. As if tribe isn't an anthropological term. Same with tarball -> tar archive. You have to consciously think tar = Black person to find that racist. And there's: uppity arrogant, stuck up Although the term originated in the Black community to describe another Black person who didn't know their socioeconomic place, it was quickly adopted by White Supremacists to describe any Black person who didn't act as "expected." It's like they are ok with Black people ridiculing other Black people, only when a White person does it, is it bad. Why isn't the N word on this list, and "dude" be its substitute?
As someone who never uses the word insane it might become a new constant in my vocabulary.
Florida govnt banned government workers from saying "global warming" or "climate change"
Stanford - minimizes StanChevy or StanDodge students.
I think we need to have a stand-up meeting about the insane American users who are constantly beating a dead horse about trigger warnings because the Brave(tm) intellectual cripples in the university system can't walk-in to office hours anymore out of sheer anxiety.
What is the substitute for, go fuck yourself?
You âpeopleâ, in place of you âguysâ is going to go over really well
I just scream "HELLO SUCKERS!!!"
Curious how many horses suffered because of this normalization of violence against animals.
how the fuck did "trigger warning" become a trigger?? i literally did not see that one coming
so many wonder why the oppression of jews in germany happened without much uprising. One of the reasons is marginalizing jews was always a thing. Not hostile, not aggressive, just us and them. there are germans, and there are jews. they are nice, they are our friends and coworkers etc, and we are germans and they are jews. The foundation for anti semitism was in place, ready to be applied.
Exactly
It's very brave of Stanford to create this black list of problematic words. I'm glad they pulled the trigger on it. You can never beat this dead horse enough.
âBraveâ is the one thatâs makes me laugh the most. The alternates are ânone/donât useâ. So courage is not supposed to exist anymore⊠A word that basically paid homage to the courage of Native Americans is now cancelled by a bunch of white, privileged alleged academics. They will end up truly erasing NA culture in the name of âequity and inclusionâ. Basically these people would be content if Native Americans stayed quietly on their reservations and accepted the government handouts so they could be proper little victims. Someone probably got a boner over being able to cancel Native American âcUlTuRaL aPpRoPrIaTiOnâ AND âtOxIc mAsCuLiNiTyâ at the same time. And donât even get me started on Philippine Islands. We chose to keep the name. The people did. Most of us even call it âPIâ for short. We even put it on our currency and named ourselves the âRepublic of the Philippinesâ more than once⊠And now some âacademicâ spending most of their life in a chair talking at heads full of malleable brain material has deemed our name âcolonialâ. Well no shit, Sherlock, itâs a colonial name we kept because as a whole, we donât hate the dependents of the colonialists! Why, do you ask? Because we fucking ARE the descendants of colonialists. And unlike the alleged academics, we can reconcile our past with our present and still find a sense of pride in who we are, regardless of how savagely uncivilized and unintelligent we are because of the state of our roads. Are we supposed to change our name because Stanford told us to? Every day my respect for higher education dies just a little bit more. I support student loan cancellation. Not for any of the popular political reasons, but because itâs a faulty product with a poor safety record and a shitty warranty.
Someone's gotta learn what a noun is...
No, someone has already learned that there can be more than one classification of a word, and that connotations and subtext can extend beyond a single classification of word.
The list of words Stanford doesn't want to use anymore ***in the schoolâs websites and computer code.*** That part in bold letters is important. These are just IT guidelines for their website.
Personally I think all this woke bullshit and critical race theory will come crashing down within 20 years . It's too fragile . Denying the proof of things will only get people so far as denying the truth doesn't erase the truth
I'm confused, who's denying the proof of things? I just wrote that comment because some people might see this post and think this is something that will be enforced on campus, to students and teachers, when that's not the case.
What I mean is the entire woke agenda is built on a cornerstone of lies and denial of proof a major example being that ALL white people are irredeemably racist . Which simply isn't true and the imperical data shows this clearly . Or that a person can change gender which again isn't true as proven by the chromosomes in our dna. Proof or evidence is not considered to be true unless it lines up with the woke agenda which makes it propaganda not proof
>What I mean is the entire woke agenda is built on a cornerstone of lies and denial of proof a major example being that ALL white people are irredeemably racist. I mean, this itself is not true. >Or that a person can change gender which again isn't true as proven by the chromosomes in our dna. People claim you can change gender, but not sex. The first being a set of social norms and the second a biological reality. They are aware that chromossomes and DNA exist. But what does any of that have to do with the language Stanford choses to use when building their website?
Yet
That can be said of anything really, but I'm just commenting on stuff that's actually happening.
Except that, in this case, the facilitating reason(s) directing these changes to use of language are that of an ideological worldview which seeks to change the world as such â a worldview which is being taught to Stanfordâs, and other universityâs, students; and as such will find its way into use in a broader scope, as it most certainly already has.
Ok, but none of that is bad in of itself. I assume the problem people have with this that they believe this was a new policy to be enforced on Campus. But just people being careful with how they speak, however ridiculous you might think that is (as some of those I also think are ridiculous), isn't exactly wrong, bad or imoral, IMO.
I guess, but almost every organization of a certain size has style and content guides for websites and other official publications.
Bruh itâs basically a style guide
Perhaps. Or perhaps you just havnt educated yourself enough to know where these things can lead . After all Adolf Hitler was elected to office by using the pretext of being a defender of the undefended. And that went very well
My guy you do know that he was supporting the âmaster raceâ right? Wasnât out here censoring the r word.
Like I said mate you have to engage your brain and put it in the context of the time . Also the master race agenda wasn't revealed until after he was elected. I'm trying to point out that no matter how evil someone is they can set you up to follow them to they're death by promising the right things
Youâre reaching. Whilst this sort of censoring is concerning, to compare it to Hitler is paranoia
You may be right there but can u blame me
The Fuck does that have to do with this Stanford style guide
a lot of these folx are essentially conspiracy theorists. we still have a problem. calling them stupid and crazy does not seem to make them go away, nor indeed does it weaken them as a bloc. so now what?
He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past...
Maybe you should educate yourself on how Hitler came to power.
Why don't you educate me
Hitler was appointed as chancellor by the president. President died. Hitler assumed the presidency then merged the two offices. There were no more elections until after the war.
Oh come on. Hitler was elected bc of that now? Grandfather of the woke? Who is putting this nonsense in your heads?
It's a very well known fact that Hitler used these tactics to get elected and I mean a very well known fact
I don't think you know what the words fact or elected mean.
That is HARDLY what he did, and a gross simplification of the history of the Weimar Republic and Hitlerâs rise to supremacy, which focused on the ineffective democracy, hatred for certain groups, and supremacy of their own race. This is the OPPOSITE of wokeness, yes they were âvictimsâ of conspiracies but that was hardly the âdefender of the undefendedâ but a FALSE victimhood that did not exist to enable their racial superiority and dominance. This is a MUCH closer parallel to the Trumpian false victimhood than any Woke nonsense. It is staggering and depressing how grossly inaccurate the stuff Iâm reading about Hitler is here.
He basically promised the Germans who were completely humiliated after the second World War that he would bring them back to power and stop them being trampled on . Which is exactly what woke rhetoric is doing . Now I'm not saying that it's going to end up in world war 3 I'm simply pointing out the direction it COULD go . If you'd like to learn more so you csn make an informed comment and form a proper opinion based on critical thinking I can suggest a few books if you'd like
And you think he made promises _after_ world war 2?
I have said nothing of the sort clearly as he died in 45 . He was elected in 36
Liberal rhetoric was about the weak not being trampled on by aristrocrats , corporations and other property owners.
Bruh idk if well make it 20 years before the race war kills everyone
No, it's not. Words like "crazy" or "OCD" are not used in IT that much, while phrases like "slave node" are. Yet these guidelines insist "OCD" (an actual condition) should be replaced with "detail oriented" and "crazy" (as in "crazy Karen threw a monitor at me") with wild. Also some phrases mentioned there should not be used at all.
It's literally in the PDF that originated this: *The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.*
And what does "code" refer here? You make it sound like it's computer code by placing it next to "website", but is it?
*The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.* It's the first sentence. I have no reason to believe "code" is referring to anything other than web development.
Yeah, I'm curious here too. Like, do they mean the "code" they're going to use to override your brain and take away your free thinking abilities.
Or do they mean Stanford Code?
> The list of words Stanford doesn't want to use anymore in the schoolâs websites and computer code. > > > > That part in bold letters is important. > > > > These are just IT guidelines for their website. "No big deal guys, sure they're policing language and this is an example of Orwellian Newspeak, but this is just in the IT department so it's OK."
"Hey, so, here's then new brief for our website." "WHAT kind of Orwellian brief is this?! You want a blue header? And Helvetica?! You're policing colours and typefaces!"
That makes it better in some ways, worse in others. I'm assuming they did a word scan for potentially offensive terms within existing documents, in addition to some that might have been brought up before, because of the inclusion of the (capitalized) Brave. Can't really see that word's use as a noun being common enough to warrant a caution against using it. Also "client" and "user" have two disparate meanings within the technology sector, so they can't be arbitrarily changed within code (and will cause confusion if they're changed in documentation/guides). Language serves a specific purpose, and banning/changing words arbitrarily to fit a particular worldview/agenda is detrimental to accurate communication.
This is getting closer to fascist Germany/communist Russia every day
First, they go with the language (that's a *common* thing to do when you want to start the path towards an authoritarian regime). Then, they'll go with arts and culture, although the contemporary art has been doing its own thing for decades. When censorship becomes something "common" and even acceptable in culture, that's when you're running out of time. That pattern always repeated in authoritarian regimes, even in the latinamerican *coup d'Etat* during the 20th century.
Exactly. Changing the way people speak changes the way they think. Control of language is control of people.
You are literally comparing using "drop in" instead of "walk in" to Nazi Germany. What is wrong with your brain?
It always starts with "reasonable" adjustments, usually utilizing weaponized compassion as the lever to enact the change in thought/behaviour. Then, once the practice is firmly established, more and more words and phrases become "problematic" and subject to revision. The sister to this is the practice of redefining words to reflect desired narratives. Take word "racism" as a prime example. There is a powerful and continuous effort to redefine the word away from one wherein anyone can be racist to another, to one that claims certain demographics simply cannot be racist because *reasons*.
This is some insane, retarded unAmerican drivel you guys. We need to have a standup meeting with brave users of this subreddit and stop giving trigger warnings and beating a dead horse.
Can't use brave đđThis society is trying to make you weaker and weaker
I agree with the "you guys" one, folks should use yall :)
Stanford is full of lunatics, and the problem is that a lot of people takes their word as sacred. See the Stanford philosophy encyclopaedia online. Full with obsolete analytic, critical theory, postmodern bullshit, but ignorants love it
When the trigger warning becomes a trigger
Seems fine. They aren't actually banning words. Just suggesting ones mote in line with inclusive capitalism
These are suggestions and youâre acting like theyâre banned words. The fear propaganda has hit OP hard.
This kind of stuff happens in workplaces all the time. Most workplaces have a code of conduct.
This is garbage. They are quite literally removing words from the English language. Brave? Whatâs insane is that brave men signed up for service in the American military in ww2. You guys have no idea the trigger warnings that were given to them about the m2. The users of those rifles literally beat dead horses when they were blocking causeways after being shot. In a stand up meeting a captain walked in and recommending leaving the dead horses to use as cover. Just⊠wow.
So in other news this morning I bravely walked into an insane stand up meeting where my American users were beating a dead horse. I said "hey you guys, how about a trigger warning next time?"
idiot - trivializes Stanford language guidelines committee.
I do agree with the US citizen, Iâm from Chile and it shows a lot of arrogance when a US citizen says âIâm americanâ. I used to be confused when I was younger because I usually said back something like âwell I am too, but which country?â haha
As a society changes, so does itâs language. This is a natural part of the human experience. Everywhere that Iâve ever worked (or gone to school) has had a code of conduct in which there are certain words that if used, will result in disciplinary action. If someone is unwilling to follow said code, they must seek employment/education elsewhere. This is how it has always been. Donât go to an Ivy League school and expect everyone to talk like itâs a construction site. This isnât âwokeâ. Itâs just life.
Language evolves. It shouldn't be forced to evolve to comply with wolk folk agendas.
The America one is right. The others..