Retard was not a slur. It was a medical term, "mental retardation" (it's still actually used in some of the literature).
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?
I also find it a little ironic that the class who police language like this also are pretty hesitant to actually talk about the commonplace eugenics of eliminating fetuses with Down’s Syndrome (and a medical system that effectively encourages this by pushing prenatal genetic testing). For all the talk of ableism, we are most certainly still ableist in the way it most matters, not just words but deeds. And we lack the self-honesty to talk clearly about this, using endless euphemisms instead, acting like we solve the moral dilemma by just policing our language.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
Indeed, but even here on the board you'll encounter those who are (on the surface) simultaneously pro-choice but oppose (in principle) the notion of selective abortion. As they would tell it, caring for someone with Down's is only ever a treasure, and they care not that some are utterly incapable of caring for themselves into adulthood, or how hard it can be to care for them in general. I would not wish it on an enemy. In their minds though, they can't reconcile notions that it's not good to have Down's, yet it's possible to love and value someone who has it. Everything is black-and-white to the extreme.
The one that stands out to me is "Trigger Warning" - that's not something you should say because it might cause people feelings of anxiety. Of course, the reason it causes people feelings of anxiety is because they know it's a phrase used to indicate that something bad is going to come in upcoming content. Instead they want you to use "Content Note" (though I will note that they weren't even competent enough to follow their own guidelines - they use "Content Warning" at the top of the list). So... what happens when people start to associate "Content Note" with the fact that something bad is upcoming? Do we move to "Upcoming Information Alert"?
The only thing this list does is give credence to Tucker Carlson and co's complaints about performative wokeism.
Ford flipped the switch which he saw was now marked "Mode Execute Ready" instead of the now old-fashioned "Access Standby" which had so long ago replaced the appallingly stone-aged "Off"
Full agreement here. Content Warning was and is a perfectly sufficient term. We’ve had them on TV shows for as long as I remember as “Viewer discretion is advised.” messages. They’ve been on the internet too as NSFW and NSFL.
Their primary purpose is for deciding if you want to view material in the first place.
Example from university: One of my media classes was going to show a clip of “Passion of the Christ”. We got a handout explaining the content of the movie and purpose of showing it and were told to opt out if we weren’t conformable. It all handled perfectly reasonably.
This list is not a reasonable way to handle this. It lacks nuance.
Right, witness “retarded”, which just means “delayed”. It was applied as a nice polite term for people whose development was slower than average, with the implication that they’d get there in the end.
At first it's not the euphemism, but the intent behind it. Over a long enough time period, if people are called the euphemism enough with said intent, the word itself has lost its original meaning and associations.
This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Insults are only effective because of their meaning. Terms like "idiot" and "stupid" mean exactly what they have from the outset in the medical field. You cannot divorce derogatory use from meaning, much as you would like to. But to follow your rationale, we'd be right on track by now for "retarded" being kosher, as other terms have replaced it. That has not happened.
Please stop the harmful use of the word kosher when not referring to Jewish dietary law. It trivializes the experience of people who deal with Kashrut issues.
That's a little different, it's more like saying "Hey, the horse is escaping!" when the barn was already leveled to build a KFC which later became, briefly, a beeper store, and is now a place that sells THC-related goods.
Have you considered that all what you described is not happening in a vacuum, but rather, is a standard reaction of language to censor its users and circumvent the meaning they tried to convey. Humans are very adaptable and that is partially why this is a never ending endeavor ( and if I was a more cynical person, I would say this is also why it is pushed -- its a cushy position with no chance of ever being completed ).
But you know why it is really a bad thing? The actual loss of this weird focus on controlling language?
It is us. I am about to start a volunteer position with mentoring kids from underprivileged backgrounds and after the interview with the organization, I am genuinely considering dropping despite very clear positive impact this would have on the kids ( which is why I am preparing for it to begin with ). Thing will be virtual ( and recorded ), I was given a speech about white supremacy ( and asked how I feel about it ) and now I am worried that any bad word may result in career sanctions ( in other words, it is a net negative for me ).
This is just one example. It is suddenly possible that I can't pass on any real knowledge for fear of fucking myself and my family over.
<< This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Those outlets certainly amplify it, but are you saying there is no objective reason for it happening ( for example, "being against fascism" often is being accompanied by 'punch a nazi' -- is that ok )? It is a real question and I am curious about your answer.
It oddly doesn't have a lot of other slurs, like the n-word, etc. Does that mean they are acceptable?
I don't think most people need to be told that "jewed" or "retard" are not appropriate professional words. Certainly not anyone who works at Stanford, just like nobody needed to be told not to say any of the other slurs that aren't on the list.
I dont disagree, but you literally wrote "I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm"." Those were words on this list, so i disagree with that statement.
I also don't think anyone is arguing that the authors of this list intended it to be exhaustive.
Yeah I still don’t think that’s harm. Feeling offended is not harm. It’s just information about the world. Learning that someone has prejudices or is rude or just careless about their speech does not harm you.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Are you trying to suggest that this is a dichotomy? It seems to me that the common-sense position is (used to be?) that neither the person performing an action nor the person at the receiving end can be considered impartial and trusted to make that call.
Either way, the idea that "being hurt" is a state that the individual has full discretion to declare themselves as being in seems incompatible with our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A; otherwise, anyone could trivially claim constantly being hurt by everyone and therefore entitle themselves to an arbitrary amount of restitution. One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
> our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A
This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end.
IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps.
That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.
> IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation.
There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent.
> As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them.
In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent.
> That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
> There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent.
I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
> I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words.
In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread:
> One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Of course the person at the receiving end is capable of determining without bias what impact something had on them - practically by definition they are the only ones.
If they're hurt by words, maybe it's irrational that they're hurt by them, but they still are. Assuming that they're being honest, "you weren't actually hurt by that" is a nonsensical statement - the person saying that has absolutely 0 evidence to make that call, and the hurt person has perfect knowledge.
I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
Have you ever seen a little kid fall down? And they start bawling uncontrollably? So you go over and check them out, make sure nothing is broken, and maybe you say something like "it's all right buddy, you're ok", because they aren't actually hurt.
The kid, despite having perfect knowledge, has incorrectly judged the severity of the situation. This happens with kids, because they don't have enough experience or emotional maturity to appropriately gauge their emotional responses, much like the people who write lists like this.
If you define being hurt via the subjective mental state, then the statement indeed becomes trivially true, as you point out - but then it seems quite misleading to have a single word ("hurt") cover objectively measurable physical injury, qualia of pain that we understand to be a proxy for the former (and so we have, at least in the current revision of "Elimination of Harmful Language" lists, no qualms with terminology such as "phantom pain" which implies that pain which does not correspond to real injury is in some sense less legitimate), and purely psychogenic phenomena. This makes it seem like it is a matter of consistency or principledness to respond to the last category similarly to how you would to the first, even though they are not very alike.
> I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
What exactly is a "real punishment"? It seems like there are certainly calls for extrajudicial liability, insofar as there is no shortage of examples where people call for damage to be done to those who "engage in harmful behaviours" (referring to hurtful words) that is in excess of what would be necessary to stop the "harmful behaviours" and more seems to be aimed at causing disutility to someone who is taken to deserve it. I assume that a Stanford employee, in any capacity, who refuses to abide by this guideline and draws any amount of attention in the process would find themselves at the receiving end of the actions of a large number of people who would try to get them fired rather quickly. Is this not a real punishment?
But, categorically speaking, the issue with bullies is more the bullying and less their word choice. If someone is bullying using bland language that is exactly the same magnitude of problem as any other form of bullying.
All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. Telling someone that they are uncool will have as much sting as retarded, because it will mean exactly the same thing if the word retarded leaves the lexicon.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
I've spent a huge amount of time, literal years, learning to think in a flexible way so that I can wind my mind away from taking offence. It takes a lot of practice to develop that sort of engulfing calm. Also very rewarding, I recommend the practice. Good for a comfortable life and all that.
Sure they can make the call that they are offended, but I am conciously making the call that I am not offended. Is it really fair that after all that effort I have to contort my speech to avoid setting people off? I'm already worrying about my own offended-ness and now I'm supposed to be working around theirs as well. What are they going to do to balance all that effort out?
It is better if we all worry about our own emotions and work with what other people say. We all have responsibilities to civil discourse. Those responsibilities include tolerant listening. Getting antsy because someone runs a blind study is a long way from tolerant listening and an academic setting deserves better than that.
You’re right that bullying will never be eradicated by any kind of rigid policies, be it by policing communication, or banning specific behaviors. Someone with enough motivation will find other ways. Now those ways might not be as efficient or bring the same results or require way more work, but all in all that’s a complicated matter.
On being hurt or not…I think your efforts will mostly benefit you, and not being easily hurt should make it that much easier for you to reach your goals I’d assume.
I’d compare it to physical fitness, being able to avoid people’s punches is an advantage in itself, you wouldn’t feel unfair that the others are getting hit in the face as they haven’t worked as hard.
I’m sure everyone would agree it’s a bit of both? We’re responsible for not intentionally hurting others, and we’re responsible for not being excessively controlling or sensitive about others’ behaviours?
Precisely. And weaponizing the ambiguity - whether by hurting others with words and saying "but it's up to their reaction", or being excessively controlling and justifying it by saying words can hurt more than physical attacks - that's abusive behavior. Intent matters.
The equity training I've experienced says it's not the intent that matters, but rather the impact, which sounds a lot like, "you made me angry". It turns the whole you're responsible for how you react to things on it's head, making other people responsible for your reactions.
Not fully agreeing with parent, so it's more adressing directly your comment.
In casual conversation with people you have the context on, it's probably fine.
As a wording for official documents and dispkay that will sit prominently on public/semi-public places it might have wider effects: some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc.
Signaling disabilities or special conditions is a real minefield to navigate properly. And thing is, you're putting time and effort yo have the widest acceptance possible, so what people think is kinda central.
> some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc.
I'll accept this premise for the sake of discussion. How does replacing the word 'handicapped' fix any of these issues? Lets say we re-print all the signs to say 'accessible parking' and all the hangtags to say 'requires accessible parking'.
People still may potentially get upset that a seemingly able-bodied person used the special parking spot. People who require the special parking spot may still potentially feel bad about it and choose a regular spot.
Playing games with the labels does nothing to help people, and serves only to satisfy the self-righteous people writing the new labels.
I’m remembering a place going for “priority parking” panel, with smaller details on who had priority access. It was marked in a different color and still had the official wheelchair mark on the ground, but there was additional signage to explain anyone with a disability marker could use it.
The effect to my eyes was that when a car is parked, there was no wheelchair mark in sight, and no prominent “disability” wording (it’s still there, just not the “in your face” type), and people caring enough still had the small prints to explain it’s not just people in wheelchairs.
I agree with you that it won’t stop everyone for getting upset, I mean some people don’t need any excuse to get upset, so will always be edge cases. But I also think urban design has an effect, even on the people using it.
I have elder parents that can barely walk anymore, but they won’t use priority seats in the buses because they don’t want the “disabled” label sticking to them. Instead they skip buses after buses at the stop until normal seats seem available from the outside. It’s stupid, so stupid, but that’s how they think. Changing labeling can feel like a dirty hack, but if 10% more elderly people would use them as a result, I see it as a win.
It’s to me the equivalent of making the “delete” button red on a page, it’s good design taking into account the average user psychology.
I do agree for sure that compiling a list of words that could potentially be harmful is overstepping, and it's probably better overall for people to advocate for themselves and say what has a negative impact on them.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that people who do experience actual negative impacts should put up with it in the name of being "graceful". That puts all the responsibility of societal grace on them.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Well that's precisely the problem isn't it? Anyone can get offended over anything, and the solution is not to try and compile a list to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
I’m kinda surprise people react so strongly to stylistic guidelines of an academic institution.
It’s stated clearly that the initiative applies to “Stanford websites and code.”, so they’re not declaring new rules for the world, they’re telling their very select community to avoid a set of words in writing.
To answer your point, no, I don’t think they’re trying to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
That's what I thought 5 years ago, that these kind of things are just restricted to select communities. Now my workplace has a bot that yells at you if you put the words "dummy value" into your code. The current list of banned terms is small enough that it's not a huge burden, but if we get to a point where there's 50 or 100 niche subcultural heresies that I have to keep in mind when I'm coding, that's going to severely impact how productive I can be.
“niche subcultural heresies” is quite a description.
I also kinda see why a company wouldn’t want a “dummy message” popup accidentally appearing in production when someone forgot to remove the debug code before the release.
In all my workplaces, these kind of productivity impacting initiatives had a consulting and consensus taking period to make sure we’d either be on board or at least understanding of the underlying logic and why it’s put in place. If you still feel it’s a dumb move going in the wrong direction, I feel for you for the potential stream of decisions that as you point out, won’t probably go in the direction you wish for.
It’s because a segment of our population is fighting a culture war and these sorts of lists are like atomic bombs dropped by their enemy (the work, educated left)
There is a nuance which is motive and intent. If I say, "can we bury the hatchet on this one." I am trying to solve a problem. My intent isn't to offend anyone, it isn't to harm anyone. A bully who attacks you verbally only goal is to hurt you.
If you dig a bit deeper it is likely the bully has very low self worth and attacks others to try and have control in their lives which they feel is out of control. Ultimately both the victim and the bully deserve our sympathy because they are both hurting.
If a stranger on the internet uses some controversial word, you can decide it's no big deal.
But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people.
(It is also worth noting that this list of harmful language is targeted specifically at the "Stanford IT Community" which is a workplace. This is not their attempt to regulate the speech of the world at large.)
Now, having said that, I also understand the flip side of things. Some of the entries such as "tarball" struck me as absurd.
And on a personal note, I'm partially blind and I don't give a rat's ass about terms like "blind studies" and so forth. In fact, the phrase "keep an eye on things" always makes me chuckle since I'm blind in one eye: if you tell me to keep an eye on things, I'm likely to ask you "which one" because you're going to get a very different level of attention depending on which eye we choose. I also don't mind that we as a society have decided that "see" is a synonym for "understand."
> But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people.
You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically. If anything, letting people use the word makes it easier to gather evidence of any prejudice against you, so making the word taboo makes such prejudice easier to hide.
You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken
against you, like skipping you for advancement,
but not by the use of the word specifically
Yes, but there's a cyclical relationship between words and actions.
Words can reinforce attitudes and actions. When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people.
I do not support some kind of zero-tolerance approach to language. (After all, "tolerance" is the goal!) However, I do find quite a few of these changes worthwhile.
For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad." So I've tried to weed that one out. Is it going to solve all of her problems? Is that even in her top 100 problems in life? No and no. But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?
> When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people.
Yes, but the only problem with stereotypes is, again, the actions that result. You can think whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind as long as you don't let it influence your actions in the performance of your duties. Maintain an understanding of the difference between belief and knowledge; stereotypes are clearly only beliefs.
> For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad."
Understandable, although I wouldn't say lame is a synonym for "bad" so much as "undesirable". I'm not sure anyone actually desires the restricted movements of disabled limbs, so that doesn't seem like a technically improper use.
> But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?
Sure, we make all kinds of allowances for fellow humans, even irrational allowances, particularly for friends and family. That's etiquette.
Describing words as "harmful language" is an attempt to raise certain rules of etiquette to the level of ethics, which is a much stricter set of norms that we enforce on each other. Violating etiquette might get you called an asshole, but otherwise has no consequences; by contrast, violations of ethical rules have serious consequences.
Like you, I don't think the suggested changes are all bad as a matter of etiquette, but I'm not at all convinced that they've met the bar for enshrining them as ethics.
Yes, but the only problem with stereotypes is,
again, the actions that result.
What about a coworker who screams obscenities, threatens violence, claims "Hitler didn't go far enough", makes unwanted sexual comments, and casually talks about raping the secretary?
Is this okay as long as he doesn't actually do any of those things? After all, only actions matter... right?
No. Clearly there is a line across which speech alone is rotten enough that we don't allow it. [1]
If you think that repeatedly equating "Jewishness" to "being a greedy money-grubber" doesn't cross that line, fine.
But don't pretend the line doesn't exist. It's disingenuous at best.
___
[1] Of course, context matters. Suppose your job is music producer, and your coworker sings/raps about heinous things as a part of their art. That's probably okay! Or suppose some "offensive" thing was a slip of the tongue, or an honest mistake made through ignorance. I've been "that guy" more than once.
Isn't Stanford in the US, where people are very trigger-happy?
I've found that various American courses and certifications are very explicit, a lot more than non-American ones, for example European ones.
Then someone told me: they're afraid that if they don't include the absolute basics, someone will complain/sue/whatever about having been presented the basic concept, so that's why their education is incomplete or why they failed their certification exam.
This basically aligns with the same logic, saying this as an outside observer.
The US is <<full>> of defensive behavior, if you look at it as an outsider.
> The US is <<full>> of defensive behavior, if you look at it as an outsider.
Yeah. Like people getting sued for swimming pools because parents can't be bothered to teach their kids how to swim or to not go on private property unauthorized, or people being forced to file lawsuits against close relatives because they have no other way of recouping healthcare expenses... so many of the horror stories we Europeans read from across the pond leave us with a plain "WTF, are these guys nuts?" feeling.
Ok but many Americans are proud of their country, despite the fact it's failing to fulfill some of the most basic roles almost all other countries do. Nearly half of their voter base votes for people who explicitly support (the other half isn't much better, but at least some people there can blame it on the bipartisan system). That's nuts.
> Ok but many Americans are proud of their country, despite the fact it's failing to fulfill some of the most basic roles almost all other countries do.
That's mostly due to decades worth of brainwashing and propaganda ("American Exceptionalism"), as well as a factor of just how big the US actually is. Here in Europe? In like two or three hours worth of driving time from Munich, one can reach half a dozen other countries and see a complete contrast: other languages, other ways of organizing society, other activities, other sports, other varieties of alcohol, other political parties. We actually have competition here.
I mean it's a university, they kinda expect you to use half a brain when using words instead of mindlessly following their list of Words To Avoid like a robot.
>It oddly doesn't have a lot of other slurs, like the n-word, etc. Does that mean they are acceptable?
Depending on who's mouth they come out of they kind of are acceptable.
Which is kind of a glaring example of why this whole policing words bullshit is in fact bullshit. It's not the words that do harm. It's the context in which they are used.
But that's how this type of ridiculous become standard practice: you include a few unambigous examples, then the rest lean on them for support. Did Stanford really need an official document telling their community that the word "jewed" probably should be avoided? If so, there are lots of worse words and phrases not included here, why not? How did they decide the word "tarball" should be included because it starts with the same three letters as a derogatory term, but "tarsands" (along with being technically inaccurate) is OK?
No one said words can't be hurtful. If you work or attend Stanford you know these words. This document is apparently about harm reduction though, and that harm would be mitigated far more effectively if Stanford admitted more people like the ones these words supposedly trivialize.
At the risk of sounding pedantic or critical (it is but only in the helpful well, I assure you) -- the word 'ridiculous' comes from the Latin 'rideo' which means to laugh, which is in contemporary French 'rire', Italian 'ridere' and English 'ridicule'. It has nothing to do with the color 'red', if that helps you remember that it does not have the word 'red' in it. As well, you can associate 'rideo' with 'video'.
This list was bound to mix reasonable proposals with wild ones. So that when you point out the wild ones, you can be told "hey, but what about this very reasonable thing?".
They do expect you to apply your own professional and university level discretion when using words.
I really don't understand this thread or threads like this. Suddenly people are all about using exact lists of acceptable discourse and following Rules and the like.
"It is high time someone wrote this list to finally put an end to the commonly accepted and pervasive use of the words 'retard' and 'jewed' in academia."
The commingling of words and phrases which are often used outside of their domain of applicability in order to be offensive, with those that are not, just spreads the contagion to no useful end.
It is particularly bad when the given replacement is nowhere near synonymous. The first one that really got my eyes rolling was 'detail-oriented' for OCD: being detail-oriented is an aspect of safety in a number of areas, and this is nothing like OCD, which has a clinical definition.
If one cares about something, don't make it easy to ridicule and dismiss.
I think the intention with non-synonymous examples is to use those as replacements for non-literal uses of the term. E.g. reserving the use of the term "addicted" for someone who actually has an addiction; only saying someone has OCD if they actually do and otherwise calling them detail-oriented.
(I agree that the document is silly but I don't think it's quite as bad as your interpretation.)
I agree that's not so bad in general. In this particular case, however, when one wants to say that someone is obsessively preoccupied with irrelevant issues (which could be a valid issue), OCD is not a good choice, but 'detail-oriented' misses the point entirely.
By banning words like "retard" you just create a void that will be filled with another word very quickly (the word itself used to be a medical term).
Imbecile, special needs, oligophrenic, whatever, something associated with intellectual disability will be used instead.
They are not trying to ban "harmful language" from being said or written, they are trying to have you suppress "harmful thoughts", or ideally render you incapable of harbouring them.
Do you want Stanford (or anyone else) to dictate what you can think?
> By banning words like "retard" you just create a void that will be filled with another word very quickly (the word itself used to be a medical term).
You can see this happening in the Stanford list itself - some of the terms listed, particularly in the "Ableist" section, are clearly second or third iteration through the euphemism treadmill.
In fact, some could be about to complete another one - for example, my self-preservation instinct on the Internet tells me I shouldn't use "disabled" as an adjective, despite it being listed as a proper alternative to "crippled". I fully expect "disabled" to land in the left column of this or similar list in a couple of years.
It's also worth noting that insults don't need to be real language or any language.
Just laughing can be incredibly offensive.
So an aggressor has infinite words to use and is effectively impossible to censor.
I hesitate to mention SouthPark, but they do an episode where Cartman is especially cruel using laughter as his weapon. It's quite effective and obviously offensive. Unlike the list in the article.
The interesting thing to me with this instance of the euphemism treadmill is that people seem to have either amnesia or zero cognitive dissonance about words that were once deemed insensitive and mean the same damn thing. 'Retard' replaced 'moron', for instance, because moron was deemed insensitive in the medical world. Before that there was the gamut everyone knows of: idiot, stupid, etc. These words are only effective as insults because of their meaning, but proponents of suppression pretend the words live in a no-man's land of having no meaning, existing only as being derogatory.
The only thing more insane would be the expectation that insults of any kind, for any reason, no longer be tolerated (some do suggest this, which is at least consistent).
They would be better off with a class on sensitivity training, that basically boils down to "stop being a dick". Besides lists of acceptable discourse or newspeak, they should teach students to be civil.
And if people still need a list or a class to be taught that e.g. the N word is offensive, they have no place in Stanford.
I would agree insofar as they would not be harmed in excess of any other word used as an insult in its place. What "hurts" is being insulted (potentially) or bullied.
I think the tarball thing is rediculous, but the opposite extreme of no words can be hurtful is also rediculous.