Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanistbot | Hacker News Reader

Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations and suggestions.

It’s voluntary now, but this is something meant to establish a precedent. The mindset that produced this initiative actively wants this to become the new standard.

Those that think the language needs to be changed in order to prevent harm are not going to be content with these suggestions merely being optional. Activists will push for this to become a new criterion for proper writing, probably on the same level as style guides.

So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?

There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.

Why did they even waste the resources on creating this? I'd be upset if my tuition was going to pay for people to waste time making things like this.

>”So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?”

Censorship, no. But I’ll be upfront and say that I think the vast majority of the suggestions in this guide are unjustified, unnecessary, and serve to provide a chilling effect on how people are allowed to speak about the world. I do believe the ultimate goal is not just to police language, but to police how people think. A cursory look at the rationale behind each suggestion supports this.

Therefore, I hope likeminded people speak out about how this guide should not be followed. And that people vociferously oppose that this document be referenced in any official guidelines.

Just as there is no legal requirement to write using Chicago or AP style, they have become de facto requirements. So I worry that just having it be “voluntary” will lead to academics pushing it as a soft requirement that eventually becomes a hard one that is voluntary in name only.

It's a fallacy if there's nothing pushing a thing. Activists? They push, and from experience don't stop at any sane point either but keep going on.

This guide is voluntary and members of the Stanford community are encouraged to use whatever terminology is appropriate in a given context. However, habitual use of noninclusive language is potentially a microaggression and may be grounds for disciplinary action, depending on the findings of the Ethics Committee.

Have I misread the first couple paragraphs of the site? It looks like it's a mandatory language-change initiative at Stanford (or, at least, mandatory within the IT department) that they're publishing in case anyone else wants to use it.

Voluntary for now. some HR department will pick up on it and institute it as mandatory. I have a bet with my spouse on if I will retire first or be fired by the language police.

If they can you just sue for ageism. It’s not your fault you grew up with the words you use now.

The document is called Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.

By the way, I find the word "Elimination" very violent. It should have a non-harmful alternative.

As a non-native English speaker I find this kind of efforts to outlaw some words in English language and replace them with others hostile to non-native English speakers. Speaking English is already hard enough and now I should also try to avoid this kind of woke minefield and perhaps I will be somehow punished because it is hard to remember what words should be avoided and how to express your thoughts without using the "wrong" words. And replacing single words with euphemistic multi word expression can make constructing sentences difficult.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com