HN chuds don't appreciate Stanford University's efforts to eliminate harmful language

lmao fricking DEI r-slurs at it again

"Trigger warning" is now considered harmful language. Instead they suggest using "content note" for the following reason:

The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.

Genuine 🤡🌎 shit.

I appreciate the thought to rename landlord, but instead of calling them landpeople or landladies I think landchad or Person of Land is more appropriate.

Instead of

"preferred" pronouns

Consider using

pronouns

Context

The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.

This is the solution to immigration, make langauge so convoluted and loaded that anyone not deemed cracker enough gets purged for saying problematic language. Autismos stay losing.

s need to update the slur filter

This unironically seems like white washing to an extent, removing all non-European culture and leaving just mayo-speak.

>It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not, in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired. Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc.

>As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community.

>It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser.

>You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture.

>I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.

Then

>It is serious. I think it's an argument that has enough internal sense and structure that it can't just be called a stupid argument and tossed out.

I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to having been r*ped or having your leg blown off. R*pe survivors are not a distinct cultural group.

>Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation for now.

>People who speak sign language as a native language are a distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage from the hearing world. For example, American Sign Language is related to French Sign Language and the speakers of each can understand each other somewhat. While British Sign Language is totally different and American and British deaf people can't even easily speak to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as hearing ones.

SHOW MORE

This is my beef with the whole "consequences" thing Leftists keep spouting. Who the frick are you? No, seriously.....who the Frick are YOU to determine a) who should face consequences and b) what those consequences should be? Just like Youtube, Twat-face and the rest, you are Nobody. They are Nobody. No one voted you or the Twat-face Cancel Warriors into office--no one appointed you, Zuckface or the rest of the White Cis Male Patriarchy Brigade to a seat in a court as Judge, Jury or Executioner. You should never have even been given the notion that you have, any way whatsoever, the Power to determine those things. That's what the frick is wrong with society and cancel culture as it stands right now. Everybody wants to think they're fricking SPECIAL and have some Right to determine who should speak, about what they should speak, and how they should speak it.

I'm categorically against any antisemitism, Nazisms, racisms, misogyny and trans hate speech, and I think my record of posts on this site proves that. But I do NOT have the right to shut someone else up. That's not my fricking place. I an argue with them--I can disagree--I can post until the cows go home....but God did not come down from High and anoint me (or you), or anyone else, the power to cancel or shut people up just because I disagree with them.

Ya'll need to learn your fricking lane and stick to it. The Right to Free Speech is for speech you hate, not for speech you agree with. Go sit the frick down somewhere until you realize your place and learn how to stay in it.

Snapshots:

• archive.org

• ghostarchive.org

• archive.ph (click to archive)

Is HN usually this based? I learned about a book from the thread, Virtue Hording, about PMC becoming morality guardians