https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptable-words-elimination-of-harmful-language-initiative-11671489552 https://www.militaryspot.com/news/stanfords-list-of-offensive-words-angers-veterans I'd like to know how much of the general public agree with these professors. If this long list becomes the generally agreed rule then every book that I've read would become "offensive." And a writer would worry about which words would become considered as "offensive" in the future. I don't think it's fun to be a writer now. I think it's pointless to change the words. It'll eventually mean the same thing. When becoming commonly used then those words would also be considered as "offensive." This has happened before. Most of the people don't even agree with the new rules at the beginning. They just follow it to avoid getting accused of being ignorant.
This is the sort of thing I think of when I use the term "woke," or "wokie." These sorts of laughable "ist," "ism," and "phobic" descriptions for obviously banal and inoffensive terms are certainly not mainstream (yet), nor should they be. Diversity, inclusion, and respect to all variations of humanity is fine, and are not what I would consider to be "woke" ideas. This is something much different. A typical person picked randomly would not be bothered by the majority of these terms, unless they were very intentionally seeking out those that could be found to be even remotely problematic at a stretch. And why? Maybe some genuinely feel that this kind of thing could make the world a better place for all. But more likely it would be to signal to others how morally pure they are for pointing such things out. Sure, don't say Spoiler: inappropriate terms retard, tranny, Indian giver, Jewed ; those are obvious. But come on. I don't need to list the 90+% of the words listed by Stanford that are acceptable to "normal people," which is actually one of those unacceptable terms mentioned. When I write, I don't give much consideration to readers who might have this kind of mindset, for they are (for now) a small (yet vocal) minority. It is worrying, to be sure, but historically when social movements make the pendulum swing one way or the other, it does swing back, though it usually stops before reaching its original position. That's how incremental progress happens, and it seems like that's where we are at this time. Or at least we're getting there. We'll see. For the moment, the words you choose to use seem less important than how you as a person are perceived (online). If enough people on social media begin to dislike you for whatever reason, then they will start sifting through all of your works to find things to take offense to. Even if you do happen to have several, even dozens, of published works with problematic content, no one really seems to care as long as you're perceived as generally a good person in the popular consciousness.
I have one to add to the list. One of my nieces was corrected at her job for using the word "elderly" with its connotations of frailty. "Older persons" is the preferred term.
Back in the day, when computers has PATA interfaces for hard drives, I had two hard drives in a master-slave configuration. This would not be acceptable now.
Literally just assholes making shit up on the spot. Why is one more connotative of frailty than the other?
didnt read the list. i know its about to annoy me (but shouldnt). my coworker was talking to another coworker about some incident that was like one in a million and she says "thats insane! what are the coincidences!?" and a guest overheard her and berated her for saying that. saying that she (the guest) has a mental illness and it is offensive and ableist to feel like its ok to use such a word. on the flip side, i think its good to have a list to stay conscious of and up to date on what can possibly harm or trigger someone else. but at the same time, a lot of words evolved from other words, taking on different meanings and used in various contexts (example... the name "karen". i have a cousin named Karin and she gets so angry/upset when its used in a negative way. Another example, "bitch" can/is used as a term of endearment or empowerment amongst female friends depending on context). and dont get me started on words that are not offensive in other countries but super offensive in America (and vice versa). but i agree with Set2Stun; there are some obvious words to stay away from. but i wouldnt hold it against a person for using something that may not be so obvious.
Pppphhhhtttttt. Which I dearly hope is an acceptable alternative to "**** that noise" since I don't want to offend individuals who are sexually attracted to Musak.
This reminded me of a shorter list that was put out by CBC News a year ago that sparked some conversations at work: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274 There were some real stretches, especially "brainstorm." Who on Earth is going to be upset by someone saying brainstorm? Other notables were "spooky" and "grandfathered in." I dunno man, I mean I can appreciate the etymology, but no one is using such language with that in mind. People using these terms are doing so in a modern context, far removed from when the terms were coined a century ago. One more example: Blackmail, blacklist and black sheep "The issue here is that these are all negative terms," said Joseph Smith, an anti-racism trainer and educator. "[It] connotes evil, distrust, lack of intelligence, ignorance, a lack beauty — the absence of white."
These examples only reflect the prejudice of the language nazis, who despite their supposed anti-prejudice, can’t or won’t see all the positive connotations of black in our language: black label, black tie, black card, black belt, black Monday. All positives.
This is blacklisting of genuinely innate words is an attempt at maintaining a master-slave relationship between academia and the common person—especially those it claims to be protecting. It retards the natural trudge of language in order to stay one step ahead of the social arms race between PhD and diploma. There's only one way to speak like an affluent person, one last signal that doesn't depend on material, and social sciences wants to define that (or, "I don't see colour" is so yesterday). As soon as the reaching middle class starts to catch up, another epileptic fit comes crashing down from gangs of educational chaff to keep them in their imaginary place. Man, you used to just have to buy a pool or something. And it just so happens to be good rage bait for everyone else.
I find it humorous that something as standard as "Stan" (typical white male name) "Ford" (US vehicle manufacturer) gets to decide what is right or wrong.
