Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by Cthulhu_ on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @10:01AM
(#34066768)
> Seriously?
Context matters in that case. I don't believe its intent is to remove the word "user" from vocabulary, but only when referencing people who peruse substances.
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by omginternets on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @10:14AM
(#34066972)
They recommend avoiding the word “abort” because it might call pregnancy termination to mind. I think you’re being too charitable.
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by chabad360 on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @10:26AM
(#34067174)
But when is that definition coming up in IT documents?
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by nkrisc on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @10:06AM
(#34066840)
But the suggested alternative was “client.” I don’t think they’re saying we should call people who abuse substances “clients.”
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by nkrisc on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @10:04AM
(#34066827)
The “user” example surprised me because they suggested “client” as an alternative, which might unintentionally imply the person frequents prostitutes.
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by colpabar on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:38AM
(#34068332)
Whoa there pal, did you say "prostitute"? I think you mean "person who engages in sex work".
Some of them are just simple language.
>> user
>> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
Seriously?
> It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.
Unfortunately, they can't notice because they lack a sense of humor.