Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative by PebblesRox on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:55AM (#34068601)

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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative by mannykannot on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @12:19PM (#34068984)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]