Where? I’ve read all the replies. How is Stanford deciding what should be used on their sites different from how Coke decides how its logo can be used?
> You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert.
Right, so at best your argument is that this is a slippery slope. Moving past the fallacious nature of that argument, you still haven’t articulated any conceivable harm to you or society. Even if all of the dominoes you foresee fall, then where are we? Are you restricted by government thought police at that point, and that’s what you’re worried about?
Or are you worried about your employer restricting your speech? If so, I refer you to my Coke argument; you are already subject to a list of words approved by your employer. The only difference is that it’s implicit, but that doesn’t make it any different than what Stanford has here (except less transparent and delivered by capriciously by fiat instead of created by the community with input from across the company).
What does it matter to you if some dominoes are falling elsewhere?
I'm not accidentally using forbidden words, I'm intentionally using words that are not in fact forbidden, because no one (especially Stanford) has forbidden anyone from saying them. Stanford doesn't police my language, I can use whatever words I want. If someone is offended by my words they can tell me.
But Stanford is not in the same position I am, posting on an internet forum. They are a corporate entity looking to manage their brand. I'm going to keep making this point, because so far no one so far has really engaged with it, but this is no different than Coke having an internal style guide for how their logo can be used and in what contexts.