Stanford University is turning against the English language in a delusional attempt to appear moral. The prestigious university just released an index of “harmful language” which it will eliminate from its websites and computer code.
Termed the ridiculous ‘The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative’ is a multi-phase project “to address harmful language in IT at Stanford” according to the guide.
One word deemed offensive enough to label as “harmful” is the word “American.”
Fox News reports:
Among the words the university urges people to avoid in the imprecise language section is the term, “American.” People are instead asked to use “U.S. Citizen” because “American” typically refers to “people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas.” The Americas, the index notes, comprises 42 countries.
According to the released guide, the goal is to eliminate “many forms of harmful language,” including “racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language” in Stanford websites and code.
In the most obviously hypocritical terms, Stanford stated that it strives to educate people on the impact of words. How is the organization too daft to understand that one cannot be educated about anything that has been taken away and pretended does not exist. If the holocaust is not taught in schools, current and future generations will never learn its “impact.”
Nonetheless, Stanford is pretending the “impact” of words that it wills out of existence, can be taught. Pathetic.
The index highlights 10 “harmful language” sections: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent and additional considerations.
Other terms deemed harmful include “abort,” which offers the replacement of “cancel” or “end,” because of moral concerns about abortion; “child prostitute” is replaced with a “child who has been trafficked,” so the person is not defined by just one characteristic; and “Karen” is replaced with “demanding or entitled White woman.”
An ‘ableist’ section exists, in which the index urges people to use “accessible parking” instead of “handicap parking,” “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” and “anonymous review” instead of “blind review.” It also says people should use “unenlightened” as a replacement for “tone deaf,” and a “person with a substance abuse disorder” as a replacement for “addict.”
In the gender-based section, the index says “pronouns” should be used instead of “‘preferred’ pronouns” because “preferred” suggests “non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.” The section further advises against words like “freshman,” “fireman” and “congresswoman” because the “gender binary language” does not include everyone.
The institutionalized racism section says to avoid using words like “black hat,” “black mark” and “black sheep” because of “negative connotations to the color black.” It also says to avoid using “grandfathered” and use “legacy status” instead, because of “roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks.”
The index completely cautions against using the word “brave” at all. No alternative is given. The same section also asks that a person’s name is used instead of “chief” or “Pocahontas.”
You may like
Hispanic Democrats ban term ‘Latinx’ used ‘to appease white rich progressives’
Lawmakers in Connecticut which are both Hispanic and Democrats, have proposed a new state law to ban the term “Latinx” from all government documents. The term is deemed offensive by the lawmakers who want to end the practice.
“I’m of Puerto Rican descent and I find it offensive,” Democratic state representative Geraldo Reyes told the Associated Press.
“The Spanish language, which is centuries old, defaults to Latino for everybody,” Reyes added. “It’s all-inclusive. They didn’t need to create a word, it already exists.”
Reyes is the bill’s chief sponsor, and was joined by four other Hispanic Democrats who are also members of then Black and Puerto Rican Caucus in the Connecticut Legislature.
The Connecticut lawmakers are not alone in their sentiment. In 2021, Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego of Arizona tweeted “When Latino politicos use the term it is largely to appease white rich progressives who think that is the term we use.” Gallego added that his office was not allowed to use the term in any official communications.
To be clear my office is not allowed to use “Latinx” in official communications.
When Latino politicos use the term it is largely to appease white rich progressives who think that is the term we use. It is a vicious circle of confirmation bias. https://t.co/kMty6q7UQn
— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) December 6, 2021
National Review reports:
The same year, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest community organization in the United States, declared it would no longer use Latinx. The term has also been rejected by Real Academia Española, a governing body that oversees the Spanish language.
While the term has been enthusiastically adopted by progressive academics and far-left activists, polling reveals it has not gained traction within the broader Hispanic population.
“The word Latino is incredibly exclusionary, both for women and for non-gender conforming people,” Maia Gil’adi, a professor at Boston University, told the AP. “And the term Latinx is really useful because of the way it challenges those conceptions.”
You may like
Immigration6 days ago
Migrants refuse to go to Brooklyn cruise terminal shelter, return to Manhattan hotel
Immigration5 days ago
Texas Governor hires ‘border czar’ to accelerate wall construction
China2 days ago
Chinese Spy Balloon: Tensions rise between the U.S. and China
Featured4 days ago
Judiciary hearing spotlights Biden’s dangerously ‘intentional’ open border policy