[djray]

Strong disagree. You present a very poor strawman (sorry, straw-person). Don't attempt to equate physical disabilities with what is effectively learned behaviour.

Academic institutions are increasingly places which attempt to police language (and consequently thought). It's a nigh-on puritanical drive to molly-coddle the overly sensitive and limit debate. And it's even more frustrating considering the fact that an academic institution is the place where young people should be exploring all viewpoints, not just what has been deemed acceptable by the elite or those in power. Also see: de-platforming.

It's telling that some of these are terms which have been used without issue for far longer than half a century. It's only recently that they've ever been deemed to be "harmful". I don't know, it's almost as if...the same word can have different meanings depending on its context!

You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion, but it's a short path from compiling a list of these terms to real honest-to-goodness compelled speech.

[ModernMech]

> It's a nigh-on puritanical drive to molly-coddle the overly sensitive and limit debate.

When have you last spent any significant time at a university? Debate and diversity of thought are ever present. I can’t think of a single viewpoint that is missing from my institution.

Sometimes people don’t like what you have to say and cause a stink, but that’s what tenure is for. Unless you’re consuming a steady right wing news diet, I don’t see how you could come to your conclusion.

> You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion

So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words? This is just an exercise in marketing, not the slope to which your speech will be controlled. Feel free to do and say whatever you want, offend whomever you want. No one is obliging you to pay attention to the guidelines Stanford is making for themselves behind their school login; this list is not only optional for you, it’s not even meant to be read by you.

[mensetmanusman]

“I can’t think of a single viewpoint that is missing from my institution.“

You know when you are a bubble when…

[dumpsterdiver]

> So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words?

I'm not a huge fan of watching baseball. Would you also assume that I want baseball to be banned just because I'm not that into it?

There are ways to gracefully respond to someone you disagree with, but suggesting that someone wants to "ban letting people make lists of words" because they disagree with the content of a single list isn't one of them. If you're going to be disingenuous at least put a little effort into it.

[ModernMech]

I’m not being disingenuous. If you haven’t noticed, the range of opinions here starts at “meh” and ends at “I’m serious that we need to literally ban these people who wrote this list from decent society.”

That someone here might believe we need to ban the making of lists like this (because they believe them to be the first step to controlled speech) is not far fetched to me, especially when they are so worked up about a list that has no conceivable power over them and their life. It’s just a list of words. If you see a problem with a list of words, what is the proposal to fix that, exactly? Short of banning lists entirely, what fixes are even possible?

Anyway, can you think of ways to engage with someone without calling them disingenuous? Why wade into this discussion if you’re just going to attack my motives? You felt like I needed to be chided even though all of the discussion in this story has died?

[bentley]

> So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words?

Amazingly, the strawmen keep coming. You think this is a bad list because it has bad entries in it? You must be against the very concept of lists!