From the article: "To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed."
It's pretty clear to me that the above is not a true statement. If the term "American" is/was absolutely welcome, it would not have ended on the "do not use list". You can frame it as "not a ban", but it would not make it "absolutely welcomed".
This is a polite non-apology, non-admission, "sorry we put out something too early that we could not get away with right now, but we will try again soon" statement.
The idea that you can remove “harmful” person to person interactions by discouraging certain words is beyond naive. It’s as naive as the newspeak idea that removing certain words from a language will make it impossible for the population to revolt. People will simply make up new words or redefine current words to express what they want.
The “African American” phrase is a great example of this. Has using this phrase in any way reduced racism, police shootings, or any other harm? Of course not. Racism is in peoples mind. And no amount of word censorship will eliminate it. Racists will simply figure out how to work around the censorship. Using other words to express their hatred.
And non-racists will be in constant fear of accidentally saying anything that might be interpreted in some negative way. Making any interactions with outside groups a mine field. I personally feel like I am in a mine field talking to people of a different skin colour. Even though I am married to a person who is of a different skin colour from mine! It’s beyond crazy.
The warning of 1984 is that bullies don't bully because they have to, they do so because they wish to, and can. (The Inner Party is secure, so why the boot?)
If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y?
> But
deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct
that first led to the seizure of power and brought DOUBLETHINK, the
Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary
paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists...
That motive is not explicitly stated in 1984, but it is in (the posthumous) Such, Such Were the Joys.
Is this not the origin of Big Brother? of O'Brien saying it is not enough for Winston to accept; he must love?
> Flip and Sambo had chosen to befriend me, and their friendship included canings, reproaches and humiliations, which were good for me and saved me from an office stool. That was their version, and I believed in it. It was therefore clear that I owed them a vast debt of gratitude. But I was not grateful, as I very well knew. On the contrary, I hated both of them. I could not control my subjective feelings, and I could not conceal them from myself. But it is wicked, is it not, to hate your benefactors? So I was taught, and so I believed. A child accepts the codes of behaviour that are presented to it, even when it breaks them.
<<If doing X instead of Y costs me nothing, yet doing Y causes someone else to suffer, why should I continue to do Y?>>
This an oversimplification of something more complex and critical. Because the more you keep trying to avoid hurting or offending others as your first thought or action, you interrupt flow of thought and living. It becomes increasingly harder if the offending word list grows each day. What was X is now Y.
Too much effort to pre-filter everything all the time. If someone is offended I try to adjust my word or action choices, but only after, prophylactically, not pro-actively, which can lead to overthinking day-to-day living. That is not to say that I haven't put my foot in my mouth as the words left my mouth, but slips happen.
It should be no surprise that I take the same approach, and have not met anyone offended by a sincere restatement. (for that matter, my reading of the original FA was that it also was compatible with this forgiveness-over-permission strategy)
That said, unless one lives one's life with elbows permanently out, there are really not so many Y's as to be intellectually taxing. Even Gen. Robert E. Lee, whom I suppose very few would accuse of being woke, recommended that gentlemen avoid Y.
Somewhat. It's ironic you quote tempora mutantur, which is classical and mores and ways changed much more slowly then. The issue now is that a loud minority of people are demanding for the majority to comply.
The Minority Rule, where a very small minority by being loud and inflexible, can win and have the flexible majority bend to their demands. This is evident in how far right and far left minorities have achieved more sway than more moderates of each party, or more innocuous, why almost all milk has the U or UD symbol to signify it is a kosher dairy product.
I am flexible, but not complacent in accepting all changes especially in today's culture. Drinking Kosher milk is not forbidden, and poses me no harm or inconvenience. My company asking me to choose pronouns for my email seems a bit out of place, and I miss nuts on my flights even though people with nut allergies are the minority.
I am not sure choosing pronouns can be ascribed to "minority" rule; consider that back in 2019, 52% of surveyed Americans indicated they were somewhat or very comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/05/gender-neut...
(I miss the days when one could, without ID, walk out of the gate, across the tarmac, and up the ramp into a plane like it was a more expensive bus. But I'm not going to fool myself that times haven't changed, or waste mental bandwidth trying to bring those times back.)
My reference to choosing pronouns was an objection to my company making it policy, not whether I am personally comfortable with using whatever pronoun someone wants to be called. Two different scenarios with different meaning and consequences.
As far as your poll goes, it had only 79% respondents, 10,682 to be exact. I would say most people in this culture would respond with what they are being told is the socially acceptable response when being asked by a pollster, not what they really think - the silent majority of the exhausted to quote someone I forget at the moment.
I grew up in the 70s in NYC, and there were the FALN bombings and skyjackings in the US at the time. Still OJ Simpson ran to the gate! Do you miss not having to take off your shoes? Do you really think this is a valid thing to ask people to do in the name of their personal safety because one guy tried unsuccessfully to light his show in the bathroom? Meanwhile, your laptop goes through a scanner that simply shows a dense square that should be your battery, but could be anything they would not pick up anyway?
I don't waste mental bandwidth trying to bring things back, but to halt the progression of unfounded ideas being turned into social and public policy unnecessarily curbing my liberties under the guise of the good and making the world less open for my children. What do you spend your bandwidth on?
If your only objection is company making it policy, I'd suggest malicious compliance, ranging from 'whe/whim' (if appropriate) on the harmless side, through strange unicode characters, to some equivalent of Little Bobby Tables on the harmful. This is your chance to see if they actually pay any attention to what they've asked you to enter?
Yes, defo, to the shoes. (On the rare occasions I fly now I wear mocs specifically due to this, but lost a nice knife a decade ago because I'd forgotten I had it in my pocket) And you and I both know that booting the laptop proves nothing.
I spent my mental bandwidth on learning a new language (~2 years) and acclimating to the local culture (~5 years) in emigrating to a polity whose social and public policies more closely align with my notions of liberty (in particular, the state motto doesn't just go one way, like e pluribus unum, but also emphasises that the many conversely have their obligations towards the one) and good and openness.
Merry Christmas (or whatever you all celebrate) to you and our threadmate!
It's pretty clear to me that the above is not a true statement. If the term "American" is/was absolutely welcome, it would not have ended on the "do not use list". You can frame it as "not a ban", but it would not make it "absolutely welcomed".
This is a polite non-apology, non-admission, "sorry we put out something too early that we could not get away with right now, but we will try again soon" statement.