STANFORD WARNS THAT USING THE WORD ‘AMERICAN’ IS HARMFUL
Category: Now TrendingVia: buzz-of-the-orient • 5 months ago • 21 comments
By: No Author Indicated
STANFORD WARNS THAT USING THE WORD ‘AMERICAN’ IS HARMFUL
Joseph Goebbels, or maybe it was Jospeh Stalin, once said, “He who controls the language, controls the world.” It’s a theme in George Orwell’s 1984 as well. Controlling the language is the first step to controlling the people. In a related note, Stanford University has compiled a list of harmful language that should never be used, including the word “American.”
Earlier this year, Stanford launched the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) to rid the English language of words and terms it deemed racist or otherwise offensive. After some painstaking research, they’ve finally come up with some totally insane things to ban.
First, and most ridiculous is getting rid of “American” in favor of “U.S. citizen. Here’s why Stanford thinks it’s so damn offensive:
[‘American’] often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas (which is actually made up of 42 countries).
Yes, but of those 42 countries, only one has “America” in its name and that’s the United States of America. Also, America is the most important country in the world and since the Americas are part of the world, that makes the USA the most important there as well.
The insanity of this list includes not using the word “insane” by substituting “wild” or “surprising.”
On the abortion front, Stanford says you can’t use “abort” to mean halting something, because it’s offensive to people who abort their unborn babies.
A drug “addict” is no longer an addict, because that offends people who are drug abusers. Stanford say from now on, they are to be known as “persons with a substance abuse disorder.”
People no longer “commit suicide” because now they “die by suicide.” Apparently people who have killed themselves still have the ability to be offended from beyond the grave.
“Child prostitutes” are now “children who have been trafficked and a “Karen” has transformed into a “demanding or entitled White woman,” which seems kind of racist. Can you refer to a black woman as demanding or entitled?
Speaking of race, pretty much every term using “black” like “black mark” and “black sheep” is banned because of the “negative connotations to the color black.” On the flip side, all terms using “white” are out because it makes it seem like white is better than black.
Along those same lines, you can’t use the term “grandfather clause” because, “roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks.”
Liberals already axed “illegal alien” in favor of “immigrant” but Stanford says even that is problematic. Instead of “immigrant” the University says “a person who had immigrated” should be used because it’s wrong to “define someone by a singular characteristic.”
Liberals are constantly redefining language to hide their agenda. They changed “gun control” to “gun safety to conceal their unconstitutional plans to disarm Americans. They switched out “abortion” for “essential women’s health care” to mask the fact that it’s an elective surgery that ends a human life.
All of this is part of their effort to make words meaningless. Words are the most powerful weapon against tyranny and lies, so if if they have no meaning, freedom and the truth die. This is another way liberals are trying to disarm the people.
BUZZ NOTE: There was no image with this article so it was necessary to use the image of Stanford from a similar article in order to post the article on NT.
It's too bad that this is what college students are being taught.
Everyday life is "hurtful." One has to deal with it.
This bizarre phenomena where it is hurtful for America to embellish any sort of patriotism is bizarre. After watching the world cup i am convinced that this disdain for country is purely a first world issue that takes place solely in America. We have become so comfortable is our pampered life styles that we are rebelling against a healthy sense of pride. After all many people in this world would love to be in our place.
Those are the section or category titles from the site you linked from. Its safe to say there are no einsteins there.
As far as Stanford goes, I dont pay attention to fringy college groups , and dont know why anybody else does.
I would venture to guess that no one on Newstalkers ever has to deal with extreme political correctness in their day to day lives.
Its just something to bitch about.
I've posted articles I've agreed with from Crooks and Liars which is an extreme left-wing site and I'll post articles from an extreme right-wing site if I agree with them. Years ago Krishna posted an article that enabled us to determine where we stood right or left, and I stood a bare mini-fraction to the left of centre. When it comes to the English language I think there are good reasons why I know what I'm talking about and agree totally that Stanford's attitude towards the language is totally ridiculous no matter what kind of dictionary agrees with them. I posted a comment about that same ridiculousness on a previous article about trans women.
- Overall, we rate Def-Con News extreme right-biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, poor sourcing, false claims, and lack of transparency.
That is what MBFC says about your source. They do not say the same about Crooks and Liars.
The Oxford Internet Institute identifies Crooks and Liars as a "junk news" source.  
A 2019 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that self-identified Democrats trusted Fox News more than Crooks and Liars.  The same study classified Crooks and Liars as a hyperpartisan source. [2
I actually know John Amato. He lost favor with me when he told me he believed the message is more important than the actual truth. This was the beginning of the end of our friendship. I am a liberal and i believe we need to present a fact based message without partisan disinformation. He felt very different. He is a partisan and believes winning is everything, even if his party isn't liberal. It was about belonging to something and had nothing to do with what he or his team believed. This is why i left the democrat party. They aren't progressive and they certainly aren't liberal.
Would it have made you happier if I had posted the article in the Toronto Sun? LINK ->
Stanford University Attempts To Ban ‘ Harmful ’ Words , List …
If you want to post something from far right nut job sites expect to take a little heat for it.
The same facts are in the other articles I mentioned, and even Stanford University has distanced itself from the organization that is ridiculed by ALL of them. And personally, my attitude is no different from what's stated in the seed I posted. At least MY mind isn't frozen.
I don't know how anyone can deny this happened at Stanford University.
This is from an article I seeded yesterday , and got zero comments
A conversation I had a few weeks ago could have been pulled from the pages of this report. Just before the midterms, I was chatting with someone who was hoping for a GOP sweep to "teach the Democrats a lesson." What lesson, I asked? She explained that she loves America and resents that all the Democrats want to teach kids to despise this country.
That is precisely the impression that many Republicans have about Democrats, according to "History Wars," the new report from More in Common. What distinguishes this from run-of-the-mill surveys is that More in Common asks not just what various groups think, but what they think the other side thinks.
It turns out that while 87% of Democrats think "George Washington and Abraham Lincoln should be admired for their roles in American history," Republicans on average believe that only 42% of Democrats would say that. And while 83% of Democrats agree that "In learning about American history, students should not be made to feel personally responsible for the actions of earlier generations," Republicans suppose that only 43% would assent to that. Ninety-two percent of Democrats say, "All students should learn about how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution advanced freedom and equality." Republicans figured only 45% of Democrats would agree.
That snippet speaks of actual percentages probably determined by polls when it comes to Democrats but only suppositions when it comes to how Republicans would think. You don't see the flaw in that?
Everything Democrats and Republicans believed is decided by the red team or blue team that they subscribe too. This is exactly how the Nazis came to be. People wanted to win so bad they forgot they actually need to think, and choose whether or not they support the party and their issues and actions. Blind party loyalty makes us stupid and vulnerable. When your party runs off the tracks you cheer them on? I have never seen a more ignorant phenomena.
"When your party runs off the tracks you cheer them on?"
The fact that you made that a question addressed to me leads me to question whether you are asking if I belong to a political party? I'm not an American (I refuse to use Stanford's description) and am not a member of either the Democrats or Republicans. The only political "parties" I ever belonged to were the Canadian and Ontario Progressive Conservative parties.
Frankly, for a change, I see a healthy exchange of ideas. Bravo.
getting rid of “American” in favor of “U.S. citizen
So, I guess you have to be a citizen to be an American. Interesting.
they are to be known as “persons with a substance abuse disorder.”
AKA an addict. Per Merriam-Webster:
: one exhibiting a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activitya drug addict
die by suicide . . . a person who had immigrated
Hell, now I am confused.
I guess that makes you a Native Indian, lol.
You're a North American, as am I.
It's not often that I would post a seed from an extreme right-wing site, but I happen to agree with this one absolutely. I'm surprised Stanford didn't require that the word to be used must be "A citizen from the nation sandwiched between Canada and Mexico" instead.