Stanford re-educates us

Stanford's IT department has issued a list of words that should not be used on any of their websites. For a start don’t call web users ‘users’ because that makes them sound like people addicted to illegal drugs. And never allow anyone to say they are ‘addicted’ to something (relatively) harmless such as chocolate or TV soapies—because that trivialisers real addictions that people struggle with.

Really? Why not treat your readers as being intelligent and able to distinguish between the different uses? Why not assume readers can understand how context changes the weight of words?

Now Stanford’s IT department wants to ban language about animals. They claim that although ‘there are different ways to skin a cat’ or ‘flog a dead horse’ or ‘kill two birds with one stone’, all trivialise violence against animals. Really?

Again, why not respect the intelligence of your readers? Why not assume that competent users of the English language understand what idioms are and how they work? The real problem here is that the Stanford IT department (just like the Brandeis University’s IT department before it) actually doesn’t understand how the English language really works, and then tries to impose its ignorance on everyone else. Ignorance is not a good basis for censorship!

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/language-43/?

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************