> HN, like the American tech industry in general, is almost certainly more diverse than the Stanford administration and faculty.
The point I was trying to make was that HN has some very real and very wide ideological blindspots. It's true what you say that there are many viewpoints here on HN, but they aren't all uniformly represented. That said, the commentariat here is also self selected, so not necessarily representative of the general population.
> By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty.
That may be true, but at the same time there are more stakeholders who have input into initiatives like these.
> But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.”
Do you have evidence that such people didn't have input or their input wasn't allowed? Or are you just speculating to make a point? You seem fixated on white Stanford faculty, but it's not clear that the linked list is even a product of the faculty, it seems like it's a product of a committee of the IT department. It seems to me like you just have some ideological things to say about Stanford faculty without really addressing the facts on the ground re: this list.
> If you can't even make your point without repeatedly using one of the forbidden words by accident, then perhaps the forbidden word list is too broad.
I'm not accidentally using forbidden words, I'm intentionally using words that are not in fact forbidden, because no one (especially Stanford) has forbidden anyone from saying them. Stanford doesn't police my language, I can use whatever words I want. If someone is offended by my words they can tell me.
But Stanford is not in the same position I am, posting on an internet forum. They are a corporate entity looking to manage their brand. I'm going to keep making this point, because so far no one so far has really engaged with it, but this is no different than Coke having an internal style guide for how their logo can be used and in what contexts.
We have engaged with your argument. You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert. You don't think this will be cited by others? At the bottom of the document, they cite the university lists from that fed into this one. These are dominos, and they are not alone.
Where? I’ve read all the replies. How is Stanford deciding what should be used on their sites different from how Coke decides how its logo can be used?
> You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert.
I understand all of that. So at best your argument is that this is a slippery slope. Moving past the fallacious nature of that argument, you still haven’t articulated any conceivable harm to you or society. Even if all of the dominoes you foresee fall, then where are we? Are you restricted by government thought police at that point, and that’s what you’re worried about?
Or are you worried about your employer restricting your speech? If so, I refer you to my Coke argument; you are already subject to a list of words approved by your employer. The only difference maybe is that it’s implicit, but that doesn’t make it any different than what Stanford has here (except less transparent and delivered by capriciously by fiat instead of created by the community with input from across the company).
What does it matter to you if some dominoes are falling elsewhere?
The point I was trying to make was that HN has some very real and very wide ideological blindspots. It's true what you say that there are many viewpoints here on HN, but they aren't all uniformly represented. That said, the commentariat here is also self selected, so not necessarily representative of the general population.
> By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty.
That may be true, but at the same time there are more stakeholders who have input into initiatives like these.
> But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.”
Do you have evidence that such people didn't have input or their input wasn't allowed? Or are you just speculating to make a point? You seem fixated on white Stanford faculty, but it's not clear that the linked list is even a product of the faculty, it seems like it's a product of a committee of the IT department. It seems to me like you just have some ideological things to say about Stanford faculty without really addressing the facts on the ground re: this list.