Bad words

"The brave American killed two birds with one stone."

"The leader buried the hatchet of war."

"Drug addict commits suicide in handicapped parking."

What do these phrases have in common?

Only one thing: they consist of words that, according to the American left, should be banned.

An article in The Wall Street Journal on Stanford University's initiative to purge the English language of bad and harmful words and replace them with good and "inclusive" ones made a lot of noise.

Still: it turned out that Stanford progressive philologists have compiled a huge list of terms that should be removed from school and university websites, and in the future from social networks.

The goal is to eliminate "many forms of harmful language," including "racist, violent, and biased ones."

The list consists of ten sections: ableism (discrimination based on physical ability), ageism (discrimination based on age), colonialism, cultural appropriation, gender discrimination, inaccurate language, institutionalized racism, personality traits, violence, and "additional considerations".

Take ableism, for example: Instead of “handicapped parking,” which denigrates people with disabilities, you should use the phrase “accessible parking.”

Instead of "committed suicide" - "died by suicide."

Instead of "addict" - "a person with a disorder associated with the use of psychoactive substances."

Moreover, it cannot be said that a person with such a disorder is addicted to, for example, cocaine - this "simplifies his experience."

Instead, you need to say that a person is “committed to cocaine” - you see, this sounds much more sublime!

But these are still flowers compared to the berries that are found in other sections. 

Among the "bad words" that should be avoided is, for example, the word "American".

According to the wise men from Stanford, this is an insulting wording - after all, there are as many as 42 states in both Americas, and only people from the USA are called Americans.

A hint that the US is the most important country in America.

Very politically incorrect!

Therefore, instead of "American" you need to say "US citizen".

The term hispanic - Spanish, Spanish-speaking - should also be avoided, since its roots "lie in the colonization of South America by Spain."

"Oriental" is perceived as "pejorative, because it contrasts people of Asian descent on a racial basis with "others."

Even worse with sexual orientation.

The fact that the term "homosexuality" has long been considered politically incorrect in the Anglo-Saxon world (because it sounds like some kind of unpleasant addiction like alcoholism) is well known.

But now the compilers of the list propose to abandon the word straight (“straight”) as a synonym for the word “heterosexual”.

After all, if people of normal orientation are straight, then non-heterosexuals are “bent” or even abnormal!

And this is a serious insult to sexual minorities.

The killer should not be called a "thug" - instead, the terms "suspect" or, in extreme cases, "criminal" should be used.

After all, the word thug comes from a sect of professional stranglers - the Thugs, who raged in India in the 19th century, and "tends to acquire a racist connotation."

Even the word "abortion" was included in the "inaccurate terms" section.

It turns out that it can "cause religious or moral concerns."

But if you call this operation "cancel" (cancel) or "completion" (end), then there will be no problems.

Not everything is fine with the color.

You can not use the word black ("black list", "black sheep", "black hat", "black label"), as it is "a form of institutionalized racism."

You can’t say “brown lunch bag” (what if it offends someone with brown skin?) and even “red team” - this term refers to the professional jargon of cybersecurity experts.

It would seem that this is a rather specific section of the language, but vigilant Stanford philologists did not ignore it either.

Hates the Indians!

Even a harmless "space" - in English whitespace - got into the black list (again, this is not a politically correct expression!)

After all, whitespace - literally "white space" - assigns "value connotations based on color (white = good)", and this is a "subconsciously racial act."

The guide compiled by the Stanford Wise Men strongly discourages the use of expressions containing "violent" words.

The idioms “beat a dead horse” (that is, engage in a meaningless thing), “kill two birds with one stone” (in the English version - “kill two birds with one stone”, but the meaning is the same as in the Russian proverb), as they "normalize animal abuse".

Now you can’t even use the very fashionable term abusive relationship (“cruel relationship”), but you should say “relationship with an abusive person” (relationship with an abusive person).

Stanford philologists generally love to look for a long alternative of a few words to a short and precise term. 

For example, they change “immigrant” to “immigrant”, “prisoner” to “person who is/was imprisoned”, and “homeless” to “homeless person”.

In some cases, the guide does not offer alternatives, but warns against using a particular word at all.

This happened, for example, with the word “brave” (brave).

This, you see, is a case of cultural appropriation - "the misuse of terms that are relevant to a particular culture."

The word 'brave', according to the authors of the list of 'bad words', 'perpetuates the stereotype of the 'noble brave savage'.

Don't ask why - just believe.

In addition, "offensive" terms for the Indians, which should be avoided, include the expression "bury the hatchet", the words "leader", "tribe" and even - for some reason - "guru" (spiritual teacher in India).

The section on gender says that the term "preferred pronouns" - a very progressive innovation until recently - is no longer such.

The term “preferred” seems to suggest that “non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.”

And this is yesterday's wokism.

Therefore, you just need to use pronouns - “they”, for example, in relation to non-binary personalities.

And those who do not want to use these pronouns can sit behind bars, as happened with one teacher from Ireland.

It is advisable to avoid words such as "congressman", "fireman" or "freshman", as well as "humanity" (mankind), due to the presence of the root man, which emphasizes male superiority.

It is proposed to replace it with gender-neutral "people" or "human beings".

Many more examples can be given - the list, as already mentioned, is very voluminous.

True, now you can’t get to the original: after the article was published in The Wall Street Journal, Stanford University removed it from open access.

The uproar led the university to say that the creators of the list "simply inform people about the possible impact of the words they use."

But the point is, Stanford is not alone in its efforts.

The nearby California Polytechnic University has been doing the same thing for many years. 

The university's presentations, which student leaders at the California Polytechnic University give to freshmen, say that the main goal of language reform is a change in consciousness. 

To do this, it is not enough just to use gender pronouns: in order to “support transgender people in their lives, their allies need to break the binary ideas about gender that they have in their heads.”

Over the years, slides with such language have been used "to promote the use of inclusive language in relation to gender and ability".

Severe speech censorship reigns at California Polytechnic: students are strictly warned against using terms like "crazy" or expressions like "that sucks" because they were "used in the days of eugenics against the disabled, as well as forced sterilization and institutionalization ".

Instead, "progressive" and "inclusive" speech codes developed by experts in neurolinguistic programming are being used with might and main. 

“Both Stanford and Cal Poly say they are committed to free speech, which they recognize as the “cornerstone” of a democratic society.

But students and faculty say they feel overwhelmed by the speech codes,” writes The Washington Free Bacon with concern. 

Such “speech codes” include, for example, the replacement of the words “mother” and “father” with the neutral word “supporter”, which does not have a clear gender identification in English.

Instead of the outdated words boyfriend and girlfriend, it is recommended to use the neutral “partner” or, if you really want to, “lover” (lover).

In fairness, it must be said that even at Stanford University itself, not everyone agrees with this manifesto of triumphant wokeism

The independent university newspaper The Stanford Review called the initiative to replace "hate speech" with "inclusive terms" Orwellian, recalling the "Newspeak" from the dystopia "1984".

“The goal is ostensibly to make people of color and other alleged victims of historical injustice feel more comfortable as users of Stanford technology.

However, a cursory glance at the page should shock any normal person with its sheer insanity.”

Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who became famous for speaking out against mass lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic, tweeted: “I remember feeling proud when I became a naturalized American citizen.

I'm still proud to be an American and don't care that Stanford doesn't approve of my use of the term."

This tweet caught the attention of new Twitter owner Elon Musk.

“Stanford disapproves of the claims that you are proud to be an American?

WOW!"

he wrote.

Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn rages: “The radical left is trying to destroy our country and erase our history.

Now Stanford University is trying to ban the word "American."

“I don’t understand why we capitulate to these fools,” conservative journalist Janine Pirro told Fox News.

“Why do we even give them a minute of our time?”

Here's why.

Last year, 89% of students at the University of Virginia — on the other side of the United States — voted to remove the pronouns “he” and “she” from the constitution of their school, replacing them with gender-neutral pronouns that are comfortable for “non-binary persons” and gender fluids. such as "they".

Conservatives may scoff at Stanford's initiatives and Cal Poly's speech codes as much as they like, but America's future largely depends on these "awakened ones", whose number will only grow over the years, and their influence on public opinion will increase.

In the meantime, progressive film critics are seriously talking about "cultural appropriation" in James Cameron's fantasy saga "Avatar", where white actors portray the blue-skinned natives of the planet Pandora.

And this, from the point of view of Stanford, is undisguised racism.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.