It is now common for universities to list offensive terms to be avoided by faculty and students, as we have previously discussed at schools like Michigan, James Madison, and Berkeley. Now, Brandeis has issued a list of “oppressive” words that include such expressions as “killing two birds with one stone” and “beating a dead horse.” However, the school did not issue a trigger warning because “trigger warning” is now on the list as . . . well . . . triggering.
We previously discussed Brandeis concern over “trigger warning” warnings and a dean’s controversial declaration that “Yes, all White people are racists.” However, the new list contains further examples of oppressive language and the suggested substitutes. Some have balked at the suggested changes.
Notably, an Iowa State Professor recently countered those questioning the value of trigger warnings and insisted that they should in fact be expanded. Some have cited a Harvard study that undermined claims in support of trigger warnings.
In addition to “trigger warning,” other violent terminology is listed, including “killing it,” “whipped into shape,” and “take a shot at it.”
Rather than use expressions like “killing two birds with one stone,” the school’s Prevention, Advocacy and Resource Center (PARC) suggests “feeding two birds with one seed.”
“Culturally appropriative” terms include any references to “tribe” to mean one’s group or identification.
Some of the substitutes seem pretty subtle. For example, the “person first/identity first list” includes terms like “homeless person.” However, the suggested alternative is “person without housing.”
Rather than saying “mentally ill person,” you are asked to say “Person living with a mental health condition.”
Rather than saying “prostitute,” you must say “Person who engages in sex work.”
Rather than saying “slave,” you must say “Person who is/was enslaved.”
For “Identity-based” terms, you are asked to say “bananas” rather than “wild” or “crazy.”
Moreover, referring to “people of color” is deemed oppressive if you are primarily referring to a particular group.
Expressions like “no can do” and “long time no see” are deemed oppressive.
PARC is promising a more expansive list in the future.
Of course, Trigger Warnings” can be triggering. That is why all of this is nonsense and borders on insanity.
“feeding two birds with one seed.”, whoever said that must hate birds and should be canceled. That person is advocating starving birds. I’m offended.
One thing is for sure: you’ll be able to spot their graduates a mile away when they enter the adult world, and would probably never in a million years hire them. 😂
Can’t resist … Perhaps ‘ Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ is appropriate to the Biden Administration!. Once the impact of this phrase is realized, will this be banned next?!
Trigger warning: “Dr. Jill Biden”
How many of those easily “triggered” by words, including the teachers/professors, would 60-70 years ago be found mentally challenged enough to be forced to undergo psychiatric treatment?
The US population is under The Stockholm Syndrome…the BIG government has taken total control and once you have control of the military and all education we are ALL prisoners/slaves to those in power…I will never shut my voice to speak my truth and if I die for that then I have lived a good life!!!
Transferring the optional to the coercible.
In this case most readers probably agree that the expansion of taboo language is an insult to free speech. I used to use these kinds of examples in both my Philosophy and Logic courses. I offer this rough outline of larger political issues that can be understood in more depth than typical public discourse.
Triggering speech is an example of the overkill that happens when one notices that some examples are bad enough to deserve government ( or educational institution) coercion and then mushrooms the argument to coerce speech that ought to be optional. This is the classic case of “hasty generalization” that most rational people should oppose (moving from some hurtful speech is wrong to all hurtful speech is wrong.
The larger political issue is transference from small non-coercible offenses to harms and even assaults that deserve prohibition and punishment. No one argues that serious harms against life (physical assault), liberty (slavery, kidnapping) and property (stealing and destruction of property) ought to placed in the coercible category. Further, sometimes optional speech can become extreme enough to warrant coercion, such as a man switching from asking a woman out to repeated phone harassment or stalking. Small offenses can have extreme counterparts that spills over into the coercible range. Rude and disrespectful behavior can be somewhat innocuous or become really bad such as mere spitting in public versus spitting on someone. There is no perfectly clear barrier between the two but if we make the burden for coercion be actual serious harm to person, freedom or property that would help.
Some would argue the mere threat of harm or increased danger should be taken into account . (Need safe spaces because trigger words make me scared) There are some cases where the threat is serious, but we need a higher standard of risk and threat that is a clear and present danger. ( Examples: Electrified fences in an urban setting. Announcing one’s intent to physically harm someone. )
Shifting optional behavior into the coercible category has a counterpart in terms of basic human rights. What occurs here is that what ought to be treated as optional goals such as perfect health, advanced education, and a high standard of living are transferred to basic rights that need to be coerced. Lately, politicians have declared that a college education is a basic right that needs guaranteed financing from the general public. Some schooling in advanced countries is assumed to be a fiduciary responsibility of the government. But the standard end of free school is somewhere in high school. Self-reliance then takes over as the source of advanced schooling.
The cases of goals -> rights and small offenses -> criminal acts are made to sound reasonable by perhaps the most serious mistake in the history of Ethics: that goodness = rightness. This stems from the fact that we consider “not wrong” to be a good. But, taken too far, that leaves no room for acts which may be good but not necessarily wrong not to do. Political philosophers who equate the good with what’s right are called socialists (equal outcomes is a good so it is evil to not actively move toward that goal.)
College costs too much. Send you kid to Costco. Put your college intended money for kiddo into a business for him or her to run.
This is right out of Animal Farm.
The word “trigger” itself should be unspoken and referred to as the “t-word” because it rhymes with the “n-word.” But where does that leave Roy Rogers?
In my local paper there was a news story about a black woman whose last name was (not kidding) Niggra. I couldn’t share the story for fear of being cancelled
ATTENTION [Deleted]
Effective [deleted], the following [deleted] will be [deleted] and [deleted]. All [deleted] failing to [deleted] will be [deleted],[deleted] and then [deleted].
Thank you for your [deleted]
Whatsamatter U Communications Deleted]
So I’m guessing that the campus radio station (do they still have those?) can’t play the song “Whip It” by Devo?
Devo?
What about the culinary industry.
They can no longer whip cream, or whip egg whites till stiff peaks form! Cream based sauces! Chefs wearing their white coats in the kitchen! White hats!!
Oh, the horror, the horror.
At what point shall we see the “Communication” programs ended….or sorry….I meant “programs that no longer are funded”.
This whole notion about language is a bunch of crap…stinks to high heavens….and is the Devil in High Heels!
This poison tha is being peddled to our young must cease.
Language with its idioms and dialects is just another example of our diversity and ability to communicate.
I would love to be in a room with a bunch of the Loons that ascribe to all this triggering business….as exposure to the real world we all live in would be a unique thing for them to experience.
When you hear them talk of this “triggering” talk….imagine …well try to imagine them aboard a Landing Craft as it is approaching Omaha Beach one fine June Morning in ’44…..and wonder how it would turn out for them…..and history.
These are persons filled to capacity of male bovine excrement.
Then I guess Cane killed Abel or David killed Goliath or Boothe killed Lincoln or Oswald killed Kennedy are Oppressive too…well let’s just coddle these little snowflakes some more…and certainly can’t talk about people killed in war…NNNNNOOOO
What doesn’t trigger the Progressive toddlers. What DON’T they have tantrums about??
Sadly the CDC is providing “guidance” on more inclusive terminology as well including protecting the feelings of criminal and convicts
https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/Preferred_Terms.html
Thanks for the link. And to think of all those useless hours I spent teaching brevity in speech and writing. Instead of telling them to write, “He is happy,” I should have instructed, “He is person who is happy”?
They are circling the drain and are bats..t crazy.
The more that they make up these “rules”, the dumber they seem.
Lefties (for the most part), really are a lower form of life.
Sadly, the vaunted CDC has a longer and more bizarre list in their “guidance” including protecting the feelings of inmates and ex-cons
https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/Preferred_Terms.html
One phrase comes to mind and I hope it doesn’t trigger anyone,,,”This Is Insane”.
Somebody has to hire all those Phd’s in gender studies. Its the universities.
Why has a college education exploded in price? A huge increase in non teaching staff. Inventing rules from whole cloth that absolutely no sane person wants.