Colorado State: don't use American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. "I'm proud to be a US Citizen" does not have the same ring as "I'm proud to be an American."

I'm going to hazard a guess that most of the people who created this list and eagerly follow all the guidelines in this list aren't going to be saying either sentence, since such sentiments would seem problematically "nationalist."

I’m going to guess most of the people complaining about this list use racial epithets on a regular basis.

Really? You're going to guess that people who think "hip hip hooray," or "long time no see," are completely fine to use also use racial epithets on a regular basis? People who refer to their kid who will be going off to school in the fall as a "freshman" and don't see anything wrong with it use racial epithets on a regular basis? People who starts a sentence off with "as a general rule of thumb," uses racial epithets on a regular basis?

I am fascinated. Please tell me more about yourself and your life experiences. (I'm not being snarky. I am genuinely curious as to the background of someone who would think this way, and what occurred in their life and for this to be their mindset.)

If you’re this upset about the post ask yourself why. It’s just words after all. Get over it, right?

Besides where was your principled reply when posters called these people anti American or lunatics?

The point of the my post was to makings an equally sweeping generalization without evidence and see what kind of aggrieved, hypocritical reaction it would provoke. Thank you for making my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Language, as someone else in this thread put it, evolves.

I think the reason so many people bristle at this document is that it does not feel like a helpful explanation of an ongoing evolution -- in many cases, it feels prescriptive.

Terms like "gyp" have clearly racist origins and they are, indeed, fading, because more and more people are learning of their etymologies. That's a natural evolution.

Terms like "rule of thumb" are being problematized through the active spread of untruths by institutions like this university. As someone else noted, the etymology provided by this document for "rule of thumb" is actually false. That the phrase is still proscribed here DOES ruffle my feathers. I trust in institutions of higher education to be careful with their citations and sourcing. That didn't happen here.

Thus this document is strengthening the claims attached to a fallacy. And now I will worry when that phrase comes out of my mouth that someone else was mis-educated about the origin of the phrase, and take offense based on an untruth perpetuated by an institution of learning.

The claim that miss/ma'am/mister is problematic is similar but even more concerning. These are common titles of address that are being reconfigured by an authoritative source (a university) as indicative of gendered discrimination.

This isn't evolution, it's ideology. And yes, I think ideologies demand criticism and scrutiny before they are swallowed wholesale.

Well, this is *Colorado* State. "Higher," in this context, refers to something entirely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Deaf one is totally wrong. There is/has been a movement where Deaf people want that to be the way they are referred to, not "someone who is deaf." They consider themselves part of a linguistic and cultural minority, and much like you would say a Spanish person, etc. you should say a Deaf person. If you say "someone who is deaf" is negates their cultural background. So go ahead and say Deaf people.

Same with the "person with disability" thing.

I am disabled. I am not "a person with a disability." My disability is an inherent part of who I am. Would you say "a person with tallness" or "a person with kindness" or "a person with Jewishness"? Of course not.

The document actually specifically notes that there is a divide and that some people prefer deaf or blind rather than "a person who is deaf/blind".

My own personal take is that someone came up with a logical rule with good aims: emphasize the person before some characteristic that might tend to exclude them from society. The problem is now you are pushing this as a new rule of society and not everyone reacts the same way to a particular problem. As an example, some cancer patients (or people with cancer) choose to shave their own heads and take ownership of baldness rather than waiting to see the impacts of treatment, while others want wigs or some other solution. And as noted, the rule may undermine other movements that want to emphasize the characteristic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a practical question.

Scenario. I am in the grocery store. The person (who appears to be a female to me) in front of me drops a dollar bill. Before I saw this list, I would say "Ma'am, you just dropped this dollar bill." So now am I supposed to say "Person, you just dropped this dollar bill."

Because even though the person looks like a female to me, I'm supposed to use inclusive language and if I don't I'm considered non-inclusive?

"Excuse me, you just dropped this dollar bill."

It's not that hard.

Thats not formal enough.

Also saying "Ma'am" makes it easier for the recipient to figure out to whom the comment is directed.

[Anonymous]

My DC attends CSU and certainly is not aware of this document - probably because it was created by staff for the optional use by staff. Here is the response posted by the university Chancellor:

https://www.facebook.com/136298855614/posts/10162226547050615/

[Anonymous]

Interesting