Colorado State: don't use American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the reasons college costs are so high is you have entire departments with FTEs and even VPs in some cases focused on issues like this

I would fire anyone who worked on this for waste

+1000 to this.

[Anonymous]

Yeah...fire whoever wrote this because they are obviously a diversity and inclusion hire who doesn't have skills to do any actual work and uses their "mental illness" as an excuse to play tumblr games IRL. I have seen this exact type of person in action before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Inclusive-Language-Guide_10_30_18.pdf

This is another instance where I have to remind myself that, as bad as this sounds, the VAST majority of people I know in real life are not this stupid/radical left/intolerant. In fact, I can't actually think of one person I know who wouldn't call this list total BS. Still disheartening that a college would print it.

But most people on the right twist things around like you do here in order to suit your own needs.

From the document itself:

"What this document is not: This is not an official policy or required practice. This document is intended as a
resource to help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community particularly inclusion, respect, and
social justice. The language in the guide may not apply to every individual and it is critical to take personal
preference into account. The guide is not about political-correctness or policing grammar, but rather helping
communicators practice inclusive language and helping everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and
valued."

It provides an explanation for every single line item as to why some people might be bothered by it. The reader can choose to care about it or not.

In your case, I suspect you are the kind of person who thinks this is all ridiculous PC culture but sh*ts their pants when someone says "Happy Holidays" to you.

You should look up what "sh*t their pants" actually means.

Here's an example use of that idiom: "He almost sh*t his pants when his livelihood was threatened because he was accused of violating the 'Principles of Community' for not practicing inclusive language."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Inclusive-Language-Guide_10_30_18.pdf

This is another instance where I have to remind myself that, as bad as this sounds, the VAST majority of people I know in real life are not this stupid/radical left/intolerant. In fact, I can't actually think of one person I know who wouldn't call this list total BS. Still disheartening that a college would print it.

But most people on the right twist things around like you do here in order to suit your own needs.

From the document itself:

"What this document is not: This is not an official policy or required practice. This document is intended as a
resource to help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community particularly inclusion, respect, and
social justice. The language in the guide may not apply to every individual and it is critical to take personal
preference into account. The guide is not about political-correctness or policing grammar, but rather helping
communicators practice inclusive language and helping everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and
valued."

It provides an explanation for every single line item as to why some people might be bothered by it. The reader can choose to care about it or not.

In your case, I suspect you are the kind of person who thinks this is all ridiculous PC culture but sh*ts their pants when someone says "Happy Holidays" to you.

You should look up what "sh*t their pants" actually means.

Here's an example use of that idiom: "He almost sh*t his pants when his livelihood was threatened because he was accused of violating the 'Principles of Community' for not practicing inclusive language."

Except you can't be accused of violating it because it's NOT REQUIRED. It's a resource for people who care about these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Inclusive-Language-Guide_10_30_18.pdf

This is another instance where I have to remind myself that, as bad as this sounds, the VAST majority of people I know in real life are not this stupid/radical left/intolerant. In fact, I can't actually think of one person I know who wouldn't call this list total BS. Still disheartening that a college would print it.

But most people on the right twist things around like you do here in order to suit your own needs.

From the document itself:

"What this document is not: This is not an official policy or required practice. This document is intended as a
resource to help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community particularly inclusion, respect, and
social justice. The language in the guide may not apply to every individual and it is critical to take personal
preference into account. The guide is not about political-correctness or policing grammar, but rather helping
communicators practice inclusive language and helping everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and
valued."

It provides an explanation for every single line item as to why some people might be bothered by it. The reader can choose to care about it or not.

In your case, I suspect you are the kind of person who thinks this is all ridiculous PC culture but sh*ts their pants when someone says "Happy Holidays" to you.

You should look up what "sh*t their pants" actually means.

Here's an example use of that idiom: "He almost sh*t his pants when his livelihood was threatened because he was accused of violating the 'Principles of Community' for not practicing inclusive language."

Interesting that you call someone out for not understanding the 'actual' meaning of an idiom or phrase and then criticize a document that explains the meanings behind commonly used idioms or phrases.

[Anonymous]

I would be offended if someone referred to me as ze. I am female and I present myself as such. If someone referred to me otherwise, I would assume they aren’t able to discern my gender.

I have a transgender friend who is also offended by the term. She prefers to be referred to as she, and presents herself as such.

Several of these blanket statements of who is offended by what are just as bad as the terms they are trying to correct.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

You are misstating the purpose and intent of the document. Besides, your objection to these documents seems to be that people need to lighten up and not get so upset over these words. But the level of overwrought, hysterical reaction to this document suggests that only one set of people gets to be upset over “just words”. They are just words that according to the other have to be taken in the context of the individual. Yet the trumpists on the board, more upset that they can’t go around insulting people, turn this into something it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are misstating the purpose and intent of the document. Besides, your objection to these documents seems to be that people need to lighten up and not get so upset over these words. But the level of overwrought, hysterical reaction to this document suggests that only one set of people gets to be upset over “just words”. They are just words that according to the other have to be taken in the context of the individual. Yet the trumpists on the board, more upset that they can’t go around insulting people, turn this into something it’s not.

If you think using hip hip hooray, takes the cake, freshman, hold down the fort, long time no see, no can do, Ms./Mrs./Mr., rule of thumb, grandfather clause, etc. = going around insulting people, then you need to make an appointment with the psychiatrist ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Inclusive-Language-Guide_10_30_18.pdf

This is another instance where I have to remind myself that, as bad as this sounds, the VAST majority of people I know in real life are not this stupid/radical left/intolerant. In fact, I can't actually think of one person I know who wouldn't call this list total BS. Still disheartening that a college would print it.

Does thug mean a certain race? No. I call the antifa fascists thugs, they’re mostly white boys.

[Anonymous]

Cracker was missing from the list? Or can I only be offended if I’m not one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be offended if someone referred to me as ze. I am female and I present myself as such. If someone referred to me otherwise, I would assume they aren’t able to discern my gender.

I have a transgender friend who is also offended by the term. She prefers to be referred to as she, and presents herself as such.

Several of these blanket statements of who is offended by what are just as bad as the terms they are trying to correct.

And that's why they ask people for their preferred pronouns, nitwit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So other American countries.. such as those of central, north, and South America...

They call us ..

“Americans” or “americanos” right?

They don’t call us “el gente de los estados unidos” or “personas de EEUU.”

Do you speak spanish or are you trying to make this up? They call us estado-unidense (plural estado-unidenses). "United stateser" is a direct translation, but that's not a word. American is the direct translation into English.

That answers my question.
But since we can’t go around saying I’m a United statser... American is the next thing we have.

lol a little because conversationally most people don’t go around saying “I’m american” constantly. But it does come up.

Does PBS’s “The American Experience” cover some portions of non US history too?

"U.S. Citizen" is perfectly good phrase to use instead of American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah...fire whoever wrote this because they are obviously a diversity and inclusion hire who doesn't have skills to do any actual work and uses their "mental illness" as an excuse to play tumblr games IRL. I have seen this exact type of person in action before.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cracker was missing from the list? Or can I only be offended if I’m not one?

BINGO.