Identify as American? You're, "problematic".

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Steve

A power bestowed by their respective governments, and deemed appropriate by those governments. Perhaps you are saying that governments have too much power in their own countries? Or perhaps that foreigners should have more say in how border guards do their jobs?

No. I'm saying that governments don't oversee their border cops closely enough. Those bored mugs can arbitrarily stop, arrest, shake down, hold for questioning, or refuse entry to anyone they don't like. Your documents are in order? They blow their noses on your piteous paperwork! They can't even extort bribes efficiently, they have to get their funzies with rough stuff and threats.

Only good thing about Canadian Customs is keeping their guns hidden.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by sackett

No. I'm saying that governments don't oversee their border cops closely enough. Those bored mugs can arbitrarily stop, arrest, shake down, hold for questioning, or refuse entry to anyone they don't like. Your documents are in order? They blow their noses on your piteous paperwork! They can't even extort bribes efficiently, they have to get their funzies with rough stuff and threats.

Only good thing about Canadian Customs is keeping their guns hidden.

Must be you. I have crossed the Canada/USA border literally hundreds of times and never encountered any of these things. I have found border service agents on both sides to be consistently reasonable and polite.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

What is a standard tactic is the woke playing down the significance of everything they do. The ploy is, unfortunately, effective. Outside of academia, to the extent that anyone is aware of the woke movement, they think it is harmless and silly, when, in fact it is an existential threat to the Enlightenment values that are responsible for the progress democratic societies have made in every aspect of life.

Thank you for once again illustrating my point so very clearly.

[Hercules56]

Its sad that many in the Left feel their mere existence is a crime against humanity, requiring never-ending apologies & reperations.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by jt512

What is a standard tactic is the woke playing down the significance of everything they do. The ploy is, unfortunately, effective. Outside of academia, to the extent that anyone is aware of the woke movement, they think it is harmless and silly, when, in fact it is an existential threat to the Enlightenment values that are responsible for the progress democratic societies have made in every aspect of life.

Originally Posted by Darat

Thank you for illustrating the problem.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by CORed

So, conservative media picked up on a rather foolish document put together by some college students, which never had any official status, in order to demonstrate that universities, and liberals in general for that matter, hate America? Business as usual for them. Straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook, as picked up by Fox News and many others.

I was gonna say at least we all agree that this idea is foolish, and should be ridiculed. And if it ever did start to get traction in academia or elsewhere, it should quite properly shouted down...

... But it seems there are actually some folks in this thread who don't agree with that.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by CORed

So, conservative media picked up on a rather foolish document put together by some college students, which never had any official status, in order to demonstrate that universities, and liberals in general for that matter, hate America? Business as usual for them. Straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook, as picked up by Fox News and many others.

Thank you for admitting that the ideas in this school memo are ridiculous, stupid, ignorant and downright foolish.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by jt512

What is a standard tactic is the woke playing down the significance of everything they do. The ploy is, unfortunately, effective. Outside of academia, to the extent that anyone is aware of the woke movement, they think it is harmless and silly, when, in fact it is an existential threat to the Enlightenment values that are responsible for the progress democratic societies have made in every aspect of life.

I'm with you. These sorts of insidious attacks on the underpinnings of modern society need to be exposed and called out for what they are, rather than allowed to quietly be slipped under the door while everyone laughs it off like nothing is happening, or pretend it's all just young people being cute.

WARNING: Insidiousness

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Its sad that many in the Left feel their mere existence is a crime against humanity, requiring never-ending apologies & reperations.

[citation needed]

[Stout]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more hilarious, it does.

Field, yes you read that right, field has now been deemed offensive. Can't say I saw that one coming.

https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/st...35584539033603

[arthwollipot]

Looks to me like one organisation has voluntarily decided to stop using the term. I don't see a problem with that. It's their choice.

ETA: it's not the word "field" that they have decided to stop using, but specifically the phrase "field work".

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Looks to me like one organisation has voluntarily decided to stop using the term. I don't see a problem with that. It's their choice.

ETA: it's not the word "field" that they have decided to stop using, but specifically the phrase "field work".

False. It's the world "field." From the school's official document: "We have decided to remove the term 'field' from our curriculum and replace it with the word 'practicum.'"

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Originally Posted by CORed

So, conservative media picked up on a rather foolish document put together by some college students, which never had any official status...

Exactly.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Looks to me like one organisation has voluntarily decided to stop using the term. I don't see a problem with that. It's their choice.

Note the progression from "It's ok because it was just a suggestion, but not something official" to "It's ok because it was official, but at just one school."

[jt512]

[Duplicate]

[jt512]

[Triplicate]

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by sackett

No. I'm saying that governments don't oversee their border cops closely enough. Those bored mugs can arbitrarily stop, arrest, shake down, hold for questioning, or refuse entry to anyone they don't like. Your documents are in order? They blow their noses on your piteous paperwork! They can't even extort bribes efficiently, they have to get their funzies with rough stuff and threats.

Only good thing about Canadian Customs is keeping their guns hidden.

CBSA has always been civil and professional with me. Maybe you're giving off bad vibes.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jt512

The people who create these lists are administrators with 6-figure salaries at elite American universities, all of which are now woke, who have been hired to tell so-called minoritized people what terms they should be offended by and what terms they should prefer instead. Thus we have "Latinx," which Latinos overwhelmingly reject; "BIPOC," which nobody except privileged white people like; etc.

I wonder how many black linux users have ever associated the tarball file archive type with anything remotely racist.

I look forward to you providing evidence for these claims.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by CORed

So, conservative media picked up on a rather foolish document put together by some college students, which never had any official status, in order to demonstrate that universities, and liberals in general for that matter, hate America? Business as usual for them. Straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook, as picked up by Fox News and many others.

There are plenty more examples out there. Poor reactionary snowflakes.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Its sad that many in the Left feel their mere existence is a crime against humanity, requiring never-ending apologies & reperations.

You appear to have retreated to your own universe again.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by jt512

Note the progression from "It's ok because it was just a suggestion, but not something official" to "It's ok because it was official, but at just one school."

Absolutely no one said "it's okay because it's not official".

Even if the event mentioned in the OP had been official, it wouldn't have been the big deal the right-wing outrage machine is trying to make you think (or at least profess to think) it is. The fact that it wasn't official just makes the people pretending to be enraged about it easier to dismissively mock.

This other, completely separate decision about a completely different term at a different and totally unrelated institution may be official, but it still isn't a big deal.

[jt512]

Newsflash from Inside Higher Ed:

"Amid Backlash, Stanford Pulls ‘Harmful Language’ List. The university’s effort to remove racist, violent and biased language from its website morphed into a PR disaster. Other colleges’ initiatives have fared better—perhaps because they are less transparent in their practices." (Italics mine.)

[jt512]

Originally Posted by jt512

The people who create these lists are administrators with 6-figure salaries at elite American universities, all of which are now woke, who have been hired to tell so-called minoritized people what terms they should be offended by and what terms they should prefer instead.

Originally Posted by catsmate

I look forward to you providing evidence for these claims.

Here's the latest, and arguably the stupidest, example from the ivory tower of academia. On Monday, USC's school of social work issued a memo declaring the word "field" to be racist and stating that it will be replaced with the word "practicum." One is to not to say, for example, that their field is biology, but rather that their practicum is biology.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by jt512

Here's the latest, and arguably the stupidest, example from the ivory tower of academia. On Monday, USC's school of social work issued a memo declaring the word "field" to be racist and stating that it will be replaced with the word "practicum." One is to not to say, for example, that their field is biology, but rather that their practicum is biology.

Already discussed, and by you.

Originally Posted by Stout

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more hilarious, it does.

Field, yes you read that right, field has now been deemed offensive. Can't say I saw that one coming.

https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/st...35584539033603

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Looks to me like one organisation has voluntarily decided to stop using the term. I don't see a problem with that. It's their choice.

ETA: it's not the word "field" that they have decided to stop using, but specifically the phrase "field work".

Originally Posted by jt512

False. It's the world "field." From the school's official document: "We have decided to remove the term 'field' from our curriculum and replace it with the word 'practicum.'"

[jt512]

Originally Posted by jt512

Here's the latest, and arguably the stupidest, example from the ivory tower of academia. On Monday, USC's school of social work issued a memo declaring the word "field" to be racist and stating that it will be replaced with the word "practicum." One is to not to say, for example, that their field is biology, but rather that their practicum is biology.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Already discussed, and by you.

Geeze, I completely forgot about that. I plead jet lag. When I posted that, I had just gotten back to the U.S. after 24 hours of travel from Israel via Germany. That said, the reason for my recent mention of it was in response to catsmate who claimed to be unaware that the source of this language policing is the ivory tower of academia.

[Puppycow]

Can't say I'm a fan. For starters, I don't think I've ever heard the word "practicum" before.

So an area of land covered with grass but not trees is to be called a "practicum" from now on?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Can't say I'm a fan. For starters, I don't think I've ever heard the word "practicum" before.

So an area of land covered with grass but not trees is to be called a "practicum" from now on?

Apparently, yes.

In addition,

• Football will now be played on a football practicum
• Magnets will induce magnetic practicums
• Quantum field theory will be known as quantum practicum theory
• The prestigious Fields Medal in mathematics will be known as the Practicums Medal
• Speakers will no longer field questions, but practicum them
• The Beatles song will be renamed "Strawberry Practicums Forever"

Personally, I find the last one rather catchy.

[TomB]

In general, I don't have a problem with avoiding words or phrases that might be offensive or upsetting to some people. However, we need words to describe things. Some of those words will upset people, because the things they describe are upsetting or unpleasant. It's unavoidable.

There is a certain logic to the "American" thing because it is used as more specific than the actual term, though I think it's a little pedantic. I can see how it could be annoying to someone from Mexico, Canada, or South America, however.

"Field," however, is a reach...a solution in search of a problem. There are a lot of words associated with slavery that had meaning before, during, and after slavery. We can't really avoid them all. How about "cotton?" Should we be "mastering" a subject? or "re-mastering" a recording? (What about the S&M scene?)

The thing is, it's not practical to eliminate every word that was somehow involved in a bad situation. We would need an entirely new language.

However, if a co-worker said a phrase bothered him/her, I'd try to avoid it in their presence.

[ahhell]

One of my principal complaints about this sort of list, they always include the trivial, the BS, and the clearly legitimately offensive. As though its all the same.

[Roboramma]

Regarding "American".

The potential issue seems to be that using "American" to refer only to people from The United States of America leaves people from The Americas excluded. Perhaps we're left without a term that encompasses those from the Americas in general. We have a term for Asians, Europeans, Africans, but Americans is left to refer only to those from a particular country.

But, North and South America are separate continents, and generally we do have terms for South Americans, and North Americans. As a Canadian I'm happy to say I'm North American, and don't worry about confusion with the country. Generally when talking about where someone is from, we seem to want to refer to their country, sometimes the continent is applicable, but how often do we really have the need to refer to the Americas as a unit? And when we do that somewhat unwieldy phrase is probably good enough.

So, I'm not really seeing an issue with using American to refer to people from the US, South American, North American, and I guess Central American to refer to people from those regions, and "from the Americas" to refer to the entire region when necessary (analogous to "Eurasian" I guess?).

My suggestion if we're going to change it, though, is to just call them 美国人。 (Meiguoren)

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Apparently, yes.

In addition,

• Football will now be played on a football practicum
• Magnets will induce magnetic practicums
• Quantum field theory will be known as quantum practicum theory
• The prestigious Fields Medal in mathematics will be known as the Practicums Medal
• Speakers will no longer field questions, but practicum them
• The Beatles song will be renamed "Strawberry Practicums Forever"

Personally, I find the last one rather catchy.

Uh-huh. Sure. Because that's exactly how it'll work.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Already discussed, and by you.

S/he is attempting to avoid discussion of his/her earlier claims.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by catsmate

S/he is attempting to avoid discussion of his/her earlier claims.

"S/he"? "His/her"? How dare you shoehorn me into the gender binary! If this were sguforums.org, you'd be suspended!

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jt512

"S/he"? "His/her"? How dare you shoehorn me into the gender binary! If this were sguforums.org, you'd be suspended!

So you're abandoning the pretense that you have any interest in reasoned debate at last.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Looks to me like one organisation has voluntarily decided to stop using the term. I don't see a problem with that. It's their choice.

ETA: it's not the word "field" that they have decided to stop using, but specifically the phrase "field work".

A. Still worthy of ridicule and I will laugh at it.
B. The particular instance isn't the problem, its the mind set that thinks the term "field work" is problematic that is the problem. The actual problem is that anyone so stupid as to think not using "field work" will accomplish anything has any authority. That is disconcerting and I find it worrisome.
C. Can you actually defend any of this? You mostly just poo poo it as not an actual concern. Fine, you aren't wrong, this stuff is mostly trivial. That isn't an actual defense, its a distraction.

ETA:

This is a pretty common rhetorical tactic these days, on both left and right.
Someone on side A does or says something stupid. Side B points it out, usually breathlessly and overstates the case. Then the folks on Side A will Deny that someone even said the stupid thing or say it doesn't matter either because its trivial or because its only a few folks on the extreme of Side A or whatever. But they won't defend or condemn the stupid thing.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by catsmate

So you're abandoning the pretense that you have any interest in reasoned debate at last.

If you were interested in reasoned debate, you had a funny way to show it.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by ahhell

A. Still worthy of ridicule and I will laugh at it.

And ridicule sometimes actually works. Stanford pulled "American" form their list of problematic words in response to derision, and eventually rescinded the whole list.

Quote:

B. The particular instance isn't the problem, its the mind set that thinks the term "field work" is problematic that is the problem. The actual problem is that anyone so stupid as to think not using "field work" will accomplish anything has any authority. That is disconcerting and I find it worrisome.

I doubt they think that cancelling the word will accomplish anything. They're just virtue signaling. But they're also signaling that they've been captured by the Critical Social Justice ideology. And when they issue a memo in the name of their college, they are signaling that the college has abandoned its traditional mission in favor of indoctrinating students into CSJ. That's the real problem, and it is happening throughout academia in the English-speaking world.

Quote:

This is a pretty common rhetorical tactic these days, on both left and right.
Someone on side A does or says something stupid. Side B points it out, usually breathlessly and overstates the case. Then the folks on Side A will Deny that someone even said the stupid thing or say it doesn't matter either because its trivial or because its only a few folks on the extreme of Side A or whatever. But they won't defend or condemn the stupid thing.

It's Plan B in the woke playbook.

Plan A: Deny the accusation.
Plan B: If Plan A fails, trivialize it.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by jt512

It's Plan B in the woke playbook.

If you are interested in reasoned debate, you have a funny way to show it.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

If you are interested in reasoned debate, you have a funny way to show it.

The woke are incapable of reasoned debate, as are all religious fundamentalists.

[theprestige]

The whole problem with this conversation is that "treat natural languages like systems of formal logic" is some people's impression of "reasoned debate". And by "impression" I mean "cosplaying reasoned debate, because they don't really believe natural languages are systems of formal logic, but it suits their sense of humor or rhetorical goals to pretend it's so at the moment."

And that is my reasoned assessment of the "american" controversy.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The whole problem with this conversation is that "treat natural languages like systems of formal logic" is some people's impression of "reasoned debate". And by "impression" I mean "cosplaying reasoned debate, because they don't really believe natural languages are systems of formal logic, but it suits their sense of humor or rhetorical goals to pretend it's so at the moment."

That explains a lot, actually.