In which a Berkeley Ph.D. joyously bashes Stanford: Speak clearly, write clearly, and reject linguistic authoritarianism

 2022 is ending, and tomorrow, I will write something to take perspective.  This morning, I take joy in the little things.  Like bashing Stanford.  Having earned my doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley, I signed a contract in which I agreed to find ways both great and small to observe the evils of that institution across the Bay, Stanford [use the same intonation as, "Newman"].  So we look back on 2022 and forward to 2023 with yet another cultural and linguistic facepalm about leftism and language, which is normally an excruciating task in which the only joy is catharsis, but this morning, I find special pleasure in fulfilling by Berkeley obligations.  Fuck Stanford.  To quote Wendy Testaburger, fuck them right in the ear.

It is with some small irony that Stanford issued its new linguistic dictates, creating one of the more prominent and stupid academic scandals shortly after I wrote a series of posts about China Mieville's outstanding novel, Embassytown.  Mieville wrote the novel as a thought experiment about an alien race for whom the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true.  As a reminder, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was a cognitive linguistic hypothesis stating that thought required language, so the structure of language constrains thought.  You cannot think a thought without the language to express it.  That's the very short, colloquial version of it, anyway.  Sapir-Whorf is bullshit, and if you would like to go down the cognitive linguistic research rabbit hole, go for it.  But what if one supposes an alien race for whom it is true?  Wackiness, or perhaps horror, but a really fuckin' cool novel, which you should absolutely read.  I mean, who doesn't want to read a science fiction novel written around a debunked cognitive linguistic hypothesis?  M'I right?

When I wrote my comments on Embassytown, of course, I wrote about the relationship between Sapir-Whorf, postmodern epistemology, and Michel Foucault, because that intersection, so to speak, is why the modern left is so obsessed with controlling your language.

The modern left does not believe in objective truth.  Instead, they believe that knowledge is "socially constructed," and further, that the social construction of knowledge through language is an exercise in power by the oppressor over the oppressed to control your thoughts, and you cannot even protect yourself with a tin foil hat!  Instead, you fight battles of power through language to construct knowledge and reality differently.  That is modern leftism, deeply rooted in the debunked cognitive linguistic model of Sapir-Whorf and postmodern epistemology.

No, it's not kindness and politeness.  It's manipulation.

Say this, not that.  It is not that this is true, and that is false, because there is no such thing as true or false.  Rather, this favors the oppressed, and that favors the oppressor, everything being rooted in an oppressor-oppressed dyad in leftist conflict theory.  Moreover, the exercise of power that gets you to say, "this," rather than, "that," is the acquisition of power, which is the point.

Five minutes from now, you will be told to say, "or the other," "this" being deeply, horribly wrong and offensive.  Pinker's euphemism treadmill requires Olympian athleticism these days.

And so finally we turn to Stanford's do's and don'ts of language.  Stanford does not currently publicize their policy, which is rather funny.  If you have a policy in which you believe, and which you think it is important for people to heed, then you should, you know...

make it easy for people to find.

If you hide your policy, then one of two things is the case.  Possibly both.  Either you are creating a linguistic speed trap, or you are embarrassed about what you did, and you don't want anyone to see it.  Not.  Mutually.  Exclusive.

Anyway, here is a link to Stanford's dropbox file, and of course I saved a copy, but if something happens with that link, it may take some time searching for a working link.  This one from The Daily Beast worked for me.

There are some words that you probably weren't saying anyway.  One does not often use the term, "tarbaby," because holy fuck is it obvious.

There are some very stupid things.  Oops!  I'm not supposed to say "stupid."  Fuck you, Stanford.  Anyway, they do not want people to use idioms such as, "more than one way to skin a cat."  I have a cat.  I love my cat.  Most of the time.   When she isn't... anyway, generally speaking, I like cats.  Kinda.  If this seriously bothers you, grow the fuck up.

One might similarly note phrases like, "killing it."  Musicians use this one regularly when a soloist, well, kills it.  It would be easier to take such concerns seriously if institutions took it seriously when someone like me faces an actual, serious threat of physical violence, but, no.  I've been threatened, a colleague of mine has been stalked... yeah, they don't do jack fucking shit.  Why not?  Because this is all posturing bullshit.

Where was I?  Oh, right.  Anyway, attention has focused more on words like, "American."  Stanford later put out a pathetic attempt at a statement saying that they are fine with, "American," but it's right there, on that list.

I am not going to go through this list, word by word, nor even section by section, but if you do so, you will find words and phrases that you know to be innocuous.  You will also notice examples of a concept for which you go from say X, no, say Y, no say Z.  Look at the list, and have fun finding examples of now-banned words which were exactly the words you were told to say five minutes ago.

I do, however, want to give a little special attention to one word.  Abort.  The presence of this word on the list-- and the given explanation-- tells us something about the sincerity, or lack thereof, in the construction of the policy, which is where I'm going here.  Do these people actually think that NASA needs to change their terminology out of sensitivity to the Catholic Church, or that pro-life people have panic attacks when they see movies with those scenes at the NASA control center in Houston?

And if so, wouldn't it be funny if their position were that abortion must be legal in all circumstances, and that advocacy of restrictions must be shut out of college campuses, but that the word, "abort," must be censored out of sensitivity to the beliefs of the people whose beliefs they don't respect?

Yeah, fuck these people.  Either it is a legitimate belief that deserves a hearing in a democracy, or it isn't, but if your position is that their beliefs are so sacred that you cannot even say the word, "abort," out of sensitivity to them, then on what basis do you assert that the belief has no place in democratic deliberation?  Because yes, that is their position.

Stanford is in California, which is in a different political situation from my own university, but here is what my university is doing.  The State of Ohio has banned abortions in nearly all circumstances.  It is a Republican-run state, and after the Supreme Court overturned Roe with Dobbs, Ohio enacted very restrictive abortion laws.  The official actions of Case Western Reserve University were to create a task force and set of institutions within the University to help students evade those laws.  Yeah, they did that.

I saved the fuckin' emails.

Stanford did not do this, because California did not pass the kinds of laws that Ohio did, but I guaran-fuckin'-tee you that if the same administrative personnel faced the same state laws as CWRU, they would have responded with at least as many policies to help students evade the law.

Personally, I'm a follow-the-law type, and I formally disapprove of tax payer-funded institutions (yes, even private universities receive taxpayer funds) creating policies and offices to help people break the law.  Do the John Rawls test.  Imagine if a conservative institution, like Liberty University, set up an office to help students evade laws going in the other direction.  Would you approve?

See, that's called the "veil of ignorance," and once upon a time, it was the key test for the left.  Then they lost their fucking minds.

Anyway, understand that this is the kind of thing that happens at universities.

Do I believe that universities are deeply sensitive to the beliefs of people who oppose abortion?

I believe that as much as I believe that Donald Trump respects tax law and election law.

I call so much bullshit here.  It is not merely that the word, "abort," is a perfectly fine word.  It is that what Stanford says about it demonstrates their dishonesty.  They don't give a fuck about their political opponents.

And that reveals what is going on.  This is about Michel Foucault and linguistic manipulation, futile though such attempts are.  What happens when you stop using the word, "abort?"

Nothing.  Do any of these changes have real consequences?  A couple.  Tarbaby is a cringer, to be sure.  The word, "thug?"  How many times have you seen Putin and similar people called, "thugs?"  Do you even know the origin?  An Indian cult.  It derives from Thuggee.  Maybe South Asians should complain about it.  Stanford doesn't even bother to mention that, and the idiots who wrote the policy probably don't even know it.  Come on, there was a fucking Indiana Jones movie!  A real one!  In fact, the worst one, because there were only three, damn it!

So as you look through the list, and see the absurdity, you understand why the Karens who wrote this policy did so.

Do the... suggested changes... improve clarity?  No.  Consider, for example, "stupid."  Karen, here, tells me that I am not supposed to use the word, "stupid."  Instead, I am supposed to use words like, "boring," or, "uncool."  Those convey different meanings entirely.  If I mean to say, boring, I will say, "boring," or perhaps, dull, uninteresting, unworthy of my time or attention, or perhaps something even snarkier.

I don't know what cool is, except that I'm not it, and never have been.

"Stupid" means lacking in intelligence.  When I mean to say, "lacking in intelligence," but I would rather use two syllables than seven, I may simply say, "stupid."  One can be quite intelligent, but boring.  One can be extremely stupid, but hilarious.  Uh... uh huh huh huh huh huh.

That was cool.

Do you see the problem here?  This is not about clarity.  This is not about communication.  This is about authority.  This is about power.  This is about whether or not you can be told what to say because you have been told what to say, even when the rules make no logical sense.

George Carlin had it right, decades ago.  Think about the words you are told not to say.

Or today, sing them.  Here's Roberta Flack, live.