We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.ndtv.com/feature/stanford-university-releases-harmful-language-list-it-includes-words-like-american-and-survivor-3636582
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptable-words-elimination-of-harmful-language-initiative-11671489552
https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-criticism-slammed-putting-american-forbidden-word-language-list-1768543
The full list of words is here:
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf
Some examples of harmful words in the list:
- ladies and gentlemen, manpower (sexism)
- white paper, black mark, master, webmaster, slave (racism)
- killing it, war room, pull the trigger, rule of thumb (violence)
- disabled, prisoner, immigrant, homeless (stereotyping based on single characteristic)
RW people are complaining about wokeness as usual, but in my view the list is perfectly valid and we actually need to follow it in India. In fact, even back in school our teachers told us to avoid some of the words in the list (e.g. chairperson instead of chairman, handicapped, retard etc). So the list is not some new-fangled woke project but pretty old in some cases. It also reflects factually accurate info (e.g. Namrata Thapar from Shark Tank cannot be called a "chairman" of her company).
Also, let's look at it objectively: people on LI keep complaining that law firms treat them like "slaves". Not only is this BS (a 1 lakh a month salary in a plush office) but immensely disrespectful to the blacks who actually suffered slavery. Similarly, the word "manpower" sounds cringe.
But most of all, many words routinely used by judges, lawyers and law students in India are very, very harmful. So, the question is this: why not learn from Stanford and make a list of words to avoid in the Indian legal profession, beginning from law schools? In addition to the Stanford words, it can have India-specific words used by lawyers and judges, such as:
Examples:
- merit list and reserved list (it means reserved candidates have no merit)
- ravish (this is used by some people instead of rape.. ugh!)
- outraging modesty (super-cringe)
- concubinage (🤮)
- love jihad (🤬)
As a historical side note, you're right that all this is not a "new-fangled woke project", but it used to be called "political correctness" in the 90s and back then certain people were up in arms about wanting to have the right to use words such as "chairman" or "lady doctor", most of which are now accepted to be somewhat archaic.
Back then, the criticism was about "it's political correctness gone mad", by people like Jeremy Clarkson. Then after a decade or two of relative quiet in those culture wars, the battle is back again with the "wokes gone mad" and are trying to ban my words.
In short, nothing is ever new, language will keep evolving, people will fight about it and will come to some compromises. Rinse, repeat :)
I.e., neoliberal by itself is surely not toxic, any more than 'socialist' is toxic by itself: i.e., when used descriptively as in "this government is following neoliberal policies" or "your arguments are fundamentally socialist".
But using any of those as a pejorative would be toxic. Then again, so would calling someone a 'clown', and no one is proposing 'banning' clown or reducing its use in discourse.
Also, neo-stalinist and neo-maoist might make sense, if there was such a thing? Who do you think would fit the bill? Maybe calling the chinese neo-communists could make sense, though it probably makes them sound both cooler (because Neo is cool - have you not seen the Matrix?) and more communist than they actually are, as it might be more accurate to describe them as fundamentally totalitarian / neo-fascist free-market capitalists with a heavy 'guiding' hand of the state, which is communist in not much except the name of the party and a couple of social welfare programmes.
this article pretty much sums up this latest attack on free speech
further, in the merit list/reserved list point, the assumption of reserved candidates having "no merit" is being made by the OP, which might just be more problematic than the actual usage
Get out of your sjw shell
But, even if we don't get into specifics, do we even want to get into a game where some seats are labelled as meritorious (good), and others are by implication non-merit (i.e. neutral or 'bad')? What about women's quotas? State quotas? Disability quotas? Are all the ones who get into those, without merit?