TW tags and bad language: A Discussion

[Zee]

I can't read: "TW for inappropriate expression of ableist thoughts by the poster." as anything BUT judgey.

There is a word that a lot of women use in a positive/reclaiming way and another word which a lot of people (particularly women) use in a value-neutral way that I would happily see stricken from the language all together. I identify as "queer" but I know more than one person who thinks that there is not way to ever use that term, even to describe yourself, that isn't negative. Reasonable people may disagree on terminology without it being a matter of one is "correct" and the other is "wrong" and a bigot with unexamined privilege who doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

We certainly are capable of coming to a consensus on what terms are acceptable/unacceptable in this specific community; it's fair to expect people to adhere to those conditions in order to participate in this community but people do and will be coming here from multiple backgrounds, experiences, and points of view which include having differing opinions which are NOT inherently "wrong" because they differ from the standards of this particular community.

"That language is ableist (homophobic/sexist/classist/etc.) by the standards of this community. Please refer to our community standards and rephrase" is my suggestion.

[the_oddest_sock]

^that was the exact line I found so deeply problematic as well.

Susannah, thank you for providing an example of precisely the kind of snap-judgey behaviour I was wary about. You don't know what I think about ableist language, and that sort of assumption that only a Person-Like-X could possibly hold Opinion-Y is reductive and, frankly, rude.

[sullieseeburg]

"That language is ableist (homophobic/sexist/classist/etc.) by the standards of this community. Please refer to our community standards and rephrase" is my suggestion.

The problem I see with this is that it seems to imply that various-ist language is OK in other places. Obviously the Awkward forums can't enforce standards anywhere but here. But that phrase sort of says to me "We're a bunch of special delicate snowflakes but feel free to be a jerk elsewhere." I do really like the second part about referring and rephrasing though.

[Zee]

"That language is ableist (homophobic/sexist/classist/etc.) by the standards of this community. Please refer to our community standards and rephrase" is my suggestion.

The problem I see with this is that it seems to imply that various-ist language is OK in other places. Obviously the Awkward forums can't enforce standards anywhere but here. But that phrase sort of says to me "We're a bunch of special delicate snowflakes but feel free to be a jerk elsewhere." I do really like the second part about referring and rephrasing though.

Well, I'm open to other suggestions - I think the main point I'm trying to get across is that not everyone agrees that certain terms ARE -ist in the first place and particularly in the case of people who are in a particular group who are using a word because they are reclaiming it or because they refuse to be ashamed of it, etc. I don't think it does anyone any good to tell them that they're being a jerk because they have a different opinion. To reiterate my previous point, I refer to myself as "queer" but I know people who really, really, really hate that word so I try to avoid using it in their presence not because they are RIGHT (they're not Right, but they're also Not Wrong) but because I do try to be a considerate person. I'm totally okay with someone saying, "Hey, Zee, I have a really, really hard time with 'queer', could you try another word when we're hanging out together?" but I"m not okay with "Hey, Zee, the fact that your chosen label is queer mean you are OBVIOUSLY a self-loathing homophobe" because, really, it's not true.

[sullieseeburg]

I definitely see your point and it's a good one. The reclaiming argument is a tough one for me. I sort of ask myself "Is the potential benefit I could get from this word higher than the potential damage it could do to someone else?" In the case of ableist language specifically though, is there even a reclaiming argument to be made? I've been trying to expose myself to more knowledgeable people on the subject in the last year, and I haven't run across anyone saying "Take back the C-word" or something similar.

As a phrase to use for moderating though, what about "We have agreed as a community not to use (word). Please revise, and see (x thread) for further information about (that particular ism)."

[Zee]

As a phrase to use for moderating though, what about "We have agreed as a community not to use (word). Please revise, and see (x thread) for further information about (that particular ism)."

Oh, that's a good one. I like it.

[muse142]

In the case of ableist language specifically though, is there even a reclaiming argument to be made? I've been trying to expose myself to more knowledgeable people on the subject in the last year, and I haven't run across anyone saying "Take back the C-word" or something similar.

(All TWs that follow hide disablist words that start with C. Be ye so warned.)

As someone dealing with depression/anxiety/brainweasels of various stripes and colors, I do often refer to myself, affectionately, as crazy. It's something I do somewhat identify as in a not-entirely-negative way. I also know someone with physical disabilities who calls herself a crip, or cripple, equally affectionately. That said, n=2; we disabled folks are not a hivemind.

[kathlynn]

Okay, I think Editing the post, then PMing the user, rather then posting in the thread is better. Reasoning: the Mods can still add a not in the post, explaining why it was edited, and there is no guarantee that the user will see the post. Nor does the user always know or understand why their posts were edited. (like, editing it for legit TW issues (like jerkbrain triggers) is fine without PM, but if it's unacceptable language or something related, then a pm lets the user know their post was edited, and why it was edited. This is why it would be a good thing to have an up-to-date 'bad word' thread, where one doesn't have to scroll through 19 pages of discussion to find/get a list of words they shouldn't use. (that said, it could link to the thread, for people to discuss it there.)


Also, it is okay to be ignorant of something until it's pointed out to you.

[CodaSammy]

We've kind of been down this road before, and it led to us confirming our stance that this is a 101-space, not a safe space. People are here to get help and support for their problems - this is not a social justice board and we don't expect everybody to be up to date on all the latest social justice issues and terminology. Of course, that doesn't mean people can say whatever they want! We want to protect everybody. So, we are happy to edit out -ist terms, add trigger warnings, post mod notes, etc as the situation dictates, but we're not comfortable judging the person who wrote it for not knowing this stuff already. We expect people to learn while they're here, and we expect people to take these mod corrections on board and do better in future, but we don't expect them to already know everything.

We wrote a full explanation of this here. Some relevant parts:

No one issue or trait or trigger is The Most Important. We try to avoid too many hard and fast rules because not everything works for everyone, but it means sometimes people can't be accommodated as they want or need.

This is a safe place, not a safe space. More exactly, this is a learning space that's pretty 101. Everyone starts from where they are and everyone is doing their best. That's more than enough for us. If you're a seasoned pro: great! Don't expect everyone else to be.

While we see the value of social justice discussion, this isn't going to become a social justice board. This is a place where you can come for help with your problems and ask questions. It's a place where you can see that you're not alone, that others out there are experiencing the same things you thought were only in your head.

As we said, we don't have too many hard and fast rules. Even in this very short discussion here, it's obvious that we would not all agree on whether some words are -ist or not. As a result, it would be difficult for us to lay a mandate on 'unacceptable' words. We're happy to add in trigger warnings for words when it's been requested (either in the moment by a report, or because we've had multiple instances of previous requests so we know that this is a word the community tends not to like), but to ban the word outright or to judge someone for using it is not really the way we want to go.

So, we're not going to have a List of Unacceptable Words and Appropriate Substitutions. The thread The_Other_Alice mentioned earlier is an excellent resource. Yes, it's long, but that's because it really shows the complexities and nuances around words. It can easily be revived at any moment to ask a question if you're struggling to find a suitable substitution for a certain word. We're delighted that the community wants to discuss ways to make their language more inclusive! We're not going to take that discussion and write it into law. We prefer people here to learn by example and by experience.

This is a great talk! Thanks to all of you for being so involved in shaping the community. It looks like, moving forward, we'll implement a policy as follows:

• Referring to -ist language is OK, but should have a Trigger Warning.
• Using -ist language is not OK. Substitutions should be found.
• When mods see that these guidelines have not been followed, they will edit the post accordingly and post in the thread to explain why. Mods will not send PMs as this is extra work for us.
• If we see a pattern of ignoring these guidelines, we will consider other sanctions (temp and perm bans, for instance).
• What is and is not considered -ist language can be a fluid and context-dependent thing. We will use our judgement, and we hope you will too. If you think something is -ist, you can ask the poster to edit it, or report the post to us for consideration. If you're not sure, you can post in the Problematic Language thread or make a new discussion thread.

Feel free to discuss this more! We've found it really useful.

[sullieseeburg]

I can find no fault with anything you said, CodaSammy, I'm just left with this feeling like ... maybe the most affected should make the rules? Of course I have no idea how to enforce that any better than the way things are right now. It starts to get into really unhelpful murky areas like trying to measure who has it worse and who is the most authoritative on a certain subject.

I really appreciate all the work done by all the mods in creating and maintaining this forum. I'm still vaguely unsatisfied but I can't come up with anything better.