By request, this thread is to discuss how the mods deal with ableist language on the board. I used the phrase "bad language" in the thread title because while the original request was about ableist language, the same policies apply to any -ist langauge.
In another thread, Susannah wrote:
TheR.J., could I use this opportunity to ask you more about this policy? I find it rather bothersome that ableist slurs are just put behind TW tags, rather than people being asked to stop using ableist language. I've seen this particular situation happen several times by now. Apart from that it's great, and I'm really glad you're aware of this problem.
This post is to open the thread for discussion. All are welcome to share their thoughts and opinions; the Mod team will be reading them, discussing them, and taking them into account so that we can better serve the needs of our users!
When I am wearing my mod hat, it's official business. Otherwise? Nothing special. :)
"Man sieht nur mit dem herzen gut." The Little Prince
"...Dzīvi jāņem smejot.
Tik, cik tā iemirdzas. Kā garāmejot.” Imants Ziedonis
Please Note: In this post, I am speaking only as an individual. I am not speaking for other mods, or on behalf of the Mod/Admin team. I reference some policies we have agreed upon as a group, with the approval and/or input of the board users, but opinions and reasons are mine alone. Other people do different things.
Speaking just for myself, and not for any of the other mods, my awareness of the need for a change- whether an edit, a trigger warning, or whatever- usually starts with the post being flagged by a user who's asking for an edit. It might be their own post, that they realize has a problematic phrase in it, or somebody else's post, which contains a phrase that makes them cringe. And I would say that most of the time the phrasing is "Can you put a trigger warning on such-and-such a phrase?"
And honestly, that's the main reason I put trigger warnings in. When they're the solution somebody explicitly asks for, I just go with what the user requested. That's definitely playing the short game, though.
The other reason I don't just change phrasings without discussion is that the Mod team has said, from the beginning, that when we make edits or add trigger warnings, our goal is to change the original content as little as possible. To me, that means that on the upside, nobody's words go missing and the meaning never changes without the author's input and consent. On the downside, if somebody says something that came out rude, or that they regret later, that thing is still there. (We made edits to users way, way more possible in order to help avoid this.)
I've also been thinking of trigger warnings added by another person as a heads-up that a phrasing wasn't acceptable in this setting. But, there again, is that explicit enough? To me, with my personality, it totally would be. So that's kind of what I have in mind when I add them- that if it were me, that would be enough of a head's up.
Okay- so that's what goes through my mind. (And not anybody else's! The other mods and admins had nothing to do with the writing of this post and do not necessarily endorse or agree with a single word!) What has everyone else seen, and what do you all think about it?
When I am wearing my mod hat, it's official business. Otherwise? Nothing special. :)
"Man sieht nur mit dem herzen gut." The Little Prince
"...Dzīvi jāņem smejot.
Tik, cik tā iemirdzas. Kā garāmejot.” Imants Ziedonis
Hi! I'm also doing the speaking as an individual thing, and again I haven't checked this with anyone else or anything: this is just me talking.
Like RJ says, a lot of the reason that I don't physically change the word people use is for the sake of transparency. If there's a moderator posting in thread saying 'user x, you've used some ableist language there. I've TWed it, please be more thoughtful next time' I think it's helpful for people to be able to check what the word was and realise that word isn't ok. I've had to do a ton of learning around this in the recent past (and I've got so much more to do) and I personally find that helpful.
But you're totally right, Susannah, the downside of that policy is that it leaves ableist language out there. Because of this being a learning sort of space, I've been ok with that (personally, and I'd like to note I'm really aware how much privilege I have here). However, I'd love to hear other options or points of view!
I wasn't so much thinking of getting you to change the terms, as to make a point of commenting in addition to ask the poster to stop using ableist language. Otherwise it has a slight flavour of "we're covering this up so that fragile flowers don't get offended, but we don't really think it's all that bad," which I'm sure isn't what you mean at all.
Are there any terms you would remove? Are the policies different depending on how bad the word is?
I think my intention is also to always post and explain why. But, sometimes, I've probably been lazy and just added the TWs with the assumption that the user will see that they used inappropriate language and do better in future. I see now that that can convey completely the wrong message! I'll do better in future.
I think, yeah, there is some stuff I would probably delete immediately rather than TWing. So, I guess, that says something about how I view certain ""ism"s in relation to each other - and that's not good, and something I need to think about.
Well, I do think that some words are more offensive than others, but that's probably something that's tricky to arrive at a consensus on. Anyway, with some words, many people aren't aware that they're slurs. I had to explain to my partner what the medical meaning of "lame" is, and he's a successful playwright, he's good with words.
I think context matters a lot. There have been posts that included a slur because it illustrated a point. Totally made up example: "My manipulative ex kept calling me 'crazy' and I started to believe it." Or, in a non-ableist example, "I wouldn't give the guy my number and he called me a stuck-up bitch." To me, those uses should be allowed with trigger warnings, because the writer is sharing a lived experience.
But in the same way we don't call someone a bitch eating crackers on this site, I would be comfortable with the mods doing judicious editing to change something like "lame excuse" to "crummy excuse" in a post, with the reason for the change marked at the bottom as "Edited for... because...". Those are cases where the person probably isn't aware that they're using a slur, so yay teachable moment. But when that "bad word" is just being used as vernacular, and isn't important to understanding the writer's experience, perhaps it should be removed.
Mods, I know that creates a lot of work and gray-area-interpreting for you. Just wanted to throw it out there.
Maybe there could be a warning/strike system? So the first time someone uses a slur (and not in the context of reporting on something said to that person) they get a warning, an explanation, and a TW bar, but the second time, maybe the post gets closed or removed, and the OP gets a chance to re-do it in 24 hours with better language.
I will admit I have not been paying super close attention, and I would hope we don't have too many serial-slur-users around here.
I wouldn't want a formal strike system, because a lot of this stuff is embedded in colloquial language and it takes some doing to root it all out. I want people who are serious about learning to do better to feel safe here as they practice doing better.
That being said, if someone isn't actually doing better over time, well, it may be time to part ways.
I like salted_caramel's suggestion, assuming the mods were okay with that.
