Just speaking as myself, not an admin, et cetera, you've seen this disclaimer before.
I am a fan of the current system. I have several reasons for this.
It is fair. Every reported instance of *-ist language is treated in the same way, more or less.
It is achievable. It uses tools and capabilities that the staff of this forum already have.
It is transparent. When a slur is used, that slur is left in place behind a TW tag and a note is made in the thread. All mod actions are visible to all forum participants. Mods cannot be accused of editing someone's thoughts or feelings or changing the meaning of their words. This also allows other users to see which word was problematic so they can avoid it too.
It requires no judgment. We cannot possibly know a user's intent, as intent is a squishy amorphous thing that lives in the brain of the user. As a forum, we assume good faith (it's in our rules and everything), so we treat user infractions as if they are honest mistakes.
When a slur is used, what matters is that a slur was used. The user's inner feelings don't matter. What they meant to say, or how they meant it to sound, also don't matter. We deal with the word itself, and we do it in a way that everyone can see. I'm not saying that the system is perfect, but it does deal with the problem in a way that prioritizes fairness, impartiality, and transparency and doesn't require the staff to read minds or treat users in bad faith.
Please read the rules, respect your fellow posters, and contact a member of staff if there's a problem.
One of the things that's bothering me is that covering up a word often makes it hard to understand the sentence. So either you can't keep reading, or you end up having to click on the word, and often the TW was no use at all in protecting you from it. I just end up finding it harder to read things *and* getting triggered. Like many people here, I have PTSD and have been a victim of hate crime.
Post discussing problematic language - has it been stickied?
Susannah wrote:One of the things that's bothering me is that covering up a word often makes it hard to understand the sentence. So either you can't keep reading, or you end up having to click on the word, and often the TW was no use at all in protecting you from it. I just end up finding it harder to read things *and* getting triggered. Like many people here, I have PTSD and have been a victim of hate crime.
Speaking just from my personal POV on this the goal for me is to try and find ways to explain what is under the TW without making the TW useless. That can be difficult and require some creative round-talk. Is there some way we can facilitate that process for everyone? A guide or resource on how to come up with useful descriptions?
Susannah wrote:Post discussing problematic language - has it been stickied?
This part, fixed. It can be found in the -ism forum and is now stickied.
Would it work if we put a non-problematic alternative in the TW? As so: (TW rabbit-ist language. Alternative: rabbit) bunny. (I don't know why I always default to using rabbits as my examples!)
If you're going to provide an alternate word outside the black box, why not simply replace the -ist word itself?
I think site users are frustrated with this issue because we can't (or at least I can't) imagine that casually racist or sexist language would be permitted, even under a TW, so why are the rules different for casual ableist language?
YES. I had to justify why this upset me earlier in this thread, and got called rude for doing so, and that felt like all kinds of wrong. Ableism isn't a joke. I live with it all the time, to the point where I've had my life put in danger more than once.
Not sure about replacing people's words, but certainly some further clarity would be appreciated.
salted_caramel wrote:I think site users are frustrated with this issue because we can't (or at least I can't) imagine that casually racist or sexist language would be permitted, even under a TW, so why are the rules different for casual ableist language?
Speaking only for myself, etc etc - I think any casually ignorant expression of bigotry would/should be put under a TW rather than deleted outright, for the same reasons. I seem to recall instances where, when we were phasing out the sexist slur in the Awkward phrase "bitch eating crackers", we put that sexist slur under a TW (as I did in that sentence).
There are plenty of slurs that would get deleted outright, but I don't think it's because those slurs are "worse" than others; it's because those slurs used in that context demonstrates intentional malice rather than ignorance. There's no way to call someone the sexist c-word in a casually ignorant "oh shit, I didn't realize" way; no possibility of labeling someone with the racist n-word without knowing exactly what damage you're causing.
It sucks and it is unfair to receive splash damage due to other people's ignorance - which I think is why we have all these rules to try and keep the learning process as splash-damage-free as possible, while still assuming good faith on all sides. If there are better ways to do that, I for one am listening with an open mind.
Twitter for chatting Tumblr for Star Wars and cats, mostly
Standard disclaimer, it's just me talking, et cetera. If I use 'we' or refer to the rest of the team, I'm talking about past actions that I was part of, or policies currently in place, but NOT the current feelings or future intentions of other team members. I hope this is acceptable.
-----
It is not that I think that ableism is less bad than sexism or racism. I have ADHD, and I'm on meds for it, so I experience people's ignorant, hurtful ideas about my condition, my medication, and my person pretty much every day. Sometimes I go home feeling pretty terrible about myself and the world and everyone in it. Today was one of those days, for what it's worth.
However, I acknowledge that a lot of people aren't aware of ableism, or aren't completely up-to-date about it, and so the potential for good-faith mistakes is a lot higher for ableism than it is with something like racism or sexism. As muse said, you can't 'accidentally' use the c-word or drop an n-bomb in 2014, but ableist slurs are still a part of the wider cultural vocabulary and some people still use them without stopping to consider what they mean or who is hurt by them. I think this is what the_oddest_sock is trying to get at -- you can't necessarily make that jump between "User used an ableist slur" and "User is an ableist bigot." When someone makes that assumption, it immediately ends discussion and destroys the chances that anyone will learn anything from the exchange.
Example time. Look at what happened when Paula Deen was accused of using the n-word. The discussion quickly shifted from "Paula Deen did or didn't use a racist word" to "Paula Deen is or isn't a racist." When the conversation stops being about actions and starts being about feelings or thoughts, you can't actually reach a productive conclusion. Nobody can say what's in someone else's head.
This is why our policy focuses only on "what User said/did" and not on "what User meant/thought." Except in super clear-cut cases, we can't tell the difference, so we came up with a policy that doesn't require us to. The offender could be a good person making an honest mistake, or they could be the President of the Society for the Promotion of Ableism trying to sneak one in under the radar. From a moderation perspective, it doesn't matter.
This forum deals with a lot of social justice topics, but it isn't a social justice forum, so some members won't yet know that certain words are hurtful. That's why we have the 101 Space. That's also why we currently leave slurs in place under TW tags -- because someone reading along at home might see the exchange and learn something.
Assuming good faith doesn't meant allowing people to continue making the same mistake over and over again at the expense of others. If someone demonstrates a pattern of using hurtful language, knowingly OR unknowingly, after being asked to stop, they are outside the bounds of good faith. But because this community is largely supportive, careful, and caring, that hasn't happened yet.
Please read the rules, respect your fellow posters, and contact a member of staff if there's a problem.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at, thank you. :)
In case rambling more helps, the way I see it, people who use ~ist language generally fall into one of three groups: 1) those who know but want to use/ don't care about the harmful nuances against others, 2) those unaware of the harmful nuances and 3) those who are aware of the harmful nuances because they are the target of them but who wish to reclaim/ defang/ create pride behind the words.
The first group are fucknuggets.
The second group are Schroedinger's fucknugget, only time will tell, but that group may also include people targeted by the words who haven't read up on why exactly they're slurs (esp with ableism, I think? since the vocabulary wielded against people with developmental disabilities is different to those used against people with physical disabilities vs those with mood/attention/memory issues vs invisible disabilities vs neurodiversity ah the list it goes on, so a person in any one group may not examine slurs used against another group as carefully as they maybe should, even though the root oppression is the same or similar).
As for the third group (the reclaimers), I think they get to decide how they feel about the words aimed against them.
Treating all three groups like they MUST be from the first group if they use ~ist language, without acknowledging their different relationships to the harm caused, is problematic.
I mean, sure, it would be preferable if no one used any ~ist language, although better still if no one believed the ~ist concepts underpinning the formulation and continued use of those words. And that's the ultimate goal here.
Trigger warning a problematic word as we currently do is a warning to those who would be unkind that such behaviour is not tolerated here. It signals to those who are unaware that there is something here to be learned. And it leaves people who wish to reclaim/ have a complex relationship with certain words the agency to use them without their right to use those words being audited. All the while, protecting those who are triggered by those words from having to see and be triggered by them.
Is it a universal solution that ought to be upheld in every online space? Hell no. But it does nicely for here, in Awkwardspace.
Tl,Dr; trigger warnings, I like 'em.
ETA: removed the word "fuckhead" as in my word-nerd roamings I discovered it apparently a) is an actual term and b) has ableist connotations. ~The more you know.~
Last edited by the_oddest_sock on Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
