TW tags and bad language: A Discussion

[CodaSammy]

Talking just on my own behalf!

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.

[salted_caramel]

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.

[sullieseeburg]

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.

[CodaSammy]

Eglantine, we tend to steer clear of PMs as we like to keep our modding public and transparent. A PM and a post is also extra work. We could just post in the thread asking the user to change it? It does mean it could stay there quite a long time until the user logs back in, though.

I like what people are saying about the distinction between referring to -ist language and actually using -ist language. I agree that that sounds like a good one, but I'm still just talking for myself and haven't discussed it with the team.

[Flightless]

I actually loved how it played out in that one thread -- OP received a mod note adding a trigger warning, but by the time I got to the thread, OP had apologized and edited the ableist word out. The mod comment was still there, so if we had seen it pre-edit, we'd know what happened -- and for me, it was a friendly little reminder (I still have trouble with my own childhood colloquial bad-words sometimes so I appreciate the reminders).

[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.

[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)."

[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.

[M.J.]

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?

Post discussing problematic language - has it been stickied?

This part, fixed. It can be found in the -ism forum and is now stickied.