Ableist slurs

Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
edited October 16 in The Styx
@Doublethink on the Purg NI thread you mentioned this, not mentioning me, after my comment. Is that because I used 'footsoldiers'?

AH! Possibly a reiteration of edit of @Dave W's post?
«1

Comments

  • In this case, the slur was in an earlier post which had been edited to use the hidden text feature to remove it from view, a derogatory term relating to mental health, one of several many of us would have heard in the school playground to insult others. Casual use of terms that many have experienced as part of the abuse they've received is not something we want to see here, our discussions can be better than that.

    @Doublethink post related to that, not to your post that immediately preceded hers.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    I can confirm that.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    To avoid committing future infractions of Ship's policies, may I ask if the use of the word
    crazy
    is similarly deprecated?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 16
    I think that would depend on the context, essentially, something is a slur when it is commonly used as an insult and gains its insulting quality from associating you with a devalued or stigmatised group.

    Crazy paving, for example, would be difficult to read as a mental health reference whilst fuckwit, references no essential quality of someone's personhood but is obviously insulting - so it's not an ableist/sexist/etcetraist slur.

    (This is basically an outworking of C1.)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Thanks, but "crazy paving" is not particularly helpful as an example of acceptable usage, as that doesn't seem to be the context in which the word is frequently used here.

    Are usages like this considered acceptable?

    I don't understand how "fuckwit" passes muster - doesn't imply a condition of intellectual disability in the same way that many banned terms do?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    I wouldn’t have thought so, in my head it translates to “unpleasant person” but your mileage may vary. Whereas
    mong
    very clearly does. I don’t think we can produce, or would wish to, an exhaustive list of abusive terminology with an added list of edge cases.

    I spoiler tagged terms in purg and here that, I would argue, are fairly unambiguous. You presumably would accept that
    nut job
    is an offensive term for someone with a mental health problem (if not what did you think it meant ?) and
    piccaninny
    is usually considered an offensive term for a black child ?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited October 16
    I didn't ask for "an exhaustive list of abusive terminology with an added list of edge cases", I asked about the use of one particular word, giving actual specific examples from Ship - from Epiphanies, no less.

    If you're not willing to engage with my questions about that, then this discussion of Ship's policy seems pretty pointless. Under these circumstances I don't feel any particular obligation to start answering questions about my opinions.
  • edited October 16
    You gave an example from more than 2y ago, in the context of developing policy on the Ship. What's more, it's a post that pre-dates Epiphanies (and hence, technically your specific example was from Dead Horses not Epiphanies) in a discussion that was one of several demonstrating the issues that Epiphanies was created to address.

    In most situations (if not all) there's no need to use a term that's recognised as derogatory or offensive - whether that's ableist, racist, misogynistic or anything else. These terms rarely (if ever) contribute to the quality of discussion. How about just trying to find non-offensive terms when composing your arguments?
  • @Doublethink what would you think of
    nutjob
    as referring to someone who makes foolish choices, or says goofy things because they are a class clown kind of personality? Is this ableist?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited October 16
    How about just trying to find non-offensive terms when composing your arguments?
    I’m trying to find out whether or not that is an offensive term. How about just trying to answer my question about Ship’s policy?

    This is not a hypothetical question. I use that word frequently, in the same manner in which it was used in the post I quoted. I'd like to know if that is unacceptable under current policy. I don't see why it's so hard to get an answer - or would you prefer that I just use it and find out the hard way?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 16
    mousethief wrote: »
    @Doublethink what would you think of
    nutjob
    as referring to someone who makes foolish choices, or says goofy things because they are a class clown kind of personality? Is this ableist?

    This will be my last response on this thread - but here is a dictionary definition re your specific query, and here is a dictionary definition showing how the word that David W is asking about has different definitions depending on context https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crazy .

    (ETA for completeness: here is a definition of fuckwit https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fuckwit .)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    This will be my last response on this thread
    Well, that's just great. We're regularly admonished that Styx is the place to discuss or ask questions about Ship's policy - and you won't discuss it here, either.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    @Doublethink what would you think of
    nutjob
    as referring to someone who makes foolish choices, or says goofy things because they are a class clown kind of personality? Is this ableist?

    For myself, I take it as one of those phrases that originated as a slang term for someone with a psychiatric illness, but is now often(though not exclusively) used with that meaning forgotten, to mean something like "person who has adopted irrational beliefs".

    Probably quite analagous to the way people will say "Oh my God", without it really being blasphemous, as they're not actually thinking about the Deity when they say it.

    (This is not intended as a comment either way on whether any particular term should be allowed on the Ship.)
  • Dave W wrote: »
    How about just trying to find non-offensive terms when composing your arguments?
    I’m trying to find out whether or not that is an offensive term.
    When dictionaries put "usually offensive" at the start of their definition of a term then take that as a cue that it would be better to find an alternative word or phrase. @Doublethink has just posted a link to such a dictionary definition for the word you raised.

    Oh, and yes the Styx is the place to ask questions about Ship's policy. That doesn't mean that the volunteers who give their time hosting these forums need to spend that time answering the same question when they think it's been answered clearly enough.

    Here's the summary:
    1. If there's a word or phrase regularly used to abuse others or generally considered offensive then find a different way to express what you want to say.
    2. If a word or phrase is used which a host comes along and asks people not to use because it's regularly used to abuse others or generally considered offensive, and none of us know all such words and phrases so it'll happen occasionally, then just stop using that word or phrase - we've regularly seen threads in Purgatory where that has lead to a substantial "but it's no offensive here" tangent that a) derails the subject of the thread and b) is irrelevant if it's offensive somewhere that people might be when reading that thread.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    How about just trying to find non-offensive terms when composing your arguments?
    I’m trying to find out whether or not that is an offensive term.
    When dictionaries put "usually offensive" at the start of their definition of a term then take that as a cue that it would be better to find an alternative word or phrase. @Doublethink has just posted a link to such a dictionary definition for the word you raised.
    That note applied to one particular usage, not the one that is usually employed. Doublethink seems to think the multiplicity of meanings for fuckwit makes that word OK to use, but I suppose "your mileage may vary".
    Oh, and yes the Styx is the place to ask questions about Ship's policy. That doesn't mean that the volunteers who give their time hosting these forums need to spend that time answering the same question when they think it's been answered clearly enough.
    Of course; I understand you've given your final summary and won't expect any further replies. I'll note, though, that it would have taken a lot less time to give a direct answer to my one question about one single word - not an exhaustive list, not a tiresome bunch of "edge cases", but one goddamn word. I am perplexed by your inability or unwillingness to address that question, especially since it is about a word that is frequently used on the Ship in a way which appears to be in violation of the policy (although, really, who could possibly know?)

    As I mentioned above, I use that term frequently in describing things and/or people that I think don't make sense. I don't know if this will be too objectionable, but you've confirmed that this is the place to discuss Ship's policy, and since I can't seem to find out any other way, I'll just note that I think your policy of not providing direct answers to simple questions about your policies is (avert your eyes! or maybe this is OK? who knows?)
    crazy
    .
  • How is that respecting the Ship's crew, @Dave W ?

    You asked a question - you got an answer. It might not be the answer you wanted, but to say that an answer was not given is an affront to our ability to read. We're not going to waste our time here with nitpicking vexatious follow-ons.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I don't believe I've been disrespectful; if you're requesting and/or requiring that I acknowledge that I have been, or render an apology, please let me know.

    I asked a question and received a response but not an answer, and I think those with the ability to read will be able to notice the distinct absence of same. I certainly don't think that after reading this thread anyone would be justified in being confident that they knew whether the answer was "yes" or "no".
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Call me preposterous, but I'm pretty sure it was clearly described that context matters. In this context, you are badgering - which is functionally disrespectful, and a Commandment 6 breach.

    Your unwillingness to accept the answer given, or generally deal with the imprecise nature of reality, has passed far beyond the realms of "Ship's business" and onto "your therapists' nightmare burden".

    It is well-understood that you dislike the existence of Epiphanies, and the nature of some of the protocols we're trying to enact on the Ship in general. And that's fine. They're not being done with the intent of being easy and pleasant for people privileged enough to get wound up online about being able regularly sprinkle the word "crazy" into their lexicon. Your ongoing parade of hunting for issues to snipe about is getting tiresome though. Which seems like a waste for one of our cleverer Shipmates, when instead you could be suggesting ways we could actually do this "posting better" thing... better.

    Please don't hunt for an argument to say that "we still haven't answered your question". Instead, maybe reflect on why you don't like the answer if you want to keep posting on this thread.

    Thanks in advance.

    -RooK
    Styx Host
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Your unwillingness to accept the answer given, or generally deal with the imprecise nature of reality, has passed far beyond the realms of "Ship's business" and onto "your therapists' nightmare burden".

    What does the last phrase mean?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Styx threads seem to be following the same pattern of behaviour. If RooK's comments to Dave W were spoken bt a Shipmate that individual would be censured. I am sure I will once again be branded an ill-mannered troublemaker for pointing out this flaw in the way the powers that be approach Styx threads. So be it.
  • Yes, "your therapist's nightmare burden" seems at least as offensive as what @Dave W posted. And more deliberately aimed to insult mental health.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited October 17
    You presumably would accept that
    nut job
    is an offensive term for someone with a mental health problem (if not what did you think it meant ?)

    I have never associated that phrase, or
    "nuttiness"
    in general, with mental health issues. I've invariably associated it with "unusual" beliefs with no foundation in rationality or reality. Political extremists, perhaps, or those who believe in magic crystal energy. Cranks. About 50% of everything for sale in Glastonbury.

    Is having foolish or nonsensical ideas a mental health issue? In the general case, I would say not. I don't think all the believers in homeopathy and similar magic woo are mentally ill.

    It's possible, of course, that a set of irrational or nonsensical opinions are a consequence of mental illness, but the usual case is that people who believe whatever piece of farfetched nonsense have mental health within the normal range.

    Mental health resides in the head. Stupid, irrational, or otherwise foolish ideas also reside in the head. Is calling someone
    "wrong in the head"
    a jibe at their mental health, or at the absurdity of their thought processes or irrationality of their ideas? It could be either, couldn't it?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Your unwillingness to accept the answer given, or generally deal with the imprecise nature of reality, has passed far beyond the realms of "Ship's business" and onto "your therapists' nightmare burden".

    What does the last phrase mean?

    It means that I expressed in an unkind way that I think @Dave W has a lot of difficult work to do with respect to cudgelling people with rhetoric based some internal drive unrelated to external circumstances. Moreover (and unknowably outwith), I think I recognize it because I'm also failing to make much progress with my own version of it.
    Caissa wrote: »
    Styx threads seem to be following the same pattern of behaviour.

    Oh look who it is. Saying... the exact same thing as always. What you could have said is, "I think RooK was offensive and should apologize". Because that's probably right.

    @Dave W , I apologize for that shadow-boxing bullshit swipe. It was unproductive, and I'll try to relate more compassionately instead of combatively.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Thank you for that apology, Rook.

    I think Epiphanies is an interesting and worthwhile project. I believe this is the first time I've ventured an opinion about that board, so I'm really quite surprised to find that "It is well-understood that [ I] dislike the existence of Epiphanies". I've posted a few times on threads there (uncontroversially, I think) but the two disagreements about hosting that I've had recently have been about Purgatory.

    In both cases, I've had the distinct impression that my postings here in Styx have been interpreted in the least generous spirit possible. In the last one, my behavior was presumptuous and a sly attempt to probe the boundaries of minimally acceptable casual racism; now I am vexatious and badgering (and apparently have a lot of difficult work to do on learning to deal with my internal drives or something - by the way, I don't think there's a kind way to convey that sort of opinion to someone who isn't at least a close friend, relative, or patient.)

    Naturally I don't see things this way, so what we have here is a failure to communicate. This situation is frustrating for me, and I suspect it is for the hosts and admins also - who, I recognize, are volunteers who have contributed a lot more to Ship of Fools, and have a lot more invested in it, than I do, and who probably resent being criticized for their trouble. So I think it's probably best that I stop trying to protest my good faith and take a break from posting for a while, in the interest of reducing the level of frustration on both sides.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I sometimes read comments on another site where the R-word is liberally scattered, usually to describe badly designed IT systems. I find it really grating and I appreciate the Hosts here seeking to clamp down on that sort of thing.

    However ...

    It does seem to me that it would be a hosting nightmare to police ableist language without explicit guidelines on what constitutes ableist - even if those guidelines end up as arbitrary lines in the sand. And this is because I think reasonable people of goodwill can disagree on what language is ableist in a way they can't with racist language.

    A racist term always implies 'membership of this ethnic group is a bad thing', and the opinion 'membership of this ethnic group is a bad thing' is by definition racist. So there is no interpretation of the use of racist language that isn't racist.

    However, disabilities or mental health conditions may genuinely be bad, in the sense of unpleasant. And therefore, to say that such-and-such a thing is [mental-health-related comment] is to compare it to something that may, in an objective sense, be true, in a way that 'membership of this ethnic group is a bad thing' is not true.

    For example: you don't have to look far on the Brexit or Covid discussions before the UK government's position is described as 'madness'. Which, on the face of it, is a clear slur based on mental health conditions. But it is nevertheless objectively the case that certain manifestations of poor mental health lead to a gap between perception and reality, and the point of the 'madness' metaphor is to suggest that the government's grasp of reality is similarly impaired.

    I feel 'madness' in this sense is different from the use of R-word but I am not sure I can 100% articulate why.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I feel 'madness' in this sense is different from the use of R-word but I am not sure I can 100% articulate why.

    You make some great points, and I personally agree that it's difficult to corral. In the particular case of R-word versus madness, I think there is a difference of ableist slur because the former can only exist as a fundamental description of a person's capability, while madness can also be a temporary or circumstantial state of a person or idea.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I feel 'madness' in this sense is different from the use of R-word but I am not sure I can 100% articulate why.

    You make some great points, and I personally agree that it's difficult to corral. In the particular case of R-word versus madness, I think there is a difference of ableist slur because the former can only exist as a fundamental description of a person's capability, while madness can also be a temporary or circumstantial state of a person or idea.

    I'm not sure it's that. Is it because "mad" hasn't been a diagnostic criterion for a lot longer than the R-word? Hence the R-word is more offensive than e.g. 'cretin' or 'moron'? One might also compare the offensiveness of
    spastic
    over 'imbecile' - both terms where a description of physical disability has become an insult implying stupidity, but over different timescales.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 20
    Whilst many terms have ableist routes, I think using slang for a diagnosis as an insult - he is a "..." is fairly unambiguous. Likewise, "if you think x you must have condition y" - which implies, regardless of the term used, that "only" a person with condition y could possibly think such an outrageous/uncivilised/stupid thing.

    Mad is doubly ambiguous because it is a synonym for anger in American English - and in British English has a secondary meaning of wild or irrational, and more recently has started to mean exciting as language evolves. But,
    nut job / retard / schizo
    are in no way edge cases for normal use adjectives.

    I think what we are trying to to do is apply similar standards to ablist insults, to those we would apply for any other identity slur. There will always be grey areas and we are all at risk for falling into unfortunate habits of speech that we pick up from the discourse around us; but we should at least try to avoid that, and modify them when we and others notice.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I was truly surprised at the dictionary definition of
    nut job
    because I have only ever heard it used and used it myself as a pejorative for someone seen as wrong in an extreme way. My boyfriend, who has spent most of his life on the other side of the country, said the same thing, so it's not just me, and possibly not just regional. I would not have hesitated to use it on the Ship without a spoiler tag for people who thought Brexit would be a good idea, people who voted for Trump, people who had the city of Long Beach buy the Queen Mary in 1967.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I was truly surprised at the dictionary definition of
    nut job
    because I have only ever heard it used and used it myself as a pejorative for someone seen as wrong in an extreme way. My boyfriend, who has spent most of his life on the other side of the country, said the same thing, so it's not just me, and possibly not just regional. I would not have hesitated to use it on the Ship without a spoiler tag for people who thought Brexit would be a good idea, people who voted for Trump, people who had the city of Long Beach buy the Queen Mary in 1967.
    Or to use the example in the Merriam-Webster definition linked above, people who buy into QAnon or other conspiracy theories. Perhaps I’m naive or ignorant, but it never would have occurred to me that it has any mental health connotations or associations, because that’s just not how I hear it used, or how I use it myself. In my experience, it’s more akin to
    oddball or flake (definition 4).
    (Hide function used out of an abundance of caution.)

    I don’t think it’s regional, but perhaps there is a Pond Difference at play.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 20
    You may be right that there is a difference between American and British usage, but that takes us back to the issues of a global board and grey areas really. Hidden text is not a disaster, and doesn't stop your posts being readable. We discover in dialogue with posters across the world, different inferences of our common language. Over the years I have become much more careful of my use of the word
    cunt
    - I have come to appreciate how much it upset some female posters, especially Americans. As it doesn't seem to occur in the same variety of contexts in the USA as it does in the UK. It took me some years to really get my head around that, nobody gets this stuff right all the time.
  • Words like
    nutter and fruitcake
    have to me always indicated people with irrational, rather far-fetched ideas (rather like @Ruth describes above).

    But the thing about irrational behaviour and bizarre opinions is that they might be the result of a mental health condition, and they might not. In general I don't think those who believe in magic crystal woo, QAnon, or whatever else are mentally ill, but their opinions are not grounded in reality.

    I suspect that it's not possible to describe this sort of nonsense belief with any kind of perjorative that couldn't be interpreted as a mental health slur by someone.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 20
    One solution would be just to describe it - "their opinions are not grounded in reality".

    Or you can use a different kind of pejorative, e.g Qanon spouts hatefilled garbage. He is the human equivalent of flat coke. That argument is literally nonsense. That argument is illogical and lacks compassion. My stepdad was a burning bag of dogshit of a person etc etc

    (Full disclosure: I do not have a step-father)
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Working with students with disabilities, I am really appreciating this discussion and people wrestling with ableist language.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Calling someone a nutjob is bad, but calling them a burning bag of dogshit is okay? Yeah, right.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    Insulting people generally is usually not a great idea I grant you, but if my mythical stepdad was an abuser through my childhood I may wish to do that. But not by saying I hate you that must be because you are the equivalent of a member of this marginalised group of people.
  • You may be right that there is a difference between American and British usage, but that takes us back to the issues of a global board and grey areas really.
    Sure, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Just highlighting that those global board issues lie behind why it might not initially occur to some posters that particular words or expressions—such as both the one I mentioned and the one you mentioned—might be read or heard differently by shipmates elsewhere in the world, and why those posters might be surprised and even caught off guard if they’re told they’ve used inappropriate language. There can be a learning curve involved, like the one you describe.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Nutjobs aren't marginalized -- all too often they're in charge.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited October 20
    People with mental health problems are, so using slurs that indicate them is an issue.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    When I call some people assholes, my husband has a habit of replying "assholes are at least useful." Using poor mental health as an insult for certain levels of crappy human is an insult to those with poor mental health. Comparing people to burning bags of dogshit is probably safely not an insult to the shit. (Though that sounds like it could be a circus game.)
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    edited October 20
    Where I live, "nutjob" doesn't indicate someone with a mental health issue.

    @Doublethink: It took you years to wrap your head around the notion that "cunt" is a vile slur in the US, so maybe have some patience.
  • Recently, @Bullfrog mentioned that he didn't use the word
    idiot
    because of its historic use to describe people with significant learning disabilities, but also accepted that his aversion to the word wasn't terribly common, and that word was in general widespread use without that particular connotation.
    One solution would be just to describe it - "their opinions are not grounded in reality".
    Sure - but people generally want to apply labels rather than a paragraph of description, because that's how language works. The open question seems to be whether there exist any labels that can describe such people that can't be interpreted somewhere on the planet as a mental health slur, and I'm suspecting that the answer might be "no".
    Or you can use a different kind of pejorative, e.g Qanon spouts hatefilled garbage. He is the human equivalent of flat coke.

    Sure, but those say something different. QAnon does spout hatefilled garbage, but it's also irrational nonsense with no connection to reality. The irrationality and the hatefilled garbageness are mostly orthogonal.

    (There are plenty of hatefilled garbage sacks in human form that are also perfectly rational - they're just selfish, or ignorant, or stupid. Similarly I know some lovely kind-hearted people who will happily believe anything you like as long as it's outside the mainstream. Homeopathy, magic crystals, tarot cards, dragons of unhappiness, and bonus marks for whatever syncretic shamanist practices they can dredge up from somewhere.)

  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited October 20
    Caissa wrote: »
    Working with students with disabilities, I am really appreciating this discussion and people wrestling with ableist language.
    Yes, same here.

    Personally, as someone with bipolar disorder, I really don't care about almost any of the words discussed in relation to mental health except the hidden one which refers to a specific mental state/illness (begins with S, sorry haven't worked out brackets). The words often associated with learning disabilities are a different matter as they are usually words that have once had a specific medical meaning. I'm with KarlLB's reasoning on this in relation to diagnostic names.
    But obviously I do not speak for all people with mental illness.
    Mental health resides in the head. Stupid, irrational, or otherwise foolish ideas also reside in the head. Is calling someone
    "wrong in the head"
    a jibe at their mental health, or at the absurdity of their thought processes or irrationality of their ideas? It could be either, couldn't it?
    Actually, I don't like that one, possibly because it is one that is commonly used to describe people with mental health disorders.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited October 20
    Mental health resides in the head. Stupid, irrational, or otherwise foolish ideas also reside in the head. Is calling someone
    "wrong in the head"
    a jibe at their mental health, or at the absurdity of their thought processes or irrationality of their ideas? It could be either, couldn't it?
    Actually, I don't like that one, possibly because it is one that is commonly used to describe people with mental health disorders.

    I think that's my point - because mental health conditions can sometimes cause irrational behaviour, then any slangy jibe at someone's irrational behaviour can look like a jibe at their mental health.

    My associations of
    "wrong in the head"
    are more with people who could be called perverts or sickos, rather than with the mentally ill, but clearly yours are different.

    (To do the hidden text thing, write [spoiler] hidden text [/spoiler].)
  • PatdysPatdys Shipmate
    Do we all need to enact Commandment 5 just a little more?
    Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended
    Perhaps if we generally view other posts with goodwill, our lens might shift a little.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 20
    Patdys wrote: »
    Do we all need to enact Commandment 5 just a little more?
    Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended
    Perhaps if we generally view other posts with goodwill, our lens might shift a little.

    Up to a point. Though "don't be easily offended" is easier to say when you're not in the group villified by the use of a term associated with your disability as an insult.

    Or, check your privilege.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited October 20
    Ruth wrote: »
    [...] patience.

    This is a good point that I'd like flag. The point of the hidden-text modality is not necessarily a harsh reprimand or censure. What we're hoping it allows are:
    • a reduction in potential distress for some
    • an informative (amateur/volunteer) feedback about posting that can be hopefully be done in a different way to make the same point with compassion
    • allowing the original text to be kept intact such that any issues in interpretation can be reflected on [in the Styx]

    Nobody expects this kind of transformation to be quick, and it's really more about being directional. Many of us are intrinsically connected to our modes of communication, and changing some of the related habits is hard. I know I have a really fucking long way to go (obviously). We're all in this together, hopefully helping each other out - with feedback both ways.
  • If someone tells me that some people affected by mental health conditions or atypical neurology find the use of a particular word or phrase disturbing then that's more than enough reason to find an alternative way to express what I want to say. That I personally don't find it upsetting, that where I live and the people I know that is used without intending offense etc doesn't negate the experience of others that that word or phrase is one that they associate with verbal attacks on them and would prefer not to see.

    Which is the longer version of:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or, check your privilege.
  • PatdysPatdys Shipmate
    And this is actually my point - all it should need is a simple please don’t on the thread in question and move on? Not doubling down. And this may be naively optimistic. Let me think on it a bit more, I may not be capturing what I am trying to say.
  • This really is simpler than it seems to be up-thread. We are all different and what is normal to one person is not to another. So if I use a word or phrase that many people find offensive or wrong then it is easy to not use it again in a written forum where I can review my text before hitting post. In fact it will be a learning experience for me to be challenged in this way and that is why I love the Ship.
Sign In or Register to comment.