Laura, I know you are going through some difficult things and I'm sorry for that. However, you were not attacked - you were gently told that your words hurt someone, regardless of your intent. At this point, it's your hurt feelings versus sj's right to speak up when a comment, however unintended, is harmful to her lived experiences as a disabled person. No one has said, nor does anyone think, you are a bad person. Whether you see it or not, you made a simple mistake. It happens. We all do it because we're all learning constantly. I will always believe the person in the marginalized group when they say something is harmful. And since the original comments are gone, we can't have a conversation over what was actually said and why it was harmful. Just something for us to think about moving forward.

And for anyone interested, this is a good overview of ableism. I'd like to highlight the "What are ablest micro-aggressions?" as this is where many of us struggle.

[link]

And while I'm here and in light of the fact we will not have a thread in which to discuss such things, I'd like to add the following. I think many of us have lost the plot in our hatred of 45 and need some reminders that he is not going to see what you say, but your friends in minority groups will. The last 4 years have been really horrible for all of us, but especially those of us in minority groups watching these sorts of convos happen among supposed friends and allies. There are plenty of despicable things to discuss in re: our current crop of "politicians" without resorting to fat-shaming, ableism, homophobia/transphobia. This is why we are passionate and upset. It's been going on for 4 years.

The following types of statements are offensive and harmful to LGBTQ folks.

"Oh, you just know that anti-gay person is in the closet."**

1. It is basically a slur against gays who are in the closet. People are closeted for many reasons, one being physical/emotional safety. Being in the closet fucking sucks. We don't need to hear supposed-allies making light of it.
2. It lumps in homophobes with actual gay people. Do not equate LGBTQ folks with their bigoted oppressors. Sometimes homophobes are gay, yes, but most of the time? Nope. Stereotypes are never a good look.
3. It is often made as some sort of "joke." Believe me, being gay, in the closet, or dealing with homophobia is no joke. Our lives are often on the line.
4. It is totally meant as an insult to the person they are saying it about. What is the "worst thing" you could say to a homophobe? "You're gay!" HahahahahahahahahaFuckYou.

"He'll get what he deserves when he becomes another guy's prison wife."**

1. Rape jokes? Really?
2. Equating homosexual sex acts with punishment is offensive as hell.

And since the original comments are gone, we can't have a conversation over what was actually said and why it was harmful.

I think this is worth talking about because I honestly don't know - on the one hand, deleting offensive posts prevents them from being read and causing more hurt. On the other hand, it prevents anyone who wasn't online at the time from being able to fully participate in the follow-up (I did not see the thread until half the conversation had been removed, and so while I *think* I understand what happened, I don't feel qualified to weigh in on comments I can't see).

Every single online group I'm in has a rule about "dirty deleting" as it erases the work that folks do to educate. That education and that work is important. I'm not saying this was an instance of "dirty" deleting, just using the term that is used in all of these groups.

Laura, sj did not object to you calling Trump a baby. She objected to the phrase "Diaper Don" noting that some disabled people needed to use adult diapers to function in the world, and it shouldn't be used as a short-hand for infantilization.

If you called Trump emotionally crippled, you wouldn't want to make an extended metaphor about his enablers as his crutch.

The conversations we've been having in Lightbulbs and in here make me feel like people aren't interested in learning or doing better by their minority friends. It reads like many of y'all want minorities to leave our "otherness" at the door to participate here. Like hurting people's feeling is either equal to or more important than ensuring a safe space for minorities. It is also painfully obvious who has been doing the work of educating themselves and who hasn't - 101 basics aren't recognized here, making it an unsafe place. Not everyone can know everything, but we can at least trust our minority friends when they tell us something is harmful. This experience has been illuminating.

I would like to see the original "guacamole" language that we had worked out.

We haven't needed it in a while, but have had to deal with people being hurt or offended in the past. We had come to a decision to have a way of addressing that in-thread that was short of formal censure. And we do have a process for those formal warnings, but the way we tried to address it in-thread was to foster a culture of good faith apologies within a community context.

Not everyone can know everything, but we can at least trust our minority friends when they tell us something is harmful.

I do trust sj's testimony and I did just validate her point.

I have never once intended to stomp on another person's foot. I have apologized more than once for stepping on people's feet inadvertently because I didn't notice they were there. I don't need to intend harm to cause it. And when I do so, it's appropriate for me to apologize. I don't think the occasional inadvertent step makes me a bad person.

I believe that someone willing to share that they've been harmed is sharing a vulnerability with a person they assume is acting in good faith. They are not attacking me, they are letting me know they believe I wouldn't deliberately cause them harm. They are giving me the opportunity to not stomp there again and repair the harm that I did. It doesn't feel good in the moment, but it is a gift of trust.