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.

(Trying to catch up)

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

Do you mean this?

1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful, 2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action. 3. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour. 4. As soon as the request for action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.

Warnings will be in effect for four months. After four months, the slate is wiped clean.

A Warning will be notified over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy. A Suspension will be notified over email and in Bureaucracy. A Ban will be notified by email and in Press.

(From when we voted about it, in [link] )

Also, Glam, the reason I'm asking for the original guacamole language is that it does ask for a community response to an offense. That is, if somebody raises an objection and the original poster does not apologize, the people who are present in-thread have a responsibility to say, "Hey, you need to address this." That there is a community responsibility and accountability when somebody raises an objection.

That is actually the preceding step before warnings. That somebody ignored or did not respond to an objection in good faith.

Do you mean this?

It's actually the stuff that relates to step 1. The "how-to" address complaints in-thread.

Laura, sj did not object to you calling Trump a baby. She objected to the phrase "Diaper Don"

An expression I have never used. If I had I would have apologized, as Katie did when it was pointed out. All I said was that I thought the floats and so forth were depicting him as a baby because of his behavior. Assuming all people using the expression interpreted it the same as me was flawed. I didn't suggest that it was a phrase I intended to use, just that I didn't know that some people used it in that manner. I almost never go to Twitter, and the more I know the less I expect to go there. I don't need any more rage. I still expect most people consider the baby depictions to be referring to his behavior, but then again I tend to think the best of people.

I'm sorry I deleted the posts. It was an attempt to defuse. It didn't work.

David, my comments aren't a response to any one comment.