people not just her and KB ever means the diaper comments to be ableist

Honestly, even if that were true (and it's not), it's still harmful and still needed to be addressed. This is one of those times in which if you're not a part of the community calling it out, you don't get an "opinion." It is not okay for someone who is not disabled to tell a disabled person that they shouldn't take offense or call it out because it wasn't meant that way. That is when you say, "I'm so sorry. I didn't think about it like that. Thank you for letting me know." (And obviously this comment isn't for you, sj, as none of this is new information. Just clarifying for the conversation.)

I had to step away for a few days, celebrate my sister's birthday online with her on Tues., take a hike (literally) yesterday. The excerpts below stand out to me. I feel all the wordiness itself accreting in a massive blizzard makes it all more difficult. Sorry to add to it.

> Glamcookie: We can't let it go - that's the problem here. We can "let it go" in terms of the call out and discussion, but it will fester in us and we will not forget how these convos go because they have consequences for us. These convos let us know who is safe and who is not, and that is so painful when it's our friends.

> Atropa: I’m going to be very blunt: we will not be the exception to the usual in this. Because no matter how good our intentions, no matter how safe and welcoming we want this space to be, people can never be perfect, and no one will ever 100% agree on context and intent.

> Glamcookie: I am past the point in my life where I feel like I'm going to just smile and ignore something that I find hurtful, especially around people who I consider to be friends.

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

> Laura: An expression I have never used. If I had I would have apologized, as Katie did when it was pointed out.

>Topic!Cindy: Hec, Laura never used "Diaper Don." Katerina Bee did, BUT people responded under the assumption that KB didn't mean to be ableist when she said it, either.

> Laura: I apologize if my comments felt dismissive. That was certainly not my intent, as I would never dismiss your feelings and never want you to feel hurt. I was trying to return the thread to being lighthearted and failed quite spectacularly.

> Trudy Booth: Call out is the term that has been being used for a while now and it’s accurate.

> Trudy Booth: One of the things that makes it less of a conversation is the piling on phenomenon - which has caused us problems before. Even if everyone is being measured and thoughtful in their comments, after ten or twenty of them the aggregate is pretty aggressive.

> t- Laura and Katie were not driven away with pitchforks and torches. They both flounced.

Katie and Laura did not flounce. They both apologized, then left because: (1) it was excruciating for Katie, who did apologize, and (2) Laura apologized *and* expounded on her apology, and it was rejected. One can let it go, Glamcookie. I hope you aren’t structuring this as either you and sj or Katie & Laura. If you are, well. I hope you don’t. I choose all of us. The nerdiness, the pop culture-ness, sometimes in spite of, more often because of the wordiness, the splendid writers. I choose all of us. I’m not a fan of all parts of us -- the cliques, sometime mean-girlness, even from the nicest people; not a fan of public pronouncements of virtuous behavior that don’t manifest to all Buffista members and posts about how can you expect that, not everyone is equal. Still people here try. It’s a unique place. I choose us.

I will cc my post to Katie and Laura. That’s all I can do. Reaching out is not hard to do, I've done it, and it’s wonderful when people come back. John Horner came back to FB for years. Raq and Freya returned in different degrees. How great is it to see their pixels again! I choose us, and another hike, literally.

I'll be blunt. I will not erase the lived experience that is being referenced here by sj and Glamcookie in order for us to feel like the board is one big happy family.

I want to be part of a community that stands up and takes notice when someone says this is hurtful to them and their life experience as part of a marginalized group.

I'm less interested in being part of a community who will let it slide for the feeling that we all will feel good and just get along.

If folks don't like me for that, you know, that's okay.

ND speaks for me.

it was excruciating for Katie, who did apologize

"Consider me schooled" is not an apology, though. If it had been, this might have gone pretty differently.

Java Cat, you don't really seem to be addressing what actually happened here other than the fact that you regret Laura and Katie leaving, and then you seem to have holdover issues from things that you perceive happened in the past (not saying they didn't, but vague).

Saying "One can just let it go..." We'll, no, and that's the point. People in marginalized communities can't just "let it go," because they have to live with it every day. Asking them to "let it go" is not right. A lot of other people have indicated the same thing, most recently, ND and Dana, just now.

I don't really understand what "I choose us," means to you. If you are asking other people to ignore things that matter to them for the sake of "getting along", well, no. That's not how it works.

I've been trying to think of how to reframe this discussion within the context of the board's history, expectations about behavior and moving forward.

I feel like one of the longstanding lubricants of our community is a presumption of Good Faith. I think (and this is just my observation. I'm not asserting it as fact) that a lot of that understanding of "Good Faith" within this community's history involved some combination of Intent and, perhaps, Good Standing within the community (people who have been around for awhile, interacted with everybody etc. Basically all of us at this point, since we haven't had new members for quite some time).

The language to address a warning certainly seems directed towards people who intentionally cause harm or disruption: "Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet."

But I think a space has opened up between our understanding of acting in Good Faith here, and how it has evolved out in the world. Specifically, people who have been given a lot of focus to dismantling privilege and microaggression in their work, community or personal lives have come to the valuation that Impact is more important than Intent.

That people with good intentions can still cause harm because they haven't really examined their prejudices, biases, language, privilege et al. That this causes harm within the community, often to the people who are most vulnerable, and it's often let-slide and gone unaddressed.

That it's not enough to have good intentions, you have to do the work.

So I think one way to move forward is to actively state that in our notion of Board Etiquette. That being a good citizen here requires Good Faith efforts to address an issue when somebody objects to language or statements which are offensive.

Glam has given some good examples of what that would like in real terms.

******** KB/Laura says something without realizing it's problematic.
sj tells them it's problematic and why.
KB/Laura say, "Oh shit. I'm sorry. I see what you're saying and appreciate you letting me know."
Or
"Oh shit, really? I had no idea. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand and would like to so that I don't mess up next time. Could we talk about it here/offline or could you send me a link to an explanation? Thank you so much for speaking up and for helping me understand."
And that would have been the end of it.

**********

Or as somebody else summed up...

Acknowledge the hurt caused, ask how to make it better, and commit to changed behavior going forward.

We can make that an explicit value within our community, and state our expectations on how to respond to these situations as they arise.

So what's the consequence for people who don't apologize or aren't contrite?

Basically some level of opprobrium. Which may not seem enough, but I think - especially in our close community - it stings quite a bit. Having people you respect say, "Hey you, fucked up and you need to make it right" is not easy or comfortable.

I don't think it rises to the formal censure of a Warning unless somebody has been called out an issue ("Hey, I've asked you not to use the word 'gypped' and I've explained why") and the offender keeps using the word or phrase without changing their behavior.

We don't have to frame that as a matter of Intent, we can say, "You're not making a Good Faith effort within community expectations to change your behavior after it's been pointed out as offensive."

I would also note that unlike a workplace, people can choose to not be here. And historically, for various reasons people have often taken a hiatus from the board. Sometimes for a short while, sometimes for years. Sometimes people don't come back.

We can't control that.

So what's the consequence for people who don't apologize or aren't contrite?

I'm not sure of this either. Perhaps the conversation (like this one) will be enough to either:

1. Lead the original misstepper to understanding and apology (ideal outcome).
2. Lead to the original misstepper being too uncomfortable to continue in the community (it sucks, but it's worse IMO to harm minorities and cause them to leave the community).

I think Glamcookie sums up the reality of the situation. We can make up all the scripts we would like for how we can imagine a clean resolution to events but there is no way to expect that people will follow those scripts. We make a decision about how we stand on this issue as a community and then we accept the results. If the decision is that we put a high priority on truly listening and respecting when someone from a marginalized group speaks up then we also need to accept that this carries the consequence that we might see someone leave or curtail their involvement here.

If we make the decision that we want to prioritize the appearance that we all just get along, then that too carries the consequence that we might see others leave or curtail their involvement here. I know it would have an impact on how I feel about the community and my involvement.

We make a decision about how we stand on this issue as a community and then we accept the results. If the decision is that we put a high priority on truly listening and respecting when someone from a marginalized group speaks up then we also need to accept that this carries the consequence that we might see someone leave or curtail their involvement here.

If we make the decision that we want to prioritize the appearance that we all just get along, then that too carries the consequence that we might see others leave or curtail their involvement here. I know I’d would have an impact on how I feel about the community and my involvement.

Thank you for posting this, I had written and deleted about seventeen versions of the same thoughts but couldn't make the words come out right.