We have been talking about revising/updating the FAQ etc for forever. Maybe it’s time to actually do it and this would be part of that. Would that need a vote?

This feels more like an update or clarification of general principles.

We have been talking about revising/updating the FAQ etc for forever. Maybe it’s time to actually do it and this would be part of that. Would that need a vote?

I think this is where we are but I'd like to hear from Glam again on the issues first. She's raised some of the biggest concerns and I'd want to hear her thoughts.

I don't know if we need a vote to clarify/update principles. Probably? But I don't think we're instituting new policies (as yet).

Or to put it another way - I think putting this to vote has the power to do further harm to people who’ve already been hurt in this incident. Not the outcome, but the very act of voting.

Agreed. That already happens enough in the larger political sphere. I don't think we should vote on each other's right to be treated fairly.

Why would we accept that imperfection? Because any formal enforcement will quickly descend into ambiguous situations which will be impossible to judge.

I agree, and would like to add another point to it. I am not sure how (or if) we can make room for imperfections, but the gaps and silences in our disagreements about intents and impacts are also sometimes where where learning and listening take place and roots. As Atropa (and someone else?) said before, we will not be an exemplary community in our reaction to this. We are and will continue to be different from one another, and that includes our reactions to offenses and their interpretations. I 100% agree that not hurting other people in this community should be a ground rule, but I have no idea how to accommodate both this and knowing that learning can come from imperfections in different paces and variations. There will be apologies that will not be ideal, and people who will disagree on what should be the essence of that process. (As others, I was on both sides of this discussion several times. There is no ideal solution for all).

So I continue thinking about this. If we can have a guideline that will allow enough safe space with some space for conversations and different learning processes. But I agree that a clearer guideline in the FAQ and Press about expected behavior is a good place to start.

(I am a bit under the weather with a migraine but don't really have any other time to respond, so I hope I managed to understand the discussion properly and be clear).

Guidelines are good. They can help people avoid a guacamole experience, they can articulate the opportunity for learning and growth, and they can show that we’re actively working towards making a space that’s welcoming to people in marginalized groups.

I really hate the idea of voting on this. We’re not really instituting a new process here are we? This feels more like an update or clarification of general principles. Maybe I’m wrong but it feels like the moment calls for a bullshit consensus.

Or to put it another way - I think putting this to vote has the power to do further harm to people who’ve already been hurt in this incident. Not the outcome, but the very act of voting.

This.

I would be so happy not to vote on this! I just thought we had to to change the FAQ. Perhaps just an edit, a posting in press?

"Crazy" which was said to be ableist. 

Sigh. Okay, I’m not looking to argue this point with the two posters here who have disagreed with this, but I would not be a good ally if I didn’t speak up so others see a different POV. Have a link: [link]

Pull quote:

ALTIRAIFI: What it tells people like me is that my life is not worth that adjustment. And if that is where people are, then it's really no surprise that people living with mental illness face such disproportionately high levels of violence and harm.



To put it in perspective, those most affected by the use of terms like this get to make the rules in my book. I can “disagree” but ultimately I am harming people in a vulnerable community. I know some will say, “But I have a diagnosed mental issue so I can say it.” To that I would say, are you able to work? To have a family? To live a relatively typical life? Then you are not among the most affected. It’s like saying that because I’m in the LGBTQIA+ community, I’m allowed to use trans slurs. Um, no. Those most vulnerable in my community would be Black trans women. If one of them tells me something I said is harmful to them? I'm going to believe them and I’m going to change my behavior.

There are literally thousands and thousands of words to choose from. I’ve switch from “crazy” to “wild,” as an example. Do I sometimes mess up and use the old word? Hell yes. Do I try my best to change? Also, hell yes. I’ll just never understand why it’s better to cause harm than to use a different word. Never.

Okay. Now on to the question that was asked of me.

This feels more like an update or clarification of general principles.

We have been talking about revising/updating the FAQ etc for forever. Maybe it’s time to actually do it and this would be part of that. Would that need a vote?

I think this is where we are but I'd like to hear from Glam again on the issues first. She's raised some of the biggest concerns and I'd want to hear her thoughts.

I agree with others that a vote would be incredibly difficult to witness, so just adding some verbiage and links to the FAQ seems like a good way to go.

For whatever it's worth I am not digging in my heels about "crazy" or "insane." I'm open to the discussion and will probably be feeling my way through it for some time. As it is, I try not to use that language where I know it will hurt feelings or cause offense. That is not the end point of my consideration on the matter.

I'm glad to hear that. Language and ideas are always changing and evolving and this is a good evolution, intended to reduce harm. It's worth the effort.