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.

It's hard to work on issues like this without ready access to the following, so here are links to the Wayback Machine archives for:

Site Etiquette: [link]

FAQ: [link]

Law-Speak (i.e. "Cheesebutt" Document; apologies for that term -- just making sure everyone knows to what "Law-Speak" refers): [link] )

Suggestions for Everyone:

1. Move past the "should we vote" discussion. If you want to make a specific suggestion, put it before the community.

2. The change people seem to be talking about may best fit as a clarification of our Etiquette policy. If an addition is necessary, that's where it seems to belong (probably in the first bullet point).

3. Being decent to one another is inherent in our culture. Don't approach this as reinventing the wheel. Approach it as making sure we've got all our spokes in place.

Rationale for Not Voting (at least at first):

We'll know we need to vote if we fail to near a consensus, someone feels strongly enough to make a motion to open Light Bulbs, and four other people feel strongly enough about it to second that motion. Unless/until that happens, we don't need to vote. I don't believe we voted on our Etiquette page in the first place.

Navel Gazing:

It might be that our process and standards work as is, and that etiquette breaches and subsequent reminders of our standards will often cause hurt feelings, regardless of what we codify.

I am not sure we can update the FAQ/Etiquette or legislate to the extent where we can prevent this from happening again ("this" includes but is not limited to any of the following: the unintentional offense; the upset an offense causes others; hurt feelings/embarrassment of those who are told they have offended; doubling down; exits; subsequent community agita).

B.org is no longer all that active. We've seen an uptick because of amyth's illness and DX's passing (and because web 2.0 is pretty horrible right now), which already seems to have subsided some. Six months from now, we may well be back to the same small number of main cast and recurring players, with the occasional guest star. Changes should be proposed with that in mind.

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.

I grew up with words like "gay," "pussy," "lame," and "retard" regularly used as pejoratives and I've weeded those out of my daily language. Things evolve, as you say.

Removing "crazy" (and synonyms for it) is a little harder because (as you note) it's so deeply ingrained in a lot of idiomatic expressions.

I am wondering about the logical implications of this elision. Does it follow to remove the word "idiot" because it's insulting to people with cognitive deficits? Is it wrong to condemn Trump's narcissistic disorder since that's a distinct Personality Disorder in the DSM?

I remember reading a thoughtful piece by a cabaret singer who started to become cognizant of those older lyrics which glorified abuse and domination by men. So she stopped singing those songs. And then she culled songs which where women abased themselves for men, or couldn't live without them. Where the POV of the song seemed inherently unhealthy. She took out songs that exalted drinking or addiction or perpetuated racist stereotypes, little cliched musical cues that musicians used to denote Chinatown or the Far East. And so on until she felt backed into a corner cutting off a large chunk of songs that -on the whole - were largely inoffensive except for a line or so.

So she would up going back to her original impulse and trusting her instincts about which songs were truly toxic and not worth perpetuating.

I don't think this is a reductio ad absurdum argument. I think the case for removing "crazy" from common parlance is the same as for removing "idiot."

A qualm I have on this issue is that I've seen plenty of vulnerable populations online saying things like, "Hey, it's great that you're thinking about taking the word 'lame' out of your vocabulary, because it is offensive. However, spending all your energy on the internet arguing about that is a lot less productive than getting workplace accommodations and reinforcing the ADA."

That's not me objecting to it, or making a counter argument. I'm just voicing the moving pieces in my own head on the subject.

My other hesitations revolve around (a) the Orwellian notion that the language of inoffense is one of the chief tools of political manipulation (that is, pasting over horrible things with bland language, i.e., "relocation" for "detention camps.); and (b) I'm highly aware of the history of leftist groups imploding in a frenzy self policing. Everything from the Michigan Women's Music festival to ACT UP groups to punk collectives to (going back) the infamously vicious splits between various Communist and Socialist factions in the U.S.

Again, not making a counter argument. Just thinking out loud. I am mindful now that "crazy" is offensive to some people and I'll be mulling it over. Whether I get to the place where I don't sing along with Heart on the chorus, I don't yet know. But I do know that I don't singalong with Paul anymore when he gets to "I used to be mean to my woman / I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved." Things evolve.

Yes, terms like "idiot" should be removed:

[link]

All of this is easy to say and hard to do as they've been so embedded in our language for so long. I expect there will be many more terms I will learn are harmful in the rest of my lifetime and I will endeavor to remove them from my lexicon. After all, what is the point of life if not to learn and grow?