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?

After all, what is the point of life if not to learn and grow?

To drink copiously and laugh at the failure of your enemies?

Well, that too, obviously!

Glamcookie, I just want to thank you for what you are doing here, and also recognize the energy that this takes from you.

Thanks, ND. It's something I'm super passionate about and I literally can't stay quiet. I'm okay with discomfort - it's nothing compared to what folks in vulnerable groups live with daily. Appreciate the positive feedback.

We're just a talky group. I agree that some updating the rules and customs in the FAQ can use fresher ideas since, of course, we continue to grow and society continues to change and we (even we!) have a lot to learn.

I tend to retreat from conflict but since my involvement here has been sparse over the last few years, I am rusty at some of the stuff. I think we're continuing to make progress on a lot of things and for the people who remind me that we cannot control reactions or make rules or threads for every scenario, I thank you.

Some of the most valuable conversations we have had have been the most painful.

It's been something I've been working on for quite a few years now, so I understand the passion. I try hard to recognize the amount of access and privilege I have just by being a middle aged white guy, and I've been trying to make it my goal to use that to help vulnerable groups. A couple of years ago I was able to push through a request with the company that I used to use for employee leasing that they give a more options on their paperwork for gender than just the standard binary. In the end they did it not just for us, but due to the request and prodding they changed it company wide, so it is now what is used for all of their clients nationwide. Things that can be a difficult request for someone in a vulnerable group, can sometimes be easier to push through as an ally. I figure I might as well try to use some of this for good, there certainly is no shortage of white guys using it for evil.