I thought this went without saying.

[feuervogel]

But due to the comments on the LJ xpost of this, I apparently have to make it explicit.

COMMENTING RULES
1. DO NOT use slurs against marginalized groups. This includes lame and retarded.

2. BY NO MEANS DEFEND your usage of these slurs, because meanings change/etymology/it's a minority opinion/wtfever. If you do, I reserve the right to call you an asshole, a privileged jackass, or a jerk.

Thank you.

Comments

[steuard.livejournal.com]

One of the key examples that made me reconsider my opinion on this sort of thing a while back was the term "nigger-work". (Ugh... I have trouble even typing that.) Apparently, that was (is?) used in some places to refer to mindless, unskilled work that anyone could do; I assume that comprehensive dictionaries would list that definition (with no mention of its social context). I don't remember where I heard about the term, but the people who used it explicitly said that they didn't consciously associate it with black people at all: it was just the common term for that sort of work.

And yet, I absolutely believe that associating the term "nigger-work" with dull, menial labor would inevitably, invariably reinforce a deep-seated prejudice that black people are less competent than white people (quite apart from the use of one of the most vile words in the English language). And once I accepted that, I could understand how less blatant examples like "retarded" or even "lame" could have similar consequences for other groups of people (or be heard by them as similarly offensive or hurtful).

All that being said, I emphatically believe that most of this is not even remotely familiar or obvious to most people. (I wish I'd been aware of it earlier.) In general, people use the language as they learned it growing up, and they feel understandably defensive when someone else barges in to tell them that their speech is somehow wrong or improper. (After all, that person is implicitly criticizing their mothers, too, and all the rest of their friends and families!) So my preferred way to address this sort of thing is just to point out the negative aspects of the usage in question and trust that the person I'm talking to will eventually think through them and reach some ethical conclusion. In my experience, that approach tends to work out pretty well (with far more success and far fewer hurt feelings than any other approach that I've seen). So to that extent, I agree with your call to "be a little more chill". :)

[feuervogel]

I would LOVE to trust that people would think through to the consequences of their actions/words, but given the resistance displayed by multiple commenters to the idea that, regardless of all the intent in the world, there are words that actively cause harm to others, I am very skeptical of this idea.

No matter how many times Leora has pointed out that, no, no matter what you think, lame and retarded are NOT divorced from the slurs on physically and mentally disabled people, the digging in of heels still goes on.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

That's true. Part of my strategy involves time, though: I try to plant a seed that may eventually lead the other person to change their mind. My experience has been that it's very rare for them to reverse course immediately, even if it doesn't take that long for them to come around after that discussion is over. (If nothing else, there are well-recognized forms of cognitive bias that make it very hard for people to change positions in the middle of a debate.)

And in fact, I saw what looked like a great example of that in the discussion on your earlier post: thegreyghost was (as you say) digging in his(?) heels through all of the hard-hitting arguments and invective in that discussion. And then leora made a calm and reasonable statement that her friend felt hurt by the casual use of "lame" and she explained some of the real effects of connecting broadly negative language to disabilities. And in the very next comment (http://akiko.livejournal.com/1081151.html?thread=3833407#t3834687), thegreyghost finally said "I'm open to it". Personally, I call that a win, and I suspect that he'll wind up using "lame" less often as a result.

If my years of intense debate through the flame wars of Usenet taught me anything, it was that people essentially never respond well to harsh language, no matter how valid the reasons behind it. I became one of the most respected Tolkien scholars on the 'net not just by having knowledge, but by (usually) finding ways to communicate it well.

[feuervogel]

Sean is an interesting example. He's willing to reconsider his ideas once something contrary to them is presented.

Skuld, otoh, has no interest at all in changing her behavior. This is based on previous interactions in which she refused to quit using words a mutual friend found hurtful and told her so directly. It was the same "my intent is good, so your hurt doesn't matter" argument. Clearly, giving her time to reconsider was futile, because she has no desire to do so.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Since I've been named, I'll chime in to clarify a bit.

I mostly conceded in exhaustion, taking pause to reflect and regroup. Also because there's only so much I can dispute when approached by the person who is directly affected by the topic.

Additionally, akiko comes from a position that strongly opposes bigotry. While I'm not a fan of it either, I come from a position that strongly opposes censorship. It was on the message of her previous post that our swords crossed.

I don't know if we'll ever come to an exact agreement on this, but I'm willing to better understand her perspective. I believe that we both want a better world and we'll never defeat the enemy if we're at each other's throats.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

Opposing censorship is important, I agree! When I see any of this class of issues presented in a tone of "You Must Not Say These Things", it grates on me and raises my anti-censorship hackles, too. But at its core, most of the aspects of this stuff that I fully support boil down to Wheaton's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wil_Wheaton#Wheaton.27s_Law): "Don't be a dick!" (Supplemented in this case by the frustrating warning that, "There are subtle ways of being a dick that may not have occurred to you.")

If someone simply forbids me from saying something, I'll usually object. But if someone tells me that saying that thing hurts them personally or gives a clear argument that it could do unanticipated harm to others, I'll take that into account when I choose my language in the future. And I don't consider that to be censorship at all.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's censorship to say that "saying such-and-such makes you look like a jerk." And I don't think having commenting guidelines like akiko's is tantamount to censorship.