I believe the wish for the thread to die was an exasperated expression of being fed up with the trolls these subjects attract.
That was me, talking for me. And yes, this whole mess from letting a troll stay around longer than I should have to the 4 thread mess it turned into has me feeling overloaded. Plus they tried to return 3 times to continue the trolling.
But hey, I feel much better than yesterday.
That’s what you have the freedom to do when we don’t have bright line rules and banned word lists. I’m glad we don’t have that.
But I’m also glad we aren’t just shrugging and saying it’s always okay to use that language.
In my opinion, it really isn’t okay to use that language. It’s needlessly provocative and diverts from productive discussion – to say nothing of the dehumanizing aspects, which are present in certain instances.
I just don’t want hard and fast rules about these or many other terms, because circumstances can differ and again, language is fluid. But I don’t think we’re ignoring the issue, either.
Historically the mods have been erring on the side of caution. I wouldn’t mind if every warning in this direction automatically came with a week suspension. Just to allow some erring in the other direction.
I’d be fine with just saying, “hey, don’t use ‘invaders’ when discussing immigrants. We have less loaded words you can use.” I don’t care about people getting warnings*, I just don’t want the unproductive discussions those kinds of words lead to.
*Unless posters persist, obviously.
This argument is getting pretty tedious at this point, but I just want to say that you’ve badly misinterpreted my meaning. I see how that’s possible if you read my comment in isolation, but see my preceding statements for the fuller context: “What, it’s a surprise to you that culture changes over time? And that moderation criteria would change accordingly?”. I’m obviously not trying to imply the existence of a monolithic culture, but rather, pointing out that all cultures change over time, and that venues like this board and mass media change, too, notably with regard to respecting the sensitivities of the many diverse groups that are its audience.
And to go back further to the origins of this particular point, it all arose from @MrDibble’s claim that my earlier comment implied that mods had to be “mind readers”, namely this statement that I stand by: “The pertinent issue here is not about language, ‘dehumanizing’ or otherwise, it’s about attitudes and ideas, and that’s how posters should be judged and how their posts should be moderated.” In assessing whether a post is offensive, it’s generally better to make judgments on a case-by-case basis than to have inflexible rules that may be excessively harsh and unfair in one case while failing to address a truly egregious one. It doesn’t require mods to be “mind readers”, it just requires them to be readers. We don’t need to be nannified with specific rules about bad words.
I would love for a casual warning to work first time. For a lot of people it will.
That’s good!
and thanks for explanation.
OK. I’ve read the whole thing over reconsidering that context; and it still seems to me that what you were saying is that we don’t need rules because the mods will judge from cultural context, and that’s easy to judge because there’s only one sane cultural context. That doesn’t to me appear to contradict saying that said context changes over time.
However, you obviously know what you meant better than I do.
And I don’t think we’re in total disagreement over this. I don’t think, for instance, that the person who uses “illegals” because that’s what they’ve been hearing from everyone in their social circle and they never thought about it should be modded in the same way as the person who’s had it objected to seventeen times, with mulltiple reasons, and is still persisting in using it; or that the person who uses “invaders” to refer to members of the Wagner group military organization should be modded at all.
I’m glad, and sorry for contributing to the stress yesterday. Your response and @puzzlegal’s about what constituted an attack were both helpful. I hope I didn’t come across as questioning your moderation; I really was just seeking clarification.
Thanks to you and all the mods for all you do.
I agree with this. I also am happy to moderate people referring to immigrants as “invaders” in the forums i moderate. I doubt it will come up in Cafe Society, but i suppose it might in IMHO.
That’s an interesting perspective, and not a definition I’ve ever seen. But it explains why I’ve recently seen people use “dehumanizing” in contexts where i would use another word. That being said, i think that referring to asylum-seekers as “invaders” is hateful and bigoted, and i feel there is plenty of cause in our existing rules to moderate it.
It stems from etymology 2 of “humanize” here. Note that this isn’t some new or idiosyncratic usage.
I would agree that using terms that are deliberately inflammatory/dehumanizing through derogatory abstraction like ‘invader’ or ‘insect’ ought to be prohibited around here. That’s a deliberate term to reframe the whole thing by dehumanizing the immigrants and inviting people to propose solutions using the same analogy - military and insecticide, for example. It also skews the debate by either implying there’s a lot of organization from without (invasion) or that it’s a mindless instinct (insects), neither of which is the case.
I disagree though that perfectly cromulent terms like “illegal immigrant” should be prohibited, because in that case, it’s a term that is well defined, but that someone is choosing to take offense at. Someone’s an illegal immigrant when they’re immigrating here illegally. That’s simple, and not a particular political take on things. Claiming that “a person can’t be illegal” is as much a distortion of the actual situation as calling them “invaders” or “insects” is. And using misleading/incorrect euphemisms like “undocumented immigrant” is the same thing. It’s not like these people just left their legally obtained visa in their other pants when they got up to come over the border this morning; they know full well that what they’re doing is an illegal act, and choose to do it anyway, so let’s not handwave away their choices and consequences by saying it’s just a matter of documentation.
Illegal immigrant is fine, imo, for the people who are actually illegal immigrants. The problem is that it’s often used for refugee seekers and others who have legal standing to be in the US. Like, really often.
Again, it is possible to regulate the term “Illegals” differently than the term “illegal immigrants”.
Yes it is and it will be on a case by case basis.
Definitely works for me.
I’m not trying to be cute, but with whom are you disagreeing on this? While I’ve seen several people (myself included, Elie Wiesel included, AP Style Guide included) suggesting that this term is problematic and best not used, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone arguing for its prohibition on this board. If I’m missing someone, I apologize.
Maybe not prohibition, but there were definitely suggestions that we avoid it in the other thread earlier in the week.
I just get a bit frustrated when assholes take a perfectly descriptive term and co-opt it into something hateful, or even potentially hateful that should be avoided. It feels like a… narrowing(?) of the language and the discussion when that happens.
I supposed it’s ATMBish if we’re discussing best practices and not moderatable stuff, so I’ll respond: yeah, I think it’s worth avoiding, and so does Elie Wiesel, and so does AP. It (or “illegal alien”) arose as a term to refer to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. Most news agencies have given it up over the last decade or so. Of the three terms I mentioned in the previous thread, I think it’s the most defensible; but I believe it’s still worth avoiding.
I would not advocate for its use being the subject of moderation at this point.