Perhaps you could check an authentic source for acceptable usage. PRIDE or PFLAG come to mind. Queer Nation is another.
That’s a confusing takeaway. The warning wasn’t downgraded simply because Turble is queer. The warning was downgraded because a bucket of context was added along with quite a lot of conversation - Turble’s identification was a fairly small part of that.
It seems pretty clear to me – don’t use it as a noun, but this particular example doesn’t seem to be malicious so it will be a note instead of a warning. Something that’s obviously malicious would get a warning, and repeatedly using it as a noun would too, I imagine.
I mean, I know what to do going forward. Do you?
It wasn’t a takeaway, it was a point on which I was asking for clarification.
Agree with the mod note, and that it shouldn’t have been a warning. It’s important to be aware of the nuance, and that makes the note totally appropriate.
That said, the word has been reclaimed and normalized for decades now, and it’s hard to fault anybody who used it without being aware of every nuance. Being gay myself, I can definitely “hear” the difference in the usage examples above, but I never in my life heard a rule actually articulated that the adjective and verb forms are A-OK but the noun form needs to be treated with kid gloves.
OK, I understand now. I still think the 3rd and 4th examples largely hold for your question.
We’ve had something similar with a Jewish poster making an off colored post about the Jewish People. I believe they were modnoted and not warned.
I would have to go searching.
The policy is exactly what it’s always been. I’ll quote myself:
Turble doesn’t suddenly have “license to use the word” in a way contrary to the standards of the board. I’m not sure why you think that.
What we have seen is that the mods are willing to take context, personal experiences, and user opinion into account after a warning has been issued.
Awesome. Working as intended.
If you think usage differs from what has been said in this thread, why don’t you check those sources and bring back cites?
Again, I did not say I think that. I was asking for clarification of the point from the mod, since the fact that the poster identifies as queer was a stated input into the moderation decision.
The mod said it was tricky coming up with examples I offered up a few resources to help him clarify outside of the feedback in this thread.
I’m not the mod whose job it is to clarify the rules.
Silly warning since it’s part of the ever growing sexual diversity initialism. And this noun/adjective debate seems pointless especially when people argue over forms of descriptive language as being different in terms of the the offensiveness spectrum.
If their background is relevant to whether the usage is okay, then they should state that at the time. For example, “I’m a zoober, and even I’m tired of seeing every ad trying to cram as many zoobers into it.” The background of any particular poster is only going to be remembered by a small number of people. The vast majority of people reading posts here are going to have little or no knowledge of who the person is behind the keyboard. If I hadn’t been reading this thread, I’d have no idea that the person in question identified as queer. And I will likely forget it pretty quickly. In fact, without looking, I don’t even remember the name of the person who made the original post. T something. There’s about a zero percent chance I’ll remember how they identify at a later time. So for words and terms that have questionable meanings, I would like the rule to be that if you use it because you identify that way, you have to state it right there when you use it.
While I doubt very much that What_Exit and I would ever become close friends if we should meet in person I have noticed in his modding a great willingness to back up / back off / change his mind when confronted with differing opinions and additional explanations. For that, Your Mod-ship, I heartily congratulate you.
Oh, and thanks for the downgrade. I consider this an acceptable compromise.
Turble [Still warning free after all these years]
It’s not, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.
It has been determined that what was said was not okay, however, context indicates that it was not malicious. That it was not malicious still doesn’t make it okay, it just means that the warning was reduced to a note.
I have only ever heard it in neutral or positive ways, so it doesn’t bother me. But while the tendency to keep adding letters (or a plus sign) is an understandable trend since any time you make a list you risk leaving someone out, at some point it becomes ridiculous from an editorial standpoint.
If I ruled the world, we would drop all the initials that risk excluding someone and use the term GE, for “Gender Exceptional.” It includes everyone who is an exception from cis-gendered straight person, and it sounds kind of nice, I think - most of the time “exceptional” is used as a positive thing.
Alas, I don’t rule the world, so I don’t think GE is going to catch on.
This seems to be kinda like the difference between “people of color” (which is acceptable) and “colored people”, which is absolutely offensive.
Nah. They say they identify as queer themself. I see it as just a lack of code-switching, or not writing for the audience.
It’s all well and good to call you and your friend group “queers” when amongst that friend group, but it just doesn’t work to call others that on this Big Anonymous Whiteboard we call the Internet. I have a feeling they just didn’t check the audience first.
I appreciate the modding being changed, and appreciate @Turble’s acceptance of it too.
The issue seems to be resolved, but my take on using the word as a noun is that it has enough baggage attached that we should use it carefully. Our intentions when we write something are not necessarily how others will read it, and there may be whole side aspects of which we’re not aware, so tread softly when using such terms.
The thing is that to you there is a difference to my former neighbors who happened to be black they used the construction colored people and colored all the time. Now they happened to be old and retired and their usage, while anachronistic to younger folks, wasn’t meant in any way to be offensive.
At some point context has been willingly lost in order to seek offense.
Summary
It’s a bit like the silly Latinx that some on the left use.