RE: PSA: Slurs
April 23, 2019 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2019 at 12:22 pm by Autumnlicious.)
I’d suggest that if it matches hate speech, I see no reason why an outrageous use of “poof” as a bad faith replacement for “faggot” would be permitted. The usual “if it walks like a duck, swears like a duck...” algorithm with the usual warning/redemption loop that we have with every other rule.
For example, if you’re discussing taking a bath and the verbiage is to call a loofah a poof, but we’re still talking about taking a bath, it’s probably okay.
Common sense still applies. That said, given that language is mutable and has history to it, some terms have self-limited their legitimate application. For example, the “n word”, as it’s put, has precious few non-racially charged uses. But even then, it has some. Dealing with the bad faith language lawyering on all the edge cases for that particular word is exhausting, so a general “don’t use it” is used as a guiding light.
Rules are combinations of strict and loose constraints to handle cultural contexts, intent and where this forums character is going as a whole.
For example, if you’re discussing taking a bath and the verbiage is to call a loofah a poof, but we’re still talking about taking a bath, it’s probably okay.
Common sense still applies. That said, given that language is mutable and has history to it, some terms have self-limited their legitimate application. For example, the “n word”, as it’s put, has precious few non-racially charged uses. But even then, it has some. Dealing with the bad faith language lawyering on all the edge cases for that particular word is exhausting, so a general “don’t use it” is used as a guiding light.
Rules are combinations of strict and loose constraints to handle cultural contexts, intent and where this forums character is going as a whole.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more