Proposal for a policy on mentioning slurs

Question

When I say "mention" or "mentioning" I mean it as in the "use/mention distinction".

When I say "slur" I mean

A derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people. [Lexico]

What happened to get me to ask this question? A user quit the site when they found that our site finds it acceptable to mention the n-word, even though it is relevant to the post at hand. This led me to question our current stance, because if this user was vocal about the issue, how many good contributors leave without me knowing? How many good contributors are suffering without me knowing? I want us to be more inclusive of people, and maybe that means a bit of bowdlerising.

So, to cover the first objection: yes, similar topics have been discussed in the past (1, 2). But they were broader, about offensive phrases in general. I specifically want to talk about slurs. Also the posts are old, and I think it is good to get a fresh perspective on our entrenched ideas.

We have had a question this year (3) about slurs and the answer restates what is current policy. That's not a criticism, but I really think we need a second look.

The last time this came up (4) is where I will draw from what I think our current policy is.

A more thorough treatment of offensiveness can be seen in Andrew Leach's answer about flagging. (8)

To summarise: our current policy is that we should avoid mentioning slurs unless they are particularly relevant. Don't leave them in quotes unless you are specifically talking about the slur. Don't mention a slur, unless the post is specifically talking about that slur.

I think that is a good policy. It is similar to the policy on the RPG site (5). Most other sites I have looked at don't consider slurs by themselves, but have this rule applied to profanity in general (6, 7).

My question is: can we improve upon it? The answer might be no. I will post my answer, proposing a stricter policy of bowdlerising no matter what. I hope to see others, as well as healthy respectful discussion.

References

1. Referencing the existence of words that may be offensive
2. Offensive/NSFW words: what are the boundaries?
3. Ethnic slur in question: what's the procedure?
4. Is using "colored girls" as an incidental example offensive or unwelcoming?
5. https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11247
6. https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11898/is-it-acceptable-to-use-an-nsfw-word-in-a-question
7. Are expletives (cursing, swear words or vulgar language) allowed on SE sites?
8. Do we have any general guidelines on flagging?

Answer 1

I am wholeheartedly against a policy of censoring the mention of "slurs". It is anathema. Sanitising question titles is a matter of expediency in order that the entire site is not banned in certain circumstances; that's a rather different [and technical] matter.

I am wholeheartedly supportive of a policy which censures the use of "slurs". Using such language against people on the site (or outside it) is unacceptable. This is already codified in the latest advice on flagging.

However, in order to ask a question about derogatory words, it's necessary to mention them. It should not be necessary to refer to a key. You cite the issue of ambiguity in your answer: I can think of at least three "n-words" which Mark Twain could have used: which one is it? How on earth is a site which is (or should be) devoted to the academic discussion of language supposed to deal with the progression of meaning between form N1 and N14 via N3 and N57? Or the different uses to which F6 can be put? (Does each use of word F6 get a separate entry in the glossary?) I have no idea what t-slur is supposed to be; I can think of several candidates. Such a requirement is unworkable.

Perhaps instead of a Meta post with a glossary the words should be called out within the post in order that each can be coded within each post. N1 in one post might be different from N1 in a different post. But that requires a sentence or a list somewhere, of the kind "When I use N1, I mean..." — which actually draws attention to the word, rather defeating the object. Perhaps that could be set in a spoiler, but carry on reading.

You say "The whole point is to make the text easier for people to read now and in the future," which I'm afraid is self-evidently false. It's far harder to read about N1, N14, N3 and N57 than the actual forms of a particular word.

It appears that there are people who are triggered by certain words. That's unfortunate, but I don't believe it can be avoided; nor, in fact, should it be avoided. If you don't like a word, move on to a different post. It could be a site about language is not for you, just as a site about maths is not for someone who is traumatised by a symbol like 8, or a site about engineering which uses a symbol like μ. [That sentence is not flippant: it's the same issue.]

This proposal is censorship, pure and simple. It's not expedient sanitisation; it's explicitly banning certain words in any circumstances. It's completely alien to a site about language, in exactly the same way as Physics.SE could not ban μ. If you don't like a word, move on to a different post: don't try and stop other people seeing that word.

This is a hill I'm prepared to die on.

Note: I wouldn't be against — in fact I think I'd be in favour of — putting a "trigger warning" somewhere which could be shown as people join the site.

Answer 2

Our current policy covers slurs well enough, and we don't need an additional policy specifically for ethnic, religious, LGBT-related, and other identity-based pejoratives.

The current policy summarized is:

We should avoid mentioning slurs unless they are particularly relevant. Don't leave them in quotes unless you are specifically talking about the slur. Don't mention a slur, unless the post is specifically talking about that slur.

It is sometimes necessary to include slurs in posts, and it is not necessary to obfuscate them when written in the context of an academic discussion about them.

Answer 3

Thanks to everyone for participating, especially Andrew Leach and ColleenV, and thanks to the people who helped me to prepare the question.

It's clear that the community, on the whole, doesn't want to change our policy on slurs, so the current policy will remain in place.

Answer 4

I think we do need a policy on how to handle slurs that are necessary for a meaningful question or answer and a recommendation for what to do when a slur is part of some source material, but knowing the exact slur is not necessary to understand the point being made.

I do not think we should get distracted by trying to determine what words count as "slurs"; there are some words that are obviously slurs that are recognized as deeply offensive. There are some slurs that people who aren't familiar with them would likely agree shouldn't be used gratuitously once they've been informed of their impact on others. If someone objects to the classification of something as a slur, we use our already established mechanism for resolving that - we discuss it here.

Below, I'm going to assume we're talking about words and phrases most of us agree are slurs. I’m not talking about swear words like ‘fuck’ or pejoratives like ‘idiot’. I’m talking about the words that newscasters hesitate to repeat on-air even when quoting someone. This isn’t a novel problem and since this site is a community and not a newspaper or scholarly journal, I think we can agree on some accommodations to make this a more comfortable place to interact without sticking a knife in the heart of free expression.

When we don't really need to know the exact words

• Can we remove it completely? Use an ellipsis like ... or trim the quotation to begin it after the slur or end it prior to the slur.
• Does completely removing it make the sentence difficult to understand? Replace it with neutral language in brackets that conveys a similar meaning. For example, instead of

By and by they fetched the [n-words] in and had prayers, and then everybody was off to bed.

use

By and by they fetched the [workers] in and had prayers, and then everybody was off to bed.

• Is the fact that it was a slur important to the meaning? Replace it with "slur" or with a neutral language description of the type of slur, if that is important to the meaning:

The suit alleges that she was called "[misogynistic slur]" by her boss on multiple occasions.

When we do need to know the exact words

• Describe the use in neutral language, then hide the actual usage in spoiler text:
  ^{This is just an example. I'm not making any assertions about the offensiveness of the lyric or the necessity of using the possibly-offensive part of it. If we decide to go this direction with the policy, it should be replaced with a better example.}

A well-known example of this structure is in the lyrics of Lou Reed's 1972 song "Walk on the Wild Side". (Some people might find the outdated language here offensive.)

And the colored girls go
Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo,...

Answer 5

I suggest there can never be a definitive policy, because it's too likely there will always be words like gay, black or queer which move in and out of favour.

Gay seems to bounce back and forth.

Black was quite acceptable until 50 years ago, replaced by coloured for a decade or three and is now largely back in favour - here in the UK, anyway - because it's somehow shed its derogatory sense and become purely informative

Queer was once almost as derogatory as the N-word, and so banned except when used by a member of that group, yet in the last few years it's somehow been pretty-much rehabilitated.

I also think Andrew's first Answer was wholly right.

Answer 6

Policy: always censor slurs, even when mentioning.

Examples:

• Quoting Huckleberry Finn:

By and by they fetched the [n-words] in and had prayers, and then everybody was off to bed.

• Talking about a slur

She was called [t-slur] by passers by.

Why is this better than the current policy?

People are leaving the site because we mention slurs. We can talk about slurs without mentioning them. If we stop mentioning slurs then we will upset fewer people. More people can feel comfortable using our site. We help more people.

What problems does this cause

There are three that I can think of

• Ambiguity

I think everyone knows what n-word means, but what about t-slur or f-slur? We would need a way to allow people to know what we mean. One possible solution is a meta thread where each slur is mentioned, explained and the Bowdlerised form is given. Please let me know other solutions.

• Words no longer being slurs

When I was a kid spastic was a slur against people with cerebral paulsy. Apparently it's not that anymore. How can we tell when a slur stops being a slur? If we adopt this policy then I would expect another meta discussion to try to figure this out.

• Should we go back and censor old posts?

Yes. We can't be more welcoming if the words are still there. The whole point is to make the text easier for people to read now and in the future.

---

I know this policy seems radical, and to some it seems anathema to the site, but as we've revisted policies now, this could be revisited in the future, so I say it's an experiment worth having.