Yeah, I read the link (referred to it in a different comment -- I thought the fliparound of "not crazy" was interesting).
I realise you're not talking about public policy, nevertheless I believe the process whereby the objections of a few individuals within a notional "category" affected by prejudice are transformed into a general, normative rule of discussion should be carefully moderated (by a representative sample of affected people).
It's easy to imagine people diagnosed with mental illness feeling pigeonholed, patronised and infuriated by a concerned speaker avoiding the use of the term "crazy" because it might offend, when in their case it possibly doesn't. And subsequently resenting other people who'd testified to the offence they take from the term and their influence on the mainstream voice of authority that inevitably seems to have a majority share in the control of discourse*.
I've seen this happen in the case of feminism where women, particularly those who feel in control of their own circumstances and don't want to be portrayed as "in need" by an interfering male-dominated voice of authority, are infuriated by condescending concessions.
I can't see this being a problem with your comments policy though, since you've declared this to be a safe space in which people should be free from whatever oppression, including that related to the use of language, that they suffer from in other contexts. But I think there's a need for us all to understand that while a rule concerning terminology, or modes of speech, or some other instrument of the social sphere might function very effectively in one context, it might be an abject failure in another context.
Specific rules don't cross those contextual boundaries well, they usually need to be redesigned according to their more general formative principles within the new social environment, or the environment itself needs to be changed in preparation for their introduction (cf my earlier comment predicting the response of the Australian public to restricting use of the word "crazy").
* I understand this is in itself a huge problem (and one which I probably exacerbate by being in this discussion and trying to control thereby how discourse "should" change), but it's also just another practical hurdle to effective change.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
I realise you're not talking about public policy, nevertheless I believe the process whereby the objections of a few individuals within a notional "category" affected by prejudice are transformed into a general, normative rule of discussion should be carefully moderated (by a representative sample of affected people).
It's easy to imagine people diagnosed with mental illness feeling pigeonholed, patronised and infuriated by a concerned speaker avoiding the use of the term "crazy" because it might offend, when in their case it possibly doesn't. And subsequently resenting other people who'd testified to the offence they take from the term and their influence on the mainstream voice of authority that inevitably seems to have a majority share in the control of discourse*.
I've seen this happen in the case of feminism where women, particularly those who feel in control of their own circumstances and don't want to be portrayed as "in need" by an interfering male-dominated voice of authority, are infuriated by condescending concessions.
I can't see this being a problem with your comments policy though, since you've declared this to be a safe space in which people should be free from whatever oppression, including that related to the use of language, that they suffer from in other contexts. But I think there's a need for us all to understand that while a rule concerning terminology, or modes of speech, or some other instrument of the social sphere might function very effectively in one context, it might be an abject failure in another context.
Specific rules don't cross those contextual boundaries well, they usually need to be redesigned according to their more general formative principles within the new social environment, or the environment itself needs to be changed in preparation for their introduction (cf my earlier comment predicting the response of the Australian public to restricting use of the word "crazy").
* I understand this is in itself a huge problem (and one which I probably exacerbate by being in this discussion and trying to control thereby how discourse "should" change), but it's also just another practical hurdle to effective change.