No code of conduct entry on use of words

[DRMacIver]

An issue that keeps coming up on IRC is that a lot of words are hurtful to some people. This has occasionally devolved into unpleasant arguments where people don't understand whether some words are OK or not. This does not appear to have good code of conduct coverage.

I'm very happy to write the CoC entry if we can find consensus around something that's a good idea. This issue is more a place for discussion that because I want someone else to do something about it.

Specific objectives:

• A form that is not easy to abuse. e.g. someone saying "the use of the word 'and' is upsetting to my people. I wish you to refrain from it" is probably more likely to be abusing the system than genuinely hurt by it
• It should be designed to defuse the situation rather than causing people to have to defend themselves over it
• It should not be a fully general thing where all language requests are required to be respected but should acknowledge that there is a power imbalance and the main goal is to not reinforce that

My current thoughts along the subject are something like "Please avoid using words that are used as insults for marginalised groups, even if you don't mean it that way. If people ask you to stop using a word on these grounds, respect that. Ask for an explanation if you must, but accept that people might not want to give one, and don't argue about whether they're right". This is too long and a bit too jargony, but I think it roughly captures the right intent. If people agree and think that it would be useful to have as an entry in the CoC I will attempt to edit it down into something pithier.

[DRMacIver]

Record of some IRC discussion around this:

12:01 < DRMacIver> ok. So current thinking is that it needs to be more specific in some sort of "Please avoid using words that are used as insults for marginalised groups, even if you don't mean it that way. If people ask you to stop using a word on these grounds, respect that. Ask for an explanation if you must, but accept that people might not want to give one, and don't argue about whether they're right"
12:01 < DRMacIver> Only shorter and less jargony
12:02 < masuther> is there an issue for this? may help to track the discussion
12:02 < DRMacIver> At the moment, no. Probably a good idea, yeah.
12:04 < masuther> my own two cents is that it shouldn't be about the person using the words intentions, but the impact it has on others
12:06 < ms7821> I don't think intent is a defence with the current wording, so that's OK
12:07 < DRMacIver> masuther: Yes, agreed.
12:07 < DRMacIver> masuther: I think I've got that covered in the latest phrasing don't I? If not, could you explain?
12:09 < DRMacIver> ok. Issue around language usage in code of conduct: #158
12:10 < masuther> DRMacIver: yeah, I think that's fine, though maybe "insults for marginalised groups" is too specific. would "... or make others feel uncomfortable" help, or be too vague?
12:12 < DRMacIver> masuther: I'd like to avoid a general "makes people uncomfortable" clause. It's too open to abuse. It might make me uncomfortable to be called sexist, but you should probably still be able to use that word against me.
12:12 < DRMacIver> s/probably//
12:12 < masuther> ok
12:12 < DRMacIver> I'm open for something more general than the insults against marginalised groups clause though
12:13 < DRMacIver> But I figured that was a decent specifier because it was pretty obviously always not OK
12:14 < masuther> yup, I suspect that's clear enough to get the point across
12:14 < DRMacIver> I'd quite like a phrasing that doesn't require explaining what "marginalised groups" means to people though
12:15 < masuther> well, what language is already in the use in the CoC?
12:15 < masuther> or the readme/index
12:15 < DRMacIver> It's mostly around inclusive vs exclusive
12:16 < DRMacIver> Which I don't feel quite covers it
12:16 < masuther> yeah
12:16 < masuther> "We want to be inclusive; do not engage in homophobic, racist, transphobic, ableist, sexist, or otherwise exclusionary behavior. Don’t make exclusionary jokes. Don’t even make them "ironically"."
12:16 < masuther> it's sort of a refinement of that
12:17 < DRMacIver> Yeah
12:17 < DRMacIver> Maybe "Don't use words people that people feel are exclusionary, even if you don't mean them that way or feel that they are"
12:18 < masuther> that could work :)
12:18 < DRMacIver> It's a bit woolly, but that might be inherent
12:19 < masuther> well, it fits with the complexity budget
12:19 * masuther might have just re-read the readme :)
12:20 < masuther> avoids jargon, matches the language that's already in use, and emphasises the impact on others
12:20 < DRMacIver> Yeah
12:20 < masuther> yeah, I quite like that, wonder what everyone else thinks :)
12:21 < sarahpinder_> +1 from me
12:21 < DMorsing> +1
12:22 < ms7821> prevents "don't use the word G-d in front of me", which is probably a good thing (that's a different issue to the one at hand)
12:22 < DRMacIver> ok. Shortening: "Don't use words people find exclusionary, even if you don't intend them that way. Please respect requests to avoid specific words on these grounds regardless of whether you agree with them"
12:22 < DRMacIver> Possibly with a second line containing the etiquette around asking for clarification as a more general rule.
12:23 < DRMacIver> But I think tef will kill me if I try to add two rules to the CoC
12:24 < ms7821> purely selfish, but I think the second part is quite important to avoid the bikeshedding/circular arguments
12:24 < DRMacIver> Yeah. I think it's important, I think it's perhaps more important as a general rule of etiquette than specific to this
12:25 < DRMacIver> Hmm
12:25 < ms7821> maybe there should be a page we can point to as "before you start debating the status of this word, please read X"
12:25 < ms7821> or maybe I'm taking this too far
12:25 < DRMacIver> Maybe there's something in this without ever mentioning avoiding specific words.
12:25 < DRMacIver> So in fact just have the second part.
12:26 < DRMacIver> "Please respect requests to avoid specific behaviour people find exclusionary. If you must you can ask why it's exclusionary but please respect that some people won't want to explain, and please don't argue that it isn't"
12:27 < DRMacIver> I'm going to copy and paste this discussion into a comment on the issue for posterity if people are OK with that.

[tef]

I think as the code of conduct stands, we can be a little more explicit. I propose we change the first line to read:

"We want to be inclusive; do not engage in homophobic, racist, transphobic, ableist, sexist, or otherwise exclusionary behavior or language. Don’t make exclusionary jokes, even "ironically".

#159 shows us that we don't have a lot of consensus, or good ideas on phrasing, or improvements. I also suggested adding "We can teach you better insults that aren't slurs too.", in the style of computering isn't a competition.

As i mentioned in IRC I'm unhappy with language policing, as it can enable tone policing. I'm also unhappy because we can't always easily assume that the person is using it in an exclusionary context, or that the person isn't using it in a matter of reclaimation. The other issue is the of the language lawyering arguments that stem from raising an objection.

I don't think the code of conduct is necessarily the best place to make these distinctions clear either.

Language is weird, awkward , complex, subtle and occasionally nuanced. We should tread very carefully.

[tef]

I'm considering this issue pre #162, but we might close it if we can't get consensus yet.