I don’t know, but this comment from @Hermes@hexbear.net has given me some stuff to think about.

People should not think less of you on the base of the amount of sex you have, and you shouldn’t either.

This is a nice thought, but insults based on amount of sex are absurdly common. I have seen quite a few people on this site who still do these insults, and it doesn’t get removed when I report it. The incel article from a while go was about how we should critique incels for their misogyny rather than them failing to have sex, I see this as pretty similar to the arguments about not body-shaming fascists in that most of the people who will get hit by the insult are not the actual target. From what I remember, that article good job explaining why these insults are harmful and how they hurt a lot of people who they really shouldn’t, unfortunately the discussion on that post was very off topic. In my experience, most people who have sex fail to recognize that not everyone who is celibate is an incel (“If so many terrible people have sex and you can’t, that must mean you are worse than they are!”).

I would say that insults based on amount of sex a person has should not be allowed, but I am very pessimistic about this actually leading to a change in site culture.

Once again, please assume good faith, even if you disagree with the take. If you think I mean something weirdly reactionairy by this post, ask me wether that is what I mean, instead of just saying that’s what I mean please.
I don’t want this to become a strugglesession, I just feel like this would be a good discussion to have. If this does become hostile, then please lock/remove it mods.

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I don’t think that is true unless I’m missing some context. It’s a widely used suffix in English.

    I assume you’re referring to

    cw slur

    schizoid

    ?

    I think a one-off ban of that term is sufficient…

    • BelieveRevolt [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      The third definition on that page describes its use as a derogative. I’m fairly sure it originates from

      CW:ableism

      m*****loid, an archaic ableist term.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I see, well I would support banning terms like that, when the implication is basically “lesser human”. Just not trying to get banned when talking about asteroids and hemorrhoids lol

        • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          That’s my concern as well. There are many modern scientific, engineering, and technical terms that use older slurs in whole or in part, yet in their modern context are not at all slurs.

          I’m wondering if there could be some sort of “soft” word filter. Instead of instantly replacing certain words, perhaps there could be an “auto-report” to mods about certain words. They could then make their own decision on whether the word was appropriate in the context of the discussion on which it was used.

          • BelieveRevolt [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            It’s not like it’s absolute, a word doesn’t have to be automatically filtered for it not to be allowed here. “Bitch” isn’t filtered, but comments using it in a misogynistic way are still removed. It’s pretty easy to determine whether a comment has an ableist insult or the word “asteroid” in it.