The bulk update request #4480 is pending approval.

create implication homophobic_slur (1217) -> slur (981)
create implication racist_slur (0) -> slur (981)
create implication transphobic_slur (44) -> slur (981)
create implication ableist_slur (121) -> slur (981)
create implication sexist_slur (380) -> slur (981)

Reason: This is pretty self explanatory; these are all types of slurs.

I am not sure when these tags were renamed, but I'm against calling what was once racial_slur & sexual_slur into racist_slur & sexist_slur.
The naming gives an inherent false impression that the slurs are always maliciously used to verbally abuse the receiver, even the wiki for the former suggest that it implies racism & racist.
This issue was discussed two years ago on the topic of "casual" slurs.

I had also suggested on the same thread a proper hierarchy for people who want to blacklist different categories of slurs.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I am not sure when these tags were renamed, but I'm against calling what was once racial_slur & sexual_slur into racist_slur & sexist_slur.
The naming gives an inherent false impression that the slurs are always maliciously used to verbally abuse the receiver, even the wiki for the former suggest that it implies racism & racist.
This issue was discussed two years ago on the topic of "casual" slurs.

I had also suggested on the same thread a proper hierarchy for people who want to blacklist different categories of slurs.

So does homophobic_slur and ableist_slur, but I don't hear you say anything about them.

While you're right that they can be used non-maliciously, unfortunately this is the world we live in.

wolfmanfur said:
So does homophobic_slur and ableist_slur, but I don't hear you say anything about them.

While you're right that they can be used non-maliciously, unfortunately this is the world we live in.

i agree with with wolfgang on this, it seems disingenuous to tag a devin_(yungyiff) or goonie-san post with a reclaimed n-word drop as racist, and i don't think it takes the teeth off of an art piece that uses a slur in a legit malicious way to call the tag racial_slur or homosexual_slur

wolfmanfur said:
So does homophobic_slur and ableist_slur, but I don't hear you say anything about them.

While you're right that they can be used non-maliciously, unfortunately this is the world we live in.

I have never heard of a single homophobic or ableist slur being used or "reclaimed" for non-malicious & casual speech.
I refused to comment on either since these sort of slurs don't ever get spoken a lot from where I am from, thus my take on it wouldn't be the best or well-informed.

Now that you have asked about it, all of these terms (i.e., racial_slur, sexual_slur, homophobic slur) are derived from how Wikipedia calls them, as seen here (redirects to "ethnic slur"), here, and here respectively.
I don't have a better name for albeist_slur unless you are keen on calling it disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations as Wikipedia puts it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I have never heard of a single homophobic or ableist slur being used or "reclaimed" for non-malicious & casual speech.

For whatever it's worth, I've personally heard and seen a good number of gay men refer to themselves with the F-word. And there's also this.

I also concur that "racial" would be far better than "racist" for cases like the ones Dripen Arm outlined. Not sure about "sexual."

thegreatwolfgang said:
I have never heard of a single homophobic or ableist slur being used or "reclaimed" for non-malicious & casual speech.
I refused to comment on either since these sort of slurs don't ever get spoken a lot from where I am from, thus my take on it wouldn't be the best or well-informed.

Now that you have asked about it, all of these terms (i.e., racial_slur, sexual_slur, homophobic slur) are derived from how Wikipedia calls them, as seen here (redirects to "ethnic slur"), here, and here respectively.
I don't have a better name for albeist_slur unless you are keen on calling it disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations as Wikipedia puts it.

That is more of a problem that should be addressed on its own separate BUR to unalias racial_slur from racist_slur rather than here because that seems to be the essense of the problem. Personally, I don't see the BUR happening because it would be difficult to tag consistently whether a character says a slur in a non-malicious way or does so in a malicious way. Keep in mind self-deprecating humor could also be in the drawing, for example a character yells "I'm a dumb stupid retard", now replace he last word with the N-word and now o you see the problem? Now, we could argue until the cows come home about whether "retard" was meant to be ableist in this context or just a way to describe oneself as very unintelligent or reckless, but this would cause tag wars and this would be more in line with "tag what you know"; The same is true for how the N-word is used.

But, in all honesty, if you feel so strongly about it, I recommend you make a BUR to try separating racial slurs with non-malevolent intents and racist slurs because this issue has nothing to do with this BUR.

dripen_arn said:
i agree with with wolfgang on this, it seems disingenuous to tag a devin_(yungyiff) or goonie-san post with a reclaimed n-word drop as racist, and i don't think it takes the teeth off of an art piece that uses a slur in a legit malicious way to call the tag racial_slur or homosexual_slur

See also my response to wolfgang.

Let me remind you this is TWYS not TWYK. If someone sees a racial slur and then we assume racial slurs are inherently racist then this makes perfect sense to be the way it is.

As it stands, this BUR is fully in its own right to exist as racist_slur implies racism and because there is a slur it would make sense for it to imply slur.

wolfmanfur said:
That is more of a problem that should be addressed on its own separate BUR to unalias racial_slur from racist_slur rather than here because that seems to be the essense of the problem. Personally, I don't see the BUR happening because it would be difficult to tag consistently whether a character says a slur in a non-malicious way or does so in a malicious way. Keep in mind self-deprecating humor could also be in the drawing, for example a character yells "I'm a dumb stupid retard", now replace he last word with the N-word and now o you see the problem? Now, we could argue until the cows come home about whether "retard" was meant to be ableist in this context or just a way to describe oneself as very unintelligent or reckless, but this would cause tag wars and this would be more in line with "tag what you know"; The same is true for how the N-word is used.

But, in all honesty, if you feel so strongly about it, I recommend you make a BUR to try separating racial slurs with non-malevolent intents and racist slurs because this issue has nothing to do with this BUR.

What? The maliciousness of any given slur word was never part of the argument. I'm suggesting the rename because the tags currently leaned towards inherent racism or sexism just from the naming itself.
By renaming it back to racial_slur or sexual_slur, you make it ambiguous on whether it is being used maliciously or not. I'm not asking for two separate tags for malicious and non-malicious use.
It we see maliciousness in the speech, then we would add the additional racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism tags as companion tags.

Let me remind you this is TWYS not TWYK. If someone sees a racial slur and then we assume racial slurs are inherently racist then this makes perfect sense to be the way it is.

As it stands, this BUR is fully in its own right to exist as racist_slur implies racism and because there is a slur it would make sense for it to imply slur.

Then how do you tag racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and other related tags?
We don't tag homophobia every time the word "queen" gets muttered in a post. Likewise, we don't tag sexism every time the word "cunt", "bitch" (or "son of a bitch"), or "motherfucker" gets used.

I agree with you that they all should imply slur, but never to their corresponding "prejudices".

smbsml said:
For whatever it's worth, I've personally heard and seen a good number of gay men refer to themselves with the F-word. And there's also this.

If we looked at Wikipedia again, a possible solution is to rename homophobic_slur to LGBT-related_slurs to make it ever more encompassing while also not imply homophobia.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What? The maliciousness of any given slur word was never part of the argument. I'm suggesting the rename because the tags currently leaned towards inherent racism or sexism just from the naming itself.
By renaming it back to racial_slur or sexual_slur, you make it ambiguous on whether it is being used maliciously or not. I'm not asking for two separate tags for malicious and non-malicious use.
It we see maliciousness in the speech, then we would add the additional racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism tags as companion tags.

This is once again this petty argument-for-the-sake-of-argument I'm seeing all too often. This makes as much sense to rename racist_slur to racial_slur as it is to rename dickgirl to gynomorph, it still has the same meaning and on the other example it was only made to appease a small group of people, not all of them were appeased by it, by the way.

"Bitch" is a sexist slur, even if it isn't used to disparage a woman, even if it isn't used in a way that is sexist, it is a sexist slur. That is clear, concise and up to no interpretation. Plus, the word "sexual" has nothing to do with sex or gender in itself, it has more to do with having sex as in "I'm very sexual". So, even if we should rename racist_slur to racial_slur, renaming sexist_slur to sexual_slur would be extremely confusing as pointed out by smbsml. I am sure it would be mistagged on posts related to homophobia since it is a 'sexual' matter if you catch my drift.

Then how do you tag racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and other related tags?
We don't tag homophobia every time the word "queen" gets muttered in a post. Likewise, we don't tag sexism every time the word "cunt", "bitch" (or "son of a bitch"), or "motherfucker" gets used.

I agree with you that they all should imply slur, but never to their corresponding "prejudices".

Then, why don't you make your BUR like I suggested earlier? To unimply them? This issue has nothing to do with this post which aims to imply *_slur to slur.

If we looked at Wikipedia again, a possible solution is to rename homophobic_slur to LGBT-related_slurs to make it ever more encompassing while also not imply homophobia.

That sounds about as good of an idea as disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations if you want my opinion on this.

wolfmanfur said:
This is once again this petty argument-for-the-sake-of-argument I'm seeing all too often. This makes as much sense to rename racist_slur to racial_slur as it is to rename dickgirl to gynomorph, it still has the same meaning and on the other example it was only made to appease a small group of people, not all of them were appeased by it, by the way.

Yet dickgirl was still ultimately aliased to gynomorph. I wonder why that is?

"Bitch" is a sexist slur, even if it isn't used to disparage a woman, even if it isn't used in a way that is sexist, it is a sexist slur. That is clear, concise and up to no interpretation. Plus, the word "sexual" has nothing to do with sex or gender in itself, it has more to do with having sex as in "I'm very sexual". So, even if we should rename racist_slur to racial_slur, renaming sexist_slur to sexual_slur would be extremely confusing as pointed out by smbsml. I am sure it would be mistagged on posts related to homophobia since it is a 'sexual' matter if you catch my drift.

"Sexual" here has never meant sexual intercourse, it has always been related to a person's sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
E.g., A male sexual slur would be calling someone a "sissy" or a "wanker" while a female sexual slur would be calling someone a "whore" or a "bitch".

Again, as per Wikipedia, "a sexual slur is a term of disparagement used to refer to members of a given gender, sex, or sexual orientation in a derogatory or pejorative manner. The motivation for using a sexual slur is often sexism and/or bias against a sexual orientation or practice."
If you also looked up sex- and gender-related slurs, you would find the various examples of sexual slurs.

As to it getting "mistagged" on posts related to homophobic_slur or LGBT-related_slur, technically that would be correct since LGBT-related slurs are also considered to be sexual slurs.

Then, why don't you make your BUR like I suggested earlier? To unimply them? This issue has nothing to do with this post which aims to imply *_slur to slur.

Unless you have not been reading the individual wikis for each tag, they are currently NOT implied to any of the prejudices. And it should stay that way.
However, like I have said before, the naming of the tags give the impression that they are inherently prejudiced and are always used in maliciousness.

E.g., Someone describing a girl as having a "nice cunt" would not be considered sexist, but would include sexual_slur for those who dislike seeing such words being used in any context.

That sounds about as good of an idea as disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations if you want my opinion on this.

For practical reasons, we don't keep overly-long tags. If you want a compromise, perhaps disability_slur would be a better fit.

dripen_arn said:
i agree with with wolfgang on this, it seems disingenuous to tag a devin_(yungyiff) or goonie-san post with a reclaimed n-word drop as racist, and i don't think it takes the teeth off of an art piece that uses a slur in a legit malicious way to call the tag racial_slur or homosexual_slur

thegreatwolfgang said:
I agree with you that they all should imply slur, but never to their corresponding "prejudices".

Just to be clear, despite the wiki page racist_slur does not currently imply either racism or racist, unless you are simply objecting to the fact that racist_slur contains the word racist. For that matter none of the tags in this BUR imply their related -isms or -ists, which I think is a good thing as it allows those separate tags to indicate when the slurs (or some other language) is used in a disparaging way.

Regarding renaming certain tags I tend to agree with Wolfmanfur. I think the names are fine as is as they follow the TWYS policy; the context of how the slur is used is irrelevant for simply tagging its presence in an image. In other words, the n-word, for example, is a racist slur regardless of whether it is used with positive or negative connotation. Also if you did feel strongly that the tags should be renamed then that should probably be its own topic since this BUR is strictly related to having different types of slurs also imply slur. I also agree that if things were to be renamed, sexual_slur doesn't really make sense, and racial_slur is splitting hairs at best.

lonely_fox_89 said:
For that matter none of the tags in this BUR imply their related -isms or -ists, which I think is a good thing as it allows those separate tags to indicate when the slurs (or some other language) is used in a disparaging way.

Although that is not your intent, the way the tags are currently named does "imply" their related -isms or -ists.
Racism (i.e., prejudice to race) is not the same as racial (i.e., of race). Sexist (i.e., prejudice to sex/gender) is not the same as sexual (i.e., of sex/gender).
The same arguments can be made with homophobic_slur, transphobic_slur, and ableist_slur if people want those tags renamed as well.

Regarding renaming certain tags I tend to agree with Wolfmanfur. I think the names are fine as is as they follow the TWYS policy; the context of how the slur is used is irrelevant for simply tagging its presence in an image. In other words, the n-word, for example, is a racist slur regardless of whether it is used with positive or negative connotation. Also if you did feel strongly that the tags should be renamed then that should probably be its own topic since this BUR is strictly related to having different types of slurs also imply slur. I also agree that if things were to be renamed, sexual_slur doesn't really make sense, and racial_slur is splitting hairs at best.

It is far from TWYS, it is TWYK since you consider all slurs to be inherently malicious in use.

If you want true TWYS, the n-word is a type of racial_slur. You can tag it regardless of context.
If they are indeed used maliciously (from what you can see from the scene), then you can add racism as a companion tag.

You don't necessarily see racism from just speech alone, which is my greatest disagreement with the current naming.

I have created topic #37976 to address the naming issue.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It is far from TWYS, it is TWYK since you consider all slurs to be inherently malicious in use.

If you want true TWYS, the n-word is a type of racial_slur. You can tag it regardless of context.
If they are indeed used maliciously (from what you can see from the scene), then you can add racism as a companion tag.

You don't necessarily see racism from just speech alone, which is my greatest disagreement with the current naming.

Again, can you glean the context from "I'm a dumb stupid retard", is it ableist or is that just a person being unintelligent/reckless? I don't think you can, but if you tried that would most likely amount to "tag what you know" rather than "tag what you see". This is why retard (and to some stupid and dumb as well) is an ableist slur and why the sexist slurs are called sexist slurs, not sexual slurs, why racist slurs are called racist slurs, not racial slurs.

The word "slur" is also pejorative, it implies the word is inherently malicious in nature, so your logic really does not make sense when I think about it.

wolfmanfur said:
Again, can you glean the context from "I'm a dumb stupid retard", is it ableist or is that just a person being unintelligent/reckless? I don't think you can, but if you tried that would most likely amount to "tag what you know" rather than "tag what you see". This is why retard (and to some stupid and dumb as well) is an ableist slur and why the sexist slurs are called sexist slurs, not sexual slurs, why racist slurs are called racist slurs, not racial slurs.

The word "slur" is also pejorative, it implies the word is inherently malicious in nature, so your logic really does not make sense when I think about it.

Again, why is TWYS an issue? All slurs are getting tagged regardless of context, I am just asking for a rename.

If I see a post with the quote "I'm a dumb stupid retard", I would look for additional context.
If the character featured is alone and saying it to himself due to shame, then it would NOT be ableism.
If the character is using the term to describe another character, then it would be ableism.
BOTH posts will still be tagged with disability_slur.

The word "cunt" is always not a sexist slur. It has many definitions, but is still tagged as sexual_slur to be ever encompassing.
Only when it is used pejoratively, then you tag it with the corresponding prejudice. NOT by automatically defaulting to it.

Take a moment to actually read the wiki for slur for a moment, it has never always been used for derogatory terms. Check reclaimed terms as an example.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Again, why is TWYS an issue? All slurs are getting tagged regardless of context, I am just asking for a rename.

If I see a post with the quote "I'm a dumb stupid retard", I would look for additional context.

I'm kind of confused by what you're saying. Are they tagged based on context/intent, or regardless of context as long as the word appears in any way?

Part of me thinks intent and context should matter to some degree. It was mentioned earlier that "bitch" and "queen" can be considered slurs, but "bitch" also means a female dog in heat (a rather pertinent usage on a furry art site with a lot of porn) and "queen" is also a word for royalty. "Trap" is considered a slur against trans people, but it's also the term for certain types of devices. Having posts tagged for slurs when they just contain the word (someone calling to female royalty, or talking about a female dog, or pointing out a dangerous device) feels like it's watering down the whole concept of a slur and feels wrong. This is against TWYS, though.

To say nothing of different languages. Would ホモ (homo) be a slur? People have and do use "homo" as a derogatory word for gay people, but Japanese took the term "homosexual" and shortened it because they do that to borrowed words a lot, not giving it an inherent negative connotation like the west. Other languages do have their own slurs, though. But they may or may not appear in English depending on how it's translated.

watsit said:
Having posts tagged for slurs when they just containing the word (someone calling to female royalty, or talking about a female dog, or pointing out a dangerous device) feels like it's watering down the whole concept of a slur and feels wrong. This is against TWYS, though.

I hope this isn't sacrilege around these parts, but man I cannot wait for the TWYS rules to get a significant rewrite. They've caused so many users so much grief over the years.

watsit said:
I'm kind of confused by what you're saying. Are they tagged based on context/intent, or regardless as long as the word appears in any way?

Part of me thinks intent and context should matter to some degree. It was mentioned earlier that "bitch" and "queen" can be considered slurs, but "bitch" also means a female dog in heat (a rather pertinent usage on a furry art site with a lot of porn) and "queen" is also a word for royalty. "Trap" is considered a slur against trans people, but it's also the term for certain types of devices. Having posts tagged for slurs when they just containing the word (someone calling to female royalty, or talking about a female dog, or pointing out a dangerous device) feels like it's watering down the whole concept of a slur and feels wrong. This is against TWYS, though.

To say nothing of different languages. Would ホモ (homo) be a slur? People have and do use "homo" as a derogatory word for gay people, but Japanese took the term "homosexual" and shortened it because they do that to borrowed words a lot, not giving it an inherent negative connotation like the west. Other languages do have their own slurs, though. But they may or may not appear in English depending on how it's translated.

The *_slur tags are tagged based on whether or not they appear on the artwork at all (e.g., spoken, written, graffiti-ed on a wall, etc.).
The prejudice tags are tagged based on post context or as they appear to be used (e.g., someone telling another that they are a cunt).

The reason behind this is so that people can blacklist any type of slur that they do not wish to see (whether prejudice is intended or not).
So if someone said "pass me a fag", it would get tagged with homosexual_slur; if someone said "you're a f-g", then it would get tagged with homosexual_slur + homophobic.
I don't know about more commonly used terms like "bitch", "queen", or even "cunt", but if we want to truly follow TWYS, then that would be ideal.

It's kinda like profanity (which is tagged regardless of context) and whether or not you would include the word "bitch" in it every time it appears on art.
(On an interesting note, even censored speech get tagged with profanity, so I would expect that to be included for slurs as well.)

watsit said:
but "bitch" also means a female dog in heat

i hate this example

like i get your concern with "trap" or the japanese "homo" or "queen", but at this point in time the word "bitch" to mean the "a female canine in heat" is just an obsolete use of the word. i don't care what merriam webster says NOBODY uses that word in any other way than to refer to other humans

watsit said:
I'm kind of confused by what you're saying. Are they tagged based on context/intent, or regardless of context as long as the word appears in any way?

Part of me thinks intent and context should matter to some degree. It was mentioned earlier that "bitch" and "queen" can be considered slurs, but "bitch" also means a female dog in heat (a rather pertinent usage on a furry art site with a lot of porn) and "queen" is also a word for royalty. "Trap" is considered a slur against trans people, but it's also the term for certain types of devices. Having posts tagged for slurs when they just contain the word (someone calling to female royalty, or talking about a female dog, or pointing out a dangerous device) feels like it's watering down the whole concept of a slur and feels wrong. This is against TWYS, though.

To say nothing of different languages. Would ホモ (homo) be a slur? People have and do use "homo" as a derogatory word for gay people, but Japanese took the term "homosexual" and shortened it because they do that to borrowed words a lot, not giving it an inherent negative connotation like the west. Other languages do have their own slurs, though. But they may or may not appear in English depending on how it's translated.

Context and intent must matter to a degree here, yes. I don't think anybody will disagree with this.

Either we make it so TWYS is bullshit and include context (Meaning the 4 posts posted by Wolfgang should have the tag racist_slur removed) or we make a list of words that must always have the tag due to history, so unless the word is historically inflammatory it shouldn't be tagged. "Black" can be used as a slur, but it is a color, so racist_slur wouldn't apply. The second rule was already what was actively being tagged. In other words, words that had the N-word were all tagged racist_slur, but not posts that had the word 'black' in them.

By the way, renaming the tag won't fix the issue. Changing the tag from racist_slur to racial_slur would still have this problem because as I said it is the same as aliasing dickgirl to gynomorph, the meaning stays identical and the whole argument for it was a quibble. So, the plan is simple, either we make a list of words that should be tagged *_slur and we stick to it, or we say screw TWYS and we take context and intent into consideration for the purpose of tagging *_slur.
It already takes context and intent to tag the likes of racism, sexism, homophobia etc.

smbsml said:
I hope this isn't sacrilege around these parts...

It kind of is actually and several users will actively argue against you if you even make the suggestion to take context or intent into consideration for a rating. A 2 pages topic sprouted just because of that, it is so silly. It is inactive as of now, but it might end up getting bumped again someday because this issue will continue to bother people who use e6.

...but man I cannot wait for the TWYS rules to get a significant rewrite. They've caused so many users so much grief over the years.

This ain't gonna happen.

If we want to follow context when tagging slurs, we would expect to see a whole bunch of sensitive speech slip through the cracks due to it "technically" not be considered pejorative.
On the other hand, if we truly stick with TWYS, we would also expect to see a whole bunch of "normal" speech get lumped into the pile (e.g., "cracker" could mean a dry biscuit or pejoratively white people).

There is no real win here, unless we create a list of slur words and the context in which they are used in.
This would also bring about problems of its own, such as slurs used in a neutral or positive manner.
E.g., An Australian or New Zealander saying "He is a good cunt" would be a compliment. If that context is used, that would really encroach into TWYK.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If we want to follow context when tagging slurs, we would expect to see a whole bunch of sensitive speech slip through the cracks due to it "technically" not be considered pejorative.
On the other hand, if we truly stick with TWYS, we would also expect to see a whole bunch of "normal" speech get lumped into the pile (e.g., "cracker" could mean a dry biscuit or pejoratively white people).

There is no real win here, unless we create a list of slur words and the context in which they are used in.
This would also bring about problems of its own, such as slurs used in a neutral or positive manner.
E.g., An Australian or New Zealander saying "He is a good cunt" would be a compliment. If that context is used, that would really encroach into TWYK.

Cracker doesn't have a history like other slurs, say retard or the N-word. It would fit the same position as 'black' as a word that is innocuous on its own, but can be used insultingly. Thus, racist_slur should not be tagged.

I don't think aussies use cunt as a synonym for bro, it is still pejorative. You don't wanna be called a cunt by a brit or an aussie. "He is a good cunt" would be the equivalent to "he is a good asshole".

wolfmanfur said:
Cracker doesn't have a history like other slurs, say retard or the N-word. It would fit the same position as 'black' as a word that is innocuous on its own, but can be used insultingly. Thus, racist_slur should not be tagged.

So, when a post features a character yelling to another that they are a "fucking cracker", we should avoid using racist_slur?
That kinda goes against what the wiki defines the tag as, to be honest.

I don't think aussies use cunt as a synonym for bro, it is still pejorative. You don't wanna be called a cunt by a brit or an aussie. "He is a good cunt" would be the equivalent to "he is a good asshole".

They do.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't think aussies use cunt as a synonym for bro, it is still pejorative. You don't wanna be called a cunt by a brit or an aussie. "He is a good cunt" would be the equivalent to "he is a good asshole".

mate's needen a good cultural lesson: https://youtu.be/gokzLZ6lBjY?t=30

lol. If a furry is going to the gym does that need to get tagged for being ableist?

chalidoe said:
lol. If a furry is going to the gym does that need to get tagged for being ableist?

?

watsit said:
ホモ (homo) be a slur? People have and do use "homo" as a derogatory word for gay people, but Japanese took the term "homosexual" and shortened it because they do that to borrowed words a lot, not giving it an inherent negative connotation like the west.

I was under the impression that ホモ (homo) IS a somewhat offensive word in Japan, but I suppose this is off-topic...

crocogator said:
I was under the impression that ホモ (homo) IS a somewhat offensive word in Japan, but I suppose this is off-topic...

I'm far from an expert on Japanese culture, so there could be more to it than I'm aware. But I have seen Japanese artists use it, particularly as ケモホモ for gay furry art and オスホモ for gay male stuff.

watsit said:
I'm far from an expert on Japanese culture, so there could be more to it than I'm aware. But I have seen Japanese artists use it, particularly as ケモホモ to for gay furry art and オスホモ for gay male stuff.

Good point, I didn't think of that. I guess some usages are inoffensive as you originally said, while others should probably be avoided.

chalidoe said:
lol. If a furry is going to the gym does that need to get tagged for being ableist?

I don't get it.

watsit said:
I'm kind of confused by what you're saying. Are they tagged based on context/intent, or regardless of context as long as the word appears in any way?

Part of me thinks intent and context should matter to some degree. It was mentioned earlier that "bitch" and "queen" can be considered slurs, but "bitch" also means a female dog in heat (a rather pertinent usage on a furry art site with a lot of porn) and "queen" is also a word for royalty. "Trap" is considered a slur against trans people, but it's also the term for certain types of devices. Having posts tagged for slurs when they just contain the word (someone calling to female royalty, or talking about a female dog, or pointing out a dangerous device) feels like it's watering down the whole concept of a slur and feels wrong. This is against TWYS, though.

I agree with this. If for example the word queen is used to refer to royalty, then it should not be tagged as a slur. Notably this is because a different definition of queen is being used, and I would argue that by tagging with respect to the definition you see used you would be following the TWYS rule. However, certain words, like the N-word, are arguably inherently offensive due to their origins and primary usage, so even when used in a neutral or positive context it should probably be tagged as a slur. I realize that this is perhaps a bit of a fuzzy line to draw, and so I do think there's more room to discuss exactly how much context matters for tagging these slurs, but technically those discussions are more about the individual *_slur tags themselves and not about whether *_slur should imply slur which is what this BUR is about.

Edit: Although if we simply tag every appearance of a slur word as *_slur almost regardless of context (i.e. only not tagging *_slur for very obvious stuff like queen when referring to royalty), and then tag the corresponding -ism tag (e.g. racism) when a word is used maliciously then I think everyone could be happy. People who don't want to see the word at all can blacklist *_slur or just slur, and people who don't want to see the word used in a negative context can blacklist "racist_slur racism" for example (or perhaps simply just blacklist racism).

lonely_fox_89 said:
Edit: Although if we simply tag every appearance of a slur word as *_slur almost regardless of context (i.e. only not tagging *_slur for very obvious stuff like queen when referring to royalty), and then tag the corresponding -ism tag (e.g. racism) when a word is used maliciously then I think everyone could be happy. People who don't want to see the word at all can blacklist *_slur or just slur, and people who don't want to see the word used in a negative context can blacklist "racist_slur racism" for example (or perhaps simply just blacklist racism).

I'm actually okay with this approach, though I'm still sticking to renaming the tags since having it end with -ist_slur or -ic_slur would make people falsely think they are a substitute to tagging the actual -ism tags (e.g., they use racist_slur thinking that it automatically implies racism).

Gonna rehash this for a moment with a few points.

Changing the tags so that they are more neutral (racial slur, instead of racist slur) just sounds cleaner and more concise in my opinion. I'd like to go that route.

Side note: the reasoning that "they've been reclaimed" is stupid for most of these. It's hardly reclaimed if you can't even say the full word on our website without fear of getting spanked.

Also, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to prove intent in the tags. Not only is that against the spirit of tag what you see, it's also completely untenable.

rainbow_dash said:
Gonna rehash this for a moment with a few points.

Changing the tags so that they are more neutral (racial slur, instead of racist slur) just sounds cleaner and more concise in my opinion. I'd like to go that route.

Side note: the reasoning that "they've been reclaimed" is stupid for most of these. It's hardly reclaimed if you can't even say the full word on our website without fear of getting spanked.

Also, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to prove intent in the tags. Not only is that against the spirit of tag what you see, it's also completely untenable.

If you'd like to make it sound more neutral, then why reject topic #37976?
That's the whole point of the BUR on that thread.

rainbow_dash said:
Gonna rehash this for a moment with a few points.

Changing the tags so that they are more neutral (racial slur, instead of racist slur) just sounds cleaner and more concise in my opinion. I'd like to go that route.

Side note: the reasoning that "they've been reclaimed" is stupid for most of these. It's hardly reclaimed if you can't even say the full word on our website without fear of getting spanked.

Also, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to prove intent in the tags. Not only is that against the spirit of tag what you see, it's also completely untenable.

Why was topic #37976 rejected then? Doesn't that one fit what you're talking about here?

(also, the reason I came back to this thread is I had an idea - what if we had a reclaiming_slur tag for when a slur is very clearly being reclaimed by the character saying it? like a male character happily calling himself the f-slur while sucking dick. Just an idea, maybe it wouldn't work, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Would let people blacklist slurs except for when they're clearly being reclaimed by blacklisting slur -reclaimed_slur)

cloudpie said:
Would let people blacklist slurs except for when they're clearly being reclaimed by blacklisting slur -reclaimed_slur

Actually now that I think about it maybe racial_slur -racism (or homophobia etc) would accomplish this fine as well, since we're not implying racial_slur -> racism. Or at least I think that was the decision that was reached here

cloudpie said:
what if we had a reclaimed_slur tag for when a slur is very clearly being reclaimed by the character saying it? like a male character happily calling themself the f-slur while sucking dick. Just an idea, maybe it wouldn't work, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Would let people blacklist slurs except for when they're clearly being reclaimed by blacklisting slur -reclaimed_slur)

That seems like it could end up giving the impression that the words themselves have been "reclaimed", rather than specific uses. A character can also use slurs as a pejorative against themselves (e.g. he can refer to himself as the f-word while sucking dick, to emotionally punish himself). It could also be open to interpretation as to whether it's "clearly" being reclaimed. For example, a guy getting his dick sucked by another guy, calling his partner the f-word. Some could see that as being "clearly reclaimed" since the guy getting sucked is engaging in gay sex as much as the guy sucking, but some could argue he's not being the "active" participant so it wouldn't necessarily apply to him as strongly and is thus not clear.

watsit said:
That seems like it could end up giving the impression that the words themselves have been "reclaimed", rather than specific uses. A character can also use slurs as a pejorative against themselves (e.g. he can refer to himself as the f-word while sucking dick, to emotionally punish himself). It could also be open to interpretation as to whether it's "clearly" being reclaimed. For example, a guy getting his dick sucked by another guy, calling his partner the f-word. Some could see that as being "clearly reclaimed" since the guy getting sucked is engaging in gay sex as much as the guy sucking, but some could argue he's not being the "active" participant so it wouldn't necessarily apply to him as strongly and is thus not clear.

Fair point! We're not implying homosexual_slur -> homophobia anyway as far as I can tell

Bumping this, seems like it should be higher priority for blacklisting's sake? But the original BUR has an error, the tag for racial slurs is racial_slur

The bulk update request #6424 is pending approval.

create alias slurs (0) -> slur (981)
create implication antisemitic_slur (2) -> slur (981)

Reason: While I'm here, one the OP doesn't have and also an alias for the main slur tag

dsco said:
Reason: While I'm here, one the OP doesn't have and also an alias for the main slur tag

Only 2 posts exist for antisemitic_slur. Do we really need specific slur tags for different ethnicities?
I'm thinking of having it aliased to ethnic_slur instead (or racial_slur, though it would be less accurate).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Only 2 posts exist for antisemitic_slur. Do we really need specific slur tags for different ethnicities?
I'm thinking of having it aliased to ethnic_slur instead (or racial_slur, though it would be less accurate).

I mean, I can see cases where people would want to blacklist that specifically, and antisemitism is kind of an intersection between ethnic discrimination and religious discrimination, so I don't think there's anywhere to alias it that properly fits :P

thegreatwolfgang said:
Only 2 posts exist for antisemitic_slur. Do we really need specific slur tags for different ethnicities?
I'm thinking of having it aliased to ethnic_slur instead (or racial_slur, though it would be less accurate).

Stop being a bother.

wolfmanfur said:
Stop being a bother.

I have two issues with this tag:

• 1) Only 2 posts exist under this tag, which already shows dubious validity.
• 2) It ends with "-ic", implying that every post will be antisemitic, which is my main problem with the slur tags if you have already seen in my previous comments on this thread.

Why I don't think it is needed:

• Everything this tag serves to blacklist can already be found under antisemitism, having a slur subcategory for it is needless.
• In addition, the antisemitic_slur word referenced in the two posts is categoried as an ethnic slur under Wikipedia. This is my basis for aliasing it to ethnic_slur.
• Similarly to the n-word, antisemitic slurs can be reclaimed for non-derogatory use as well.

Everything this tag serves to blacklist can already be found under antisemitism, having a slur subcategory for it is needless.

Sounds like antisemitic slur would be best aliased to antisemitism

snpthecat said:
Sounds like antisemitic slur would be best aliased to antisemitism

I'm fine with this too, idk why that slipped my mind. I can edit the BUR if people think this would be better?

snpthecat said:
Sounds like antisemitic slur would be best aliased to antisemitism

Like I said in the subsequent lines, antisemetic slurs can also be used non-derogatorily as well and ethnic_slur would be a better fit.
E.g., Calling someone "a dirty Jew" would be antisemitic while telling someone jokingly to "stop being such a Jew/Shylock" ^{[1] [2]} would not. And yes, the term "Jew" in on itself can sometimes be derogatory.

In cases where antisemitism does occur, then you'd tag antisemitism. Otherwise, we would want to have ethnic_slur tagged.

snpthecat said:
Sounds like antisemitic slur would be best aliased to antisemitism

Sounds like nothing, this person has done nothing, but whine everyday about the bur with faulty logic that they can't back up on. All this did is make this forum post a back and forth argument of almost 2 pages, again of their faulty, irrational and "to the dictionary" logic. It would have been approved by now if they didn't start this stupid debate. "racist slur racial slur" "sexist slur sexual slur", it's all the same fucking thing and it's all very silly, pointless and helps nobody.

I wish wasting everybody's time was against the guidelines becourse I would've flagged wolfgang by now.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Like I said in the subsequent lines, antisemetic slurs can also be used non-derogatorily as well and ethnic_slur would be a better fit.
E.g., Calling someone "a dirty Jew" would be antisemitic while telling someone jokingly to "stop being such a Jew/Shylock" ^{[1] [2]} would not. And yes, the term "Jew" in on itself can sometimes be derogatory.

In cases where antisemitism does occur, then you'd tag antisemitism. Otherwise, we would want to have ethnic_slur tagged.

Here we go again.

And to reiterate what I said earlier.
"And yes, the term "Jew" in on itself can sometimes be derogatory."

That sounds like "tag what you know" and I don't remember where you stand on that issue, but adding a list of words to be tagged on the antisemitic slur wiki would be far more TWYS than this.

wolfmanfur said:
Sounds like nothing, this person has done nothing, but whine everyday about the bur with faulty logic that they can't back up on. All this did is make this forum post a back and forth argument of almost 2 pages, again of their faulty, irrational and "to the dictionary" logic. It would have been approved by now if they didn't start this stupid debate. "racist slur racial slur" "sexist slur sexual slur", it's all the same fucking thing and it's all very silly, pointless and helps nobody.

I wish wasting everybody's time was against the guidelines becourse I would've flagged wolfgang by now.

There is no debate, it has already been judged and implemented. I'm just trying to keep it consistent.
Make all the slur tags sound neutral and we are all good. If you feel that my behaviour is disruptive, by all means go ahead and report me.

Here we go again.

And to reiterate what I said earlier.
"And yes, the term "Jew" in on itself can sometimes be derogatory."

That sounds like "tag what you know" and I don't remember where you stand on that issue, but adding a list of words to be tagged on the antisemitic slur wiki would be far more TWYS than this.

I'm not even going to debate that since we are sidetracking here.

My stance for the antisemitic_slur tag, specifically, is that it is not needed. So, I would not be arguing on keeping this tag in any form.
It can be easily considered an ethnic_slur without needing to specify the ethnicity it is directed towards.
We don't have slur subtags for each ethnicity, and we don't need to start creating them.

thegreatwolfgang said:
There is no debate, it has already been judged and implemented. I'm just trying to keep it consistent.
Make all the slur tags sound neutral and we are all good. If you feel that my behaviour is disruptive, by all means go ahead and report me.

On the post you've linked, I've said this;

That's not only that, there was "gender slur", "disability slur" and a few others. I recall that admin only supported "racial slur" over "racist slur".

This was done without consensus too, but contrary to your opinion, the admin who did this doesn't agree with your other proposals as evidenced by this. If you wanted to keep it consistent you would've left the tags alone.

I really don't think we need to argue like this about a tag with two uses. But ethnic_slur isn't currently a tag in use which is why I haven't edited my BUR.

wolfmanfur said:
This was done without consensus too, but contrary to your opinion, the admin who did this doesn't agree with your other proposals as evidenced by this. If you wanted to keep it consistent you would've left the tags alone.

And I also pointed out to your comment that "They wanted more neutral sounding terms, not just for racial_slur."
They mentioned "changing the tags", not just "changing racist_slur" specifically. They only gave that as an example.

As to why my own BUR got rejected, I do not know and I don't think they even gave a reason even though it was to what they had wanted.
However, if I were to speculate, it was because there were multiple BURs for slurs at the time and my BUR had discussion on tagging based on intent, which didn't sit well with them.

As to why this current BUR hasn't been approved or rejected until now, I guess they want us to debate even more?

dsco said:
I really don't think we need to argue like this about a tag with two uses. But ethnic_slur isn't currently a tag in use which is why I haven't edited my BUR.

That is fine, I just pulled out that tag as a potential alias target.
I had initially wanted to alias it to racial_slur, but the Jewish people are not a race (rather, they are an ethnoreligious group).

Now, I am considering having racial_slur alias to ethnic_slur instead, since that is how Wikipedia does it (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_slur redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs ).
They defined 'ethnic slur' as "a term designed to insult others on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality."

thegreatwolfgang said:
And I also pointed out to your comment that "They wanted more neutral sounding terms, not just for racial_slur."
They mentioned "changing the tags", not just "changing racist_slur" specifically. They only gave that as an example.

As pointed out the first time around, they specifically singled out racist_slur and racist_slur only.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As to why my own BUR got rejected, I do not know and I don't think they even gave a reason even though it was to what they had wanted.
However, if I were to speculate, it was because there were multiple BURs for slurs at the time and my BUR had discussion on tagging based on intent, which didn't sit well with them.

That's gibberish, if they agreed with your bur wholesale there ain't any reason for them to reject it period. They could've approved the bur, then rejected any other bur if they conflict.

And of course it wouldn't sit well with them because that's TWYS, this is the main reason you want these tags aliased to sexual_slur, gender_slur, disability_slur and ethnic_slur.

Further, you can always dmail them why they rejected your bur.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As to why this current BUR hasn't been approved or rejected until now, I guess they want us to debate even more?

I reckon they have no idea what to do with this bur because there are people arguing endlessly under this post and causing anybody who visits it to pick :( :/ or :) based solely on whom they agree more with instead of choosing the most appropriate option based on merit which should be ":)" since slur is an umbrella tag.

wolfmanfur said:
As pointed out the first time around, they specifically singled out racist_slur and racist_slur only.

That's gibberish, if they agreed with your bur wholesale there ain't any reason for them to reject it period. They could've approved the bur, then rejected any other bur if they conflict.

And of course it wouldn't sit well with them because that's TWYS, this is the main reason you want these tags aliased to sexual_slur, gender_slur, disability_slur and ethnic_slur.

Further, you can always dmail them why they rejected your bur.

Okay, so I poked them on Discord and they said that they'd preferred everything to be in the neutral-sounding format.
As to why my BUR was rejected, they don't remember the reason.
As for this current BUR, they will be sorting through it later in the week.