The bulk update request #4490 has been rejected.

create alias homophobic_slur (1217) -> homosexual_slur (0)
create alias transphobic_slur (44) -> transgender_slur (0)
create alias sexist_slur (380) -> gender_slur (0)
create alias racist_slur (0) -> racial_slur (142)
create alias ableist_slur (121) -> disability_slur (0)

Reason: In response to topic #37956, I suggest renaming the slur tags to remove any "implied maliciousness" to its use, regardless of context in artwork.
If they are used maliciously (depending on context), the additional homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, and ableism can be added separately.

Edit: Changed sexual_slur to gender_slur to better reflect its target group and to remove any overlaps with existing sexual orientation/LGBT-related slurs.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4490 (forum #361952) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

This seems too subjective? I'm not sure how you'd avoid Poe's law (i.e. Sarcasm on the Internet/trolling).

Not sure how I feel about this vs. the other one, but if this one goes through, I think sexual_slur should be called gender_slur instead, to match the meaning of sexist.

alphamule said:
This seems too subjective? I'm not sure how you'd avoid Poe's law (i.e. Sarcasm on the Internet/trolling).

cloudpie said:
Not sure how I feel about this vs. the other one, but if this one goes through, I think sexual_slur should be called gender_slur instead, to match the meaning of sexist.

The issue here is that the current naming suggests that they should always imply prejudice (e.g., racist_slur implies racism), though that has not been made official yet.
This BUR intends to distant away from the "inherent prejudice" from the names and only have the prejudices be tagged when it is apparent in the post.

Problems start cropping up when people use it casually, non-pejoratively, or even in a completely different definition.
Such as the word "cunt", it has been used to describe the pussy and yet the post get slapped with a sexist_slur tag (making it inherently offensive and sexist).
Renaming it to sexual_slur or even gender_slur would make it less offensive while also not automatically imply sexism.

The purpose of these slur tags stay the same, in that any type of slur will still be tagged regardless of context (though this is being debated on topic #37956).
I'm guessing what people don't realise is that not all slurs are inherently offensive and prejudiced, some are reclaimed (and reused in a neutral/positive way) as per the wiki definition.

The word slur on its own already implies malicious usage, so even if we take the first half of these renames to be less offensive on the whole they still refer to something that is offensive. And for the record, I don't think these renames imply any less maliciousness, they just obfuscate the meanings a bit. The -ist and -ic versions are more clear about what the tag refers to.

lonely_fox_89 said:
The word slur on its own already implies malicious usage...

Nope, that is the false impression everybody is getting here.
If you think it is inherently malicious, you might as well imply prejudice to the tag.
The wiki for slur already says that it can also include reclaimed terms that are reused/redefined by the affected group (e.g., queer is now a positive descriptor).

Still don't believe me? Read the Wikipedia article, it quotes "Sometimes, a term is regarded as pejorative in some social or ethnic groups but not in others, or may be originally pejorative but later adopt a non-pejorative sense (or vice versa) in some or all contexts."

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nope, that is the false impression everybody is getting here.
If you think it is inherently malicious, you might as well imply prejudice to the tag.
The wiki for slur already says that it can also include reclaimed terms that are reused/redefined by the affected group (e.g., queer is now a positive descriptor).

Still don't believe me? Read the Wikipedia article, it quotes "Sometimes, a term is regarded as pejorative in some social or ethnic groups but not in others, or may be originally pejorative but later adopt a non-pejorative sense (or vice versa) in some or all contexts."

A pejorative, slur, or derogatory term is a word or grammatical form expressing a negative or a disrespectful connotation, a low opinion, or a lack of respect toward someone or something.

"Queer" is still used as a negative term more often than not, even encountered people who thought the Q of lgbtq was questioning as a result, and is itself a controversial term within the community(as your own linked article notes).

If you are going to cite wikipedia to bolster your argument and only presenting one side, indicates means you are not looking for information, but for sources that support your way of thinking only.

If you think it is inherently malicious, you might as well imply prejudice to the tag.

Is a strawman.

A slur is negative by default, and only conditionally can be used without those negative meanings. This post is just the euphemism treadmill mentality, this thing is bad, so we will use this other term to refer to bad thing. Eventually that new term gets considered bad as well, so a new term will be made to refer to it.

deadoon said:

• A pejorative, slur, or derogatory term is a word or grammatical form expressing a negative or a disrespectful connotation, a low opinion, or a lack of respect toward someone or something.

"Queer" is still used as a negative term more often than not, even encountered people who thought the Q of lgbtq was questioning as a result, and is itself a controversial term within the community(as your own linked article notes).

If you are going to cite wikipedia to bolster your argument and only presenting one side, indicates means you are not looking for information, but for sources that support your way of thinking only.

That's the point of having a debate. If you have a better argument for your side, I would have to convince you otherwise.

You pointed out the other side of the argument (i.e., slurs often "[express] a negative or a disrespectful connotation"), but have you acknowledged my side of the argument (i.e., slurs "may be originally pejorative but later adopt a non-pejorative sense in some or all contexts")?

I feel that I should have phrased my previous statement better, in regards to "queer is now a positive descriptor".
I agree that queer is still a pejorative term among older generations and in a significant population today, but some groups have taken it upon themselves to reclaim the term in a non-pejorative manner.

Is a strawman.

A slur is negative by default, and only conditionally can be used without those negative meanings. This post is just the euphemism treadmill mentality, this thing is bad, so we will use this other term to refer to bad thing. Eventually that new term gets considered bad as well, so a new term will be made to refer to it.

We are no strangers to making tags sound less vulgar, see topic #24332.
However, the issue here has nothing to do with people getting offended by the use of said tags on their posts, but more of what taggers would assume from the name of those tags and their use.

It is the implicit meaning in the names of the *_slur tags that make it non-objective and dismissive of the smaller facts.
Yes, most slurs are negatively-used, offensive, and pejorative in nature. However, some slurs can still be used in neutral/positive, and non-pejorative manners.
Even conditionally, you'd have to agree with that fact. It is not 100% always pejorative, and its depiction in artworks would reflect that.
The current naming ignores this fact and makes the claim that all slurs are negative by default, which brought me to my point about implying prejudice.

I'm not trying to set up a strawman here, you can check the current wiki definition for racist_slur for what I am trying to point out about its original creator's intentions for the tag.
If we are going to be standardised about this (and we often do for similar tags), all the *_slur tags will also have to imply their respective prejudices.

Now imagine the scenario (within a two panel comic and the resulting tagging):

thegreatwolfgang said:
You pointed out the other side of the argument (i.e., slurs often "[express] a negative or a disrespectful connotation"), but have you acknowledged my side of the argument (i.e., slurs "may be originally pejorative but later adopt a non-pejorative sense in some or all contexts")?

The issue revolves around what a "slur" is. To most people, calling anything a "slur" automatically gives it a negative connotation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur
slur

1a: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion
b: a shaming or degrading effect : stain, stigma

You can't have a nice or neutral slur. Regardless of whether it's called a homophobic_slur or homosexual_slur, both terms indicate a word with a negative meaning toward gay people, of being homophobic even if the speaker doesn't intend it to be.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Yes, most slurs are negatively-used, offensive, and pejorative in nature. However, some slurs can still be used in neutral/positive, and non-pejorative manners.

This is not what I typically hear. I regularly hear slurs are negative by nature, and even when used in a non-pejorative manner, it has inherent negativity and should be avoided. If it's not negative, it's not a slur.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• Panel 2 includes the neutral/positive self-labelling of "queer", so the tag homophobic_slur would still be appropriate, but not homophobia.
• However, due to slurs being negative by default, homophobic_slur would imply homophobia. Thus, making Panel 2 homophobic when it truly isn't for that scene (which breaks TWYS and becomes TWYK).
• Using the tag homosexual_slur (or alternatively LGBT-related_slur) would include both negative and neutral/positive uses, with the option of having homophobia as a non-implied companion tag.

Calling someone's orientation label a slur is labeling it negatively, regardless if it's a "-phobic_slur"/"-ist_slur" or not. Take "trap" for instance. It initially started as a way to describe males with a feminine body and demeanor such that they could be easily confused for females. Then it started spreading as a negative way to refer to trans people more generally, with many people saying it's a slur. There are people that call themselves traps, taking pride in how their look and demeanor is so convincingly of the opposite sex (despite some such people not identifying as the opposite sex), and they get upset when people say the term "trap" they use to identify themselves with is a slur, because that's saying it's inherently negative and shouldn't be used regardless of them referring to themselves positively with it.

watsit said:
The issue revolves around what a "slur" is. To most people, calling anything a "slur" automatically gives it a negative connotation.

You can't have a nice or neutral slur. Regardless of whether it's called a homophobic_slur or homosexual_slur, both terms indicate a word with a negative meaning toward gay people, of being homophobic even if the speaker doesn't intend it to be.

I never made the claim that reclaimed slurs should not be tagged as slurs. They are all slurs, regardless of context and should be included for blacklisting purposes.

This is not what I typically hear. I regularly hear slurs are negative by nature, and even when used in a non-pejorative manner, it has inherent negativity and should be avoided. If it's not negative, it's not a slur.

That is why I am pointing out the contrary, many times now between the two threads.
However, people seem to be hellbent on believing that slurs are all (and always will be) bad.

If we ignore the non-negative or positively-used slurs, a bunch of them would slip through the blacklist crack.
People would want to be able to blacklist such terms (regardless of context) without experiencing any technicalities.

E.g., Someone doesn't want to hear the word "cunt" due to personal trauma and blacklists the slur, but because technically it isn't used negatively in some posts/context, it still appears on their feed.

Calling someone's orientation label a slur is labeling it negatively, regardless if it's a "-phobic_slur"/"-ist_slur" or not. Take "trap" for instance. It initially started as a way to describe males with a feminine body and demeanor such that they could be easily confused for females. Then it started spreading as a negative way to refer to trans people more generally, with many people saying it's a slur. There are people that call themselves traps, taking pride in how their look and demeanor is so convincingly of the opposite sex (despite some such people not identifying as the opposite sex), and they get upset when people say the term "trap" they use to identify themselves with is a slur, because that's saying it's inherently negative and shouldn't be used regardless of them referring to themselves positively with it.

We tag based on what we see, i.e, the word "queer" without any context.
Queer is both an orientation while also (unfortunately) a slur for some people, so tagging homosexual_slur or LGBT-related_slur would be appropriate for the reasons of blacklisting.
Of course, this perspective keeps in mind that not all slurs are inherently negative in nature and allows for wiggle room.

If we want to avoid tagging positive uses of slurs because the word "slur" is believed to be offensive, what alternatives would you suggest for the purpose of blacklisting?

thegreatwolfgang said:
However, people seem to be hellbent on believing that slurs are all (and always will be) bad.

Because they definitionally are. If it's not bad, it's not a slur. Words can stop being slurs, yes, and we wouldn't tag them as slurs when they're not slurs. We wouldn't tag "gay" as a slur nowadays, and "queer" has largely lost its status as a slur.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If we ignore the non-negative or positively-used slurs, a bunch of them would slip through the blacklist crack.

There's no such thing as a "positively-used slur". A slur is "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo; a shaming or degrading effect", so if a word is not these things when used, it's not a slur, and if it is these things, it's not "positively-used". For instance, a "homosexual slur" must inescapably be homophobic as it's "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo" about gay people.

thegreatwolfgang said:
E.g., Someone doesn't want to hear the word "cunt" due to personal trauma and blacklists the slur, but because technically it isn't used negatively in some posts/context, it still appears on their feed.

We wouldn't tag the specific word. People can equally have trauma over words like "rape" or "kidnap", but e6 isn't in the habit of tagging potentially traumatizing individual words, and the tagging system isn't set up for that.

thegreatwolfgang said:
We tag based on what we see, i.e, the word "queer" without any context.
Queer is both an orientation while also (unfortunately) a slur for some people, so tagging homosexual_slur or LGBT-related_slur would be appropriate for the reasons of blacklisting.

We have to take context into account for things like this, otherwise anytime anyone calls Zelda or Peach by their title "Princess" could equally be an LGBT-related slur if looked at in a vacuum. So if words like Princess can be considered a slur based on context (whether it's a noun referring to a title (not a slur), or an adjective describing a gay male (is a slur)), I don't see why the same can't be done with other words.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If we want to avoid tagging positive uses of slurs because the word "slur" is believed to be offensive, what alternatives would you suggest for the purpose of blacklisting?

Since we don't tag individual words for blacklisting, there would be nothing for the individual words. When a slur is used, we can tag the type of slur and the negativity expressed (e.g. sexist slur or homophobic slur), but I don't see how we can go beyond that without getting crazy (e.g. tagging "Princess Zelda" as a homosexual slur).

watsit said:
Because they definitionally are. If it's not bad, it's not a slur. Words can stop being slurs, yes, and we wouldn't tag them as slurs when they're not slurs. We wouldn't tag "gay" as a slur nowadays, and "queer" has largely lost its status as a slur.

There's no such thing as a "positively-used slur". A slur is "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo; a shaming or degrading effect", so if a word is not these things when used, it's not a slur, and if it is these things, it's not "positively-used". For instance, a "homosexual slur" must inescapably be homophobic as it's "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo" about gay people.

To be fair, the "queer" word has not completely lost its status as a slur (like @deadoon had pointed out).
It remains controversial among a significant portion of the population while some groups have reclaimed it as a neutral/positive term.

Same thing can be said with the word "cunt". Among Australians and New Zealanders, it has become an informal part of their speech that is often used with a positive identifier to avoid sending the wrong message (like what @Dripen_Arn & I have pointed out in the other thead).
To the rest of the world though, the word "cunt" is still strictly looked on as a negative slur or alternatively to describe the pussy.

Then, there is the "n-word". You cannot tell me that if it is used casually and fraternally between African Americans that it is not a racist_slur.

All three examples are still considered to be slurs by one group or another, but they are used positively within certain context.
Should they not be tagged because they are not actually a "slur"?

We wouldn't tag the specific word. People can equally have trauma over words like "rape" or "kidnap", but e6 isn't in the habit of tagging potentially traumatizing individual words, and the tagging system isn't set up for that.

People with trauma over "rape" and "kidnappings" can blacklist rape and kidnapping.

There was an attempt made on topic #29465 to tag individual slur words, but it was ultimately determined to be overkill considering the number of slurs in existence.
Thus, every slur tend to get loosely tagged as *_slur based on what group they are generally targeted against (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

We have to take context into account for things like this, otherwise anytime anyone calls Zelda or Peach by their title "Princess" could equally be an LGBT-related slur if looked at in a vacuum. So if words like Princess can be considered a slur based on context (whether it's a noun referring to a title (not a slur), or an adjective describing a gay male (is a slur)), I don't see why the same can't be done with other words.

Since we don't tag individual words for blacklisting, there would be nothing for the individual words. When a slur is used, we can tag the type of slur and the negativity expressed (e.g. sexist slur or homophobic slur), but I don't see how we can go beyond that without getting crazy (e.g. tagging "Princess Zelda" as a homosexual slur).

I do agree that certain words should be tagged based on context, due to the inevitability of encountering them as part of daily speech.
This is especially apparent for terms that have existed before it became pejorative.
Casual mentions of the word "Gay", "Princess", "Queen", or "Fairy" (to name a few) would not be slurs. However, if context (including historical) can be applied, then it should be tagged as slur.

However, there are words that are inherently tied to negativity due to their long use in history, such as the words "Fag" or "Cunt".

I still remain adamant though that should positively-used "slurs" be included when tagging, it should not imply the respective prejudices (e.g., saying the n-word does not automatically make a post racist).
If general consensus says that reclaimed/positively-used "slurs" should not be tagged, then I would have no problem with the current naming and use of the tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
To be fair, the "queer" word has not completely lost its status as a slur (like @deadoon had pointed out).
It remains controversial among a significant portion of the population while some groups have reclaimed it as a neutral/positive term.

Same thing can be said with the word "cunt". Among Australians and New Zealanders, it has become an informal part of their speech that is often used with a positive identifier to avoid sending the wrong message (like what @Dripen_Arn & I have pointed out in the other thead).
To the rest of the world though, the word "cunt" is still strictly looked on as a negative slur or alternatively to describe the pussy.

Then, there is the "n-word". You cannot tell me that if it is used casually and fraternally between African Americans that it is not a racist_slur.

All three examples are still considered to be slurs by one group or another, but they are used positively within certain context.
Should they not be tagged because they are not actually a "slur"?

I don't think you understand, they are slurs because a significant portion of the population uses them as slurs.

Black is not a slur because most people use that word to describe the color black.

The only slur that is no longer a slur is "gay". Queer is still very much a slur and when folks do self-label themselves as a queer they do so to describe themselves as unconventionally gay or flamboyant which is not so acceptable in the wider LGBT community. If you ask someone from the LGBT what they think of "queer" they'd think it's a slur that should never be said.

About "cunt", I don't know which part of the united kingdoms/australia you and Dripen Arn are from, but cunt is still very much a slur over there, try to call someone a "stupid cunt" and see how that goes. In French, the word cunt literally translates to "con" or "connard". "Con" can be used in a non-pejorative way in the same vein as cunt if it is between friends only "ah ah, mais quel con mdr", but calling a random stranger a "con" is still offensive and wherever you live, I can say for sure that if you call a random stranger a "cunt" they're gonna be angry over it. It does not carry the same weight as in America due to differences in culture, but it is still a slur. In the same way the word "fag" is a slang word for cigarette in the united kingdoms, but refers to gay people in America and possibly everywhere else.

And as I said previously, and as Watsit repeated, a slur is inherently malicious, if it was not inherently malicious it would not be a slur. If it can be conditionally neutral or meliorative, it is most likely a word that you should be avoiding. Even the N-word that ends in an "A" is offensive - not only does it have the condition that the person who uses it must be of african descent (all "reclaimed" slurs have a similar condition, by the way), but it is offensive regardless to some black people whereas "black" is not offensive as it is a color that has never been conditionally acceptable/unacceptable, thus the N-word in "A" is a slur as well although it is frequently used as a synonym for "brother".

thegreatwolfgang said:
To be fair, the "queer" word has not completely lost its status as a slur (like @deadoon had pointed out).
It remains controversial among a significant portion of the population while some groups have reclaimed it as a neutral/positive term.

Yes, it's controversial because different people have different thresholds for these things; for some people it's passed back enough that it can be separated from its prejudiced meaning (at least in some circumstances), while for other people it hasn't and is still a prejudiced word regardless. "Gay" was controversial for a time too, when it was in its own period of regaining a non-prejudicial meaning. The fact that the larger acronym, LGBTQA+, includes Q for Queer, shows there is a definite attempt at reclamation for it, as most people would not be okay with their group name containing a slur against the group.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Same thing can be said with the word "cunt". Among Australians and New Zealanders, it has become an informal part of their speech that is often used with a positive identifier to avoid sending the wrong message (like what @Dripen_Arn & I have pointed out in the other thead).

Or "bloody", which is rather vulgar and profane in the UK, but is rather tame in the US. Different words have different meanings in different countries, but e6 tends to take an US-centric view of things being that it's a US-based site. An image with text saying "that bloody dog" wouldn't be tagged profanity, for example.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Then, there is the "n-word". You cannot tell me that if it is used casually and fraternally between African Americans that it is not a racist_slur.

A word can carry a negative connotation even if used casually with no ill-intent. I know gay people that call each other the f-word, and even though they don't mean anything negativity by it, it still carries its homophobic meaning. In some parts of the world, that word refers to a cigarette, but to a listener in the US, they'll hear that and immediately think of the homophobic connotations at first because that meaning is so dominant here.

thegreatwolfgang said:
All three examples are still considered to be slurs by one group or another, but they are used positively within certain context.
Should they not be tagged because they are not actually a "slur"?

If it's not a slur, it shouldn't be tagged as one, but different words have different thresholds for when it is or isn't a slur. Some, like the n-word or f-word, are too tied to their racist or homophobic meanings to be separate from it, making them inherently prejudiced regardless of context, while others like "princess" or "fairy" can be separate from their prejudiced meaning and so would be tagged as a slur based on whether it's use was prejudiced or not.

thegreatwolfgang said:
People with trauma over "rape" and "kidnappings" can blacklist rape and kidnapping.

That doesn't catch the word, only the visualization of it. A character sitting in a cafe talking to a friend about how they were "forcibly kidnapped, and raped for weeks" wouldn't be tagged for kidnapping or rape if you don't see it happening, so someone that doesn't want to hear/read the word because of personal trauma can't blacklist it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I do agree that certain words should be tagged based on context, due to the inevitability of encountering them as part of daily speech.
This is especially apparent for terms that have existed before it became pejorative.
Casual mentions of the word "Gay", "Princess", "Queen", or "Fairy" (to name a few) would not be slurs. However, if context (including historical) can be applied, then it should be tagged as slur.

Like I said, it depends on how it's being used. If someone says, "I went out to the park last night and ran into a fairy", is that a slur? Most people would probably say no, since there's no context to indicate it's talking about a gay person, and the default assumption would likely be it's talking about a small sprite of some kind. So even though the word has been used as a pejorative for gay people, and still is sometimes, it wouldn't be tagged as a slur if it's not apparently being used as one. In contrast, if someone says, "I went out to the park last night and got myself a fag", that would be considered a homophobic slur regardless of context since the word is so ingrained with its prejudicial meaning (even if they meant it as going out for a cigarette break, or they went out for a fun gay hookup, the word still carries the prejudice in the US).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I still remain adamant though that should positively-used "slurs" be included when tagging, it should not imply the respective prejudices (e.g., saying the n-word does not automatically make a post racist).

The way I see it, if a word is negative enough to be tagged as a slur, it's because it's carrying that prejudice even if the speaker and listener understand it's without ill-intent (gay people calling each other the f-word in a jocular manner, black people calling each other the n-word in a casual manner, etc).

Think of it like "fucker" or "balls". Someone can call a friend "fucker" in a friendly manner they're both cool with, but it would be tagged profanity regardless since it still carries a profane meaning. Or if someone makes a mistake and says "Oh, balls" in reference to the male anatomy, it would be (light) profanity because of it carries a profane meaning, whereas if someone goes "Oh, balls" because they see a pile of tennis balls, it wouldn't be profanity since it's not a profane male anatomy reference. Similarly, if the meaning of a word is so inherently prejudiced, it would be tagged as a slur regardless of context because it can't shake that prejudicial meaning, ill-intentioned or not, while if a word is more flexible, it would be tagged as a slur based on context, depending if it was used with the prejudicial meaning or not.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't think you understand, they are slurs because a significant portion of the population uses them as slurs.

Black is not a slur because most people use that word to describe the color black.

The only slur that is no longer a slur is "gay". Queer is still very much a slur and when folks do self-label themselves as a queer they do so to describe themselves as unconventionally gay or flamboyant which is not so acceptable in the wider LGBT community. If you ask someone from the LGBT what they think of "queer" they'd think it's a slur that should never be said.

...

And as I said previously, and as Watsit repeated, a slur is inherently malicious, if it was not inherently malicious it would not be a slur. If it can be conditionally neutral or meliorative, it is most likely a word that you should be avoiding. Even the N-word that ends in an "A" is offensive - not only does it have the condition that the person who uses it must be of african descent (all "reclaimed" slurs have a similar condition, by the way), but it is offensive regardless to some black people whereas "black" is not offensive as it is a color that has never been conditionally acceptable/unacceptable, thus the N-word in "A" is a slur as well although it is frequently used as a synonym for "brother".

I don't think you understand, please read what my comment was in response to.
My point was in reference to how @Watsit has said about avoiding the tagging of positively-used "slurs".
I did not say that they should not be tagged as slur.

I'm agreeing with you in regards to not tagging some slurs due to its prevalence in daily speech, such as "Black" and "Gay".
They should not be tagged with *_slur unless context is apparent.

I also agree with you that the "n-word" and all its iterations are still considered to be slurs, regardless of context.

About "cunt", I don't know which part of the united kingdoms/australia you and Dripen Arn are from, but cunt is still very much a slur over there, try to call someone a "stupid cunt" and see how that goes. In French, the word cunt literally translates to "con" or "connard". "Con" can be used in a non-pejorative way in the same vein as cunt if it is between friends only "ah ah, mais quel con mdr", but calling a random stranger a "con" is still offensive and wherever you live, I can say for sure that if you call a random stranger a "cunt" they're gonna be angry over it. It does not carry the same weight as in America due to differences in culture, but it is still a slur. In the same way the word "fag" is a slang word for cigarette in the united kingdoms, but refers to gay people in America and possibly everywhere else.

About "cunt", I'm not a local myself but I am well aware enough that it exists as part of casual speech, mostly used positively among close relations but not to random strangers.
They can exist as both negative and positive terms, depending on the context and descriptor ahead of it.
There are many references to how it is being used both ways if you had searched up on the topic. Calling a stranger a "cunt" would definitely be offensive, even in Australia.

About "fag", it would be considered a slur virtually everywhere outside of the UK due to its widespread use as a pejorative term in the US (and spread worldwide though popular media).

So yes, I agree that both these words should be considered as slurs.

Just to repeat my stance in case there is some confusion, I am not arguing about whether X or Y should be considered a slur or not.
I'm making the argument that <prejudice>_slur should not imply <prejudice> from their names themselves (e.g., racist_slur implies racism), thus my suggestion for a rename.

watsit said:
Or "bloody", which is rather vulgar and profane in the UK, but is rather tame in the US. Different words have different meanings in different countries, but e6 tends to take an US-centric view of things being that it's a US-based site. An image with text saying "that bloody dog" wouldn't be tagged profanity, for example.

I see the point you are trying to make here, but we should also consider the context, time, and location in which the artwork is taken place as well.
We cannot automatically default to a US-centric view when considering speech from other cultures.

A word can carry a negative connotation even if used casually with no ill-intent. I know gay people that call each other the f-word, and even though they don't mean anything negativity by it, it still carries its homophobic meaning. In some parts of the world, that word refers to a cigarette, but to a listener in the US, they'll hear that and immediately think of the homophobic connotations at first because that meaning is so dominant here.

It does and I agree that the word "fag" does have homophobic connotations and the "n-word" too also can have racist connotations. Will go into it more below.

If it's not a slur, it shouldn't be tagged as one, but different words have different thresholds for when it is or isn't a slur. Some, like the n-word or f-word, are too tied to their racist or homophobic meanings to be separate from it, making them inherently prejudiced regardless of context, while others like "princess" or "fairy" can be separate from their prejudiced meaning and so would be tagged as a slur based on whether it's use was prejudiced or not.

Thank you for clarifying your position on this one. I agree with you that highly-sensitive words should be tagged as slur while words that have entered daily speech should not (unless context is apparent).

That doesn't catch the word, only the visualization of it. A character sitting in a cafe talking to a friend about how they were "forcibly kidnapped, and raped for weeks" wouldn't be tagged for kidnapping or rape if you don't see it happening, so someone that doesn't want to hear/read the word because of personal trauma can't blacklist it.

I don't know if we are ever going to go that in-depth when tagging speech, but I feel that we definitely should for more sensitive topics (such as suicidal thoughts or self-destructive themes in artwork).

Like I said, it depends on how it's being used. If someone says, "I went out to the park last night and ran into a fairy", is that a slur? Most people would probably say no, since there's no context to indicate it's talking about a gay person, and the default assumption would likely be it's talking about a small sprite of some kind. So even though the word has been used as a pejorative for gay people, and still is sometimes, it wouldn't be tagged as a slur if it's not apparently being used as one. In contrast, if someone says, "I went out to the park last night and got myself a fag", that would be considered a homophobic slur regardless of context since the word is so ingrained with its prejudicial meaning (even if they meant it as going out for a cigarette break, or they went out for a fun gay hookup, the word still carries the prejudice in the US).

I wholly agree.

The way I see it, if a word is negative enough to be tagged as a slur, it's because it's carrying that prejudice even if the speaker and listener understand it's without ill-intent (gay people calling each other the f-word in a jocular manner, black people calling each other the n-word in a casual manner, etc).

Think of it like "fucker" or "balls". Someone can call a friend "fucker" in a friendly manner they're both cool with, but it would be tagged profanity regardless since it still carries a profane meaning. Or if someone makes a mistake and says "Oh, balls" in reference to the male anatomy, it would be (light) profanity because of it carries a profane meaning, whereas if someone goes "Oh, balls" because they see a pile of tennis balls, it wouldn't be profanity since it's not a profane male anatomy reference. Similarly, if the meaning of a word is so inherently prejudiced, it would be tagged as a slur regardless of context because it can't shake that prejudicial meaning, ill-intentioned or not, while if a word is more flexible, it would be tagged as a slur based on context, depending if it was used with the prejudicial meaning or not.

We need to keep in mind about avoiding TWYK. We cannot consider the casual use of a slur within artworks to be inherently prejudiced in nature.
Following TWYS, if you cannot see the homophobia or racism from the speech and context in the artwork, we cannot tag it as such.

I believe that the "n-word" in some context does not make it a racist_slur. It is most definitely still a slur, but not inherently racist considering the context.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think you understand, please read what my comment was in response to.
My point was in reference to how @Watsit has said about avoiding the tagging of positively-used "slurs".
I did not say that they should not be tagged as slur.

No, I did read it fully and correctly. He said words that are no longer used as slurs shouldn't be tagged because they aren't slurs. A significant portion of the population use queer as a slur, a significant portion of the population use cunt as a slur, so they are slurs, simple as that, but you in the other hand are overthinking the way a tag is written because YOU think it implies something sinister when the rename would do nothing to change the definition. It's a quibble and it's petty.

I'm agreeing with you in regards to not tagging some slurs due to its prevalence in daily speech, such as "Black" and "Gay".
They should not be tagged with *_slur unless context is apparent.

They have never been tagged *_slur and they never will because they aren't slurs, they can be used insultingly, but that is not common. we have the separate tag racism to contextualize a scenario.

I also agree with you that the "n-word" and all its iterations are still considered to be slurs, regardless of context.

You said earlier that the N-word could be not offensive, though. Either that was you or Dripen Arn, but I remember one of you actually making this argument toinsist that your own terms are better than the ones used on e6.

About "cunt", I'm not a local myself but I am well aware enough that it exists as part of casual speech, mostly used positively among close relations but not to random strangers.
They can exist as both negative and positive terms, depending on the context and descriptor ahead of it.
There are many references to how it is being used both ways if you had searched up on the topic. Calling a stranger a "cunt" would definitely be offensive, even in Australia.

So, ultimately it is a slur, if I call you an asshole or an idiot that'd be namecalling first, but secondly they're slurs. If cunt can only be conditionally neutral or meliorative then it isn't a normal word you'd use in everyday speech.

Just to repeat my stance in case there is some confusion, I am not arguing about whether X or Y should be considered a slur or not.
I'm making the argument that <prejudice>_slur should not imply <prejudice> from their names themselves (e.g., racist_slur implies racism), thus my suggestion for a rename.

You know what, I edted this stupid wiki to remove the text that's causing you irritation in the first place and gave a clear concise explanation why it was removed. racist_slur does not currently implicate racism, so it's false information.

wolfmanfur said:
No, I did read it fully and correctly. He said words that are no longer used as slurs shouldn't be tagged because they aren't slurs. A significant portion of the population use queer as a slur, a significant portion of the population use cunt as a slur, so they are slurs, simple as that, but you in the other hand are overthinking the way a tag is written because YOU think it implies something sinister when the rename would do nothing to change the definition. It's a quibble and it's petty.

Not my intention, the tags imply something that should not be automatically assumed without reading into the context of the related post.
That would be TWYK by default, and not TWYS when applying it to posts.

"Queer" is a slur, nobody is disputing that. However, the use of "queer" is not always homophobic in nature.

They have never been tagged *_slur and they never will because they aren't slurs, they can be used insultingly, but that is not common. we have the separate tag racism to contextualize a scenario.

If "black" or "gay" was used pejoratively in the context of that post, should it not be tagged with slur?
Or are we not tagging it because we are basing it off our own knowledge of the word's current meaning in the present day?

You said earlier that the N-word could be not offensive, though. Either that was you or Dripen Arn, but I remember one of you actually making this argument toinsist that your own terms are better than the ones used on e6.

I said that I agree that the n-word is a slur, but I did not agree on it being inherently offensive.
Your definition of slur is that all slurs are inherently offensive. My definition of slur is that slurs can be either offensive or non-offensive, depending on context.

So, ultimately it is a slur, if I call you an asshole or an idiot that'd be namecalling first, but secondly they're slurs. If cunt can only be conditionally neutral or meliorative then it isn't a normal word you'd use in everyday speech.

"Asshole" and "idiot" are not slurs*, they are pejorative terms that can be used on anyone and not toward a specific targeted group or identity.
^{* "Idiot" was at one point a disability_slur on the same level as the "r-word", but it has since gradually turned into a generic term for a "stupid or foolish person".}

Ignoring that off-topic point, I agree that "cunt" is ultimately still a slur. We only differ on the definition of slur.

You know what, I edted this stupid wiki to remove the text that's causing you irritation in the first place and gave a clear concise explanation why it was removed. racist_slur does not currently implicate racism, so it's false information.

Thank you for changing that. However, would that stop people from thinking that racist_slur also equals racist by default? It is in the name, so the problem is still there.
Somewhere down the road, somebody is going to request a BUR to have <prejudice>_slur imply <prejudice> and I will link this thread again.

Again, baring in mind before the argument loops around again, my argument stems from my definition that slurs are not always considered offensive and that idea should also be reflected in the names of the subtags.
The only argument I see against my definition is that all slurs are inherently offensive, and that if they are used any other way, they would not be considered to be slurs in the first place.

Sexual_slur makes it sound less like rude terms for women or men and more like they have to be... sexual. But I don't think they always are sexual, "bitch," perhaps the most common one, doesn't strike me as inherently sexual (not like "cunt"). Again, I really think the right way to go there is gender_slur, if this BUR is what we end up going with. Gender_slur is much clearer in meaning, since these are rude terms based on gender.

That's really my only issue with this BUR

cloudpie said:
Sexual_slur makes it sound less like rude terms for women or men and more like they have to be... sexual. But I don't think they always are sexual, "bitch," perhaps the most common one, doesn't strike me as inherently sexual (not like "cunt"). Again, I really think the right way to go there is gender_slur, if this BUR is what we end up going with. Gender_slur is much clearer in meaning, since these are rude terms based on gender.

That's really my only issue with this BUR

The thing is that sexual_slur was meant to include slurs related to one's sex, gender, and sexual orientation.
Now thinking about it and how it has been renamed to sexist_slur, I'm not opposed to changing it to gender_slur since the former already excluded the sexual orientation aspect.

Additionally, we would need to create an orientation_slur tag, which would include sexual orientation/LGBT-related slurs.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Your definition of slur is that all slurs are inherently offensive. My definition of slur is that slurs can be either offensive or non-offensive, depending on context.

It's not just our definition, it's what's in the dictionary. If it's not offensive, it's not a slur, and if it is a slur, it's because it carries that racist/homophobic/etc meaning, regardless if the speaker or listener give or take offense to it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Now thinking about it and how it has been renamed to sexist_slur, I'm not opposed to changing it to gender_slur since the former already excluded the sexual orientation aspect.

Gender slur makes me think of a slur as a gender, like "dickgirl", rather than a slur targeted to a particular gender, like "hussy" or "whore".

watsit said:
It's not just our definition, it's what's in the dictionary. If it's not offensive, it's not a slur, and if it is a slur, it's because it carries that racist/homophobic/etc meaning, regardless if the speaker or listener give or take offense to it.

Alright, since we want to base it off the most simplest definition as defined by a dictionary, I will bring up more in-depth descriptions based on scientific articles.

According to Popa-Wyatt (2020),

• "Slurring is a type of hate speech meant to harm individuals simply because of their group membership. It not only offends but also causes oppression. Slurs have some strange properties. Target groups can reclaim slurs, so as to express solidarity and pride."
• "Slurs signal identity affiliations; they cue and re-entrench ideologies. They subordinate and silence target members and are sometimes used non-derogatorily."

According to Cepollaro & Zeman (2020),

• "Slurs are arguably the most prototypical instance of hate speech: they exemplify very clearly how discourse can hurt, abuse and subordinate human beings. These epithets derogate people and groups on the basis of their belonging to a certain category. What is peculiar to these expressions is their so-called hyper-projectivity (Camp, 2018 ): their derogatory content seems to resist all kinds of semantic embedding. This often means that slurs can hurt and abuse despite the embedded position they occupy in an utterance and despite the intentions of the speaker. In light of this phenomenon, it is not surprising that the literature on slurs has taken a keen interest in standard derogatory uses. This special issue offers instead a collection of papers that focuses on how slurs can be used in non-derogatory ways."
• "Among the various potential candidates for non-derogatory uses, reclamation especially drew the attention of scholars in philosophy of language and linguistics. We speak of ‘reclamation’ (or ‘appropriation’) when a given slur is used in a very special non-derogatory way on particular occasions, typically by members of the group that the slur targets. Such uses tend to be taken (even though non-unanimously) to convey solidarity and intimacy rather than hatred or contempt and are often employed to help achieve political goals and fight oppression. The phenomenon of reclamation raises an important challenge to the theories of slurs that were recently developed, since it arguably constitutes a rare case where the hyper-projectivity of slurs is defeated. In addition, reclamation might have the potential to turn slurs into non-derogatory terms: certain words appear to have lost their slur status as a result of a process of reclamation (e.g. ‘gay’, Bianchi, 2014 )."

The only time a slur ceases to be a slur, by your definition, is when it has completely lost its derogatory (hyper-projectivity) status, such as the case of "gay".
However, a reclaimed slur can still be a slur if it still retains its derogatory status among the target group, though this does not necessarily mean that it automatically conveys hatred when used by said target group if context permits (such as the "n-word" or "cunt").

Gender slur makes me think of a slur as a gender, like "dickgirl", rather than a slur targeted to a particular gender, like "hussy" or "whore".

"Dickgirl" can be a slur targeted against transgender people, so it still fits the definition of a gender slur.

The bulk update request #4490 (forum #361952) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.