Community Standards
A couple of years ago, I made a pledge to myself concerning the R Word. It wasn’t the pledge you see posted now and then, the one that says you’ll never use the word again. After my own shameful past and need for penance, that’s a given. No, the pledge I made to myself was that never again would I give my silent approval to the use of this hate speech by saying nothing when I heard it or saw it written. It’s easy to keep quiet when the alternative is that awkwardness that comes with being a scold. But I realized that every time someone lets it go without comment, they’re saying it’s okay. And it really isn’t.
Most of all, I promised myself that when I saw the R Word used on Facebook, I would report it as a violation of the site’s Community Standards.
Even though I know what the response will be.
Some of the different hats I wear in my life don’t always compliment each other very well. Even though I hate the R Word with the zealotry of a late convert, I’m also a writer, and I don’t take the cudgel against language without real hesitation. But as a writer, I have to accept that words have actual power, and when we use them, we have responsibility for the outcome. The concept of hate speech results from the acknowledgement that powerful things sometimes need to be checked. I’d prefer that in this particular case, the checks would be self-applied, and that simply basic humanity would lead you to look at a language containing approximately 1,025,110 words and pick one that didn’t cause so much pain to a particularly vulnerable population. I’m not for banned language, as a rule. But I recognize that hate speech occupies a very particular place in our culture, and our response to it is especially important.
I am aware that not everyone shares this view. I am particularly aware that Facebook doesn’t agree, because every single time I’ve reported a use of the R Word on Facebook, I’ve received the same response. I can almost recite it by heart at this point.
“Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the comment you reported for displaying hate speech and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.”
The other day, I saw someone on Facebook use an anti-gay slur in a pretty casual manner. The word was pretty garden variety (three letters, starts with an F, popular in the 80s) and was being used in a non-threatening, jackassy kind of way way, but I reported it to Facebook because a slur is still a slur, and the thing about hate speech is that unchecked, it helps to create a permissive environment where the really bad stuff can flourish. I reported it because it was the right thing to do. But I’d been here before with the R Word, and so I was curious to see if the response would be different.
A very short time later, Facebook replied. The anti-day comment was found to be in violation of their Community Standards and had been removed.
A few days later, I saw a comment that said (with my apologies for quoting it here), “They should sterilize the retarded and deport them to Mexico.”
Aside from how a trip to Mexico sounded kind of nice, this struck me as a clear example of hate speech. It even has threats, at least implied in the “should”.
Nope. Not in violation. Facebook was fine with it.
I’ve heard from a lot of people about what might differ between the two hateful slurs may have made the difference to Facebook. A few people suggested that for Facebook to take action, they must have a large number of complaints about a post or a comment, and the LGBT community is much better situated to mobilize and self-advocate, a point that I will readily admit is absolutely true. But this isn’t a contestant on American Idol. Community standards aren’t a thing to be voted on, as if it would be fine to legalize assault if enough people signed off on it. They are standards for a reason. Something is either acceptable by our society, or it isn’t.
So why is using my daughter and her friends as a joke (or worse, as the Mexico comments illustrates) acceptable, and other forms of hate speech are not? Why are they denied basic human dignity in the eyes of so many? Why is their pain alone an accepted necessary by-product of free speech? Do they ever get to be human without it being upvoted by a certain quota of readers?
I don’t know. I can’t know. All I’m certain of is that the poisons in our society only get washed away by people who care, not by laws or by social media outlets and their arbitrary choices about who gets to be a human being and who has to settle for being a punchline. Community standards change when the community feels sick when they read a word, and when they feel like they need a shot of Listerine when that same word exits their own mouth.
I don’t think the disability community is going to move that particular boulder with hate speech referrals on Facebook. But I’m going to keep filing those reports, and I’m going to keep posting screenshots of their distasteful responses. My community needs to have standards that recognize the humanity of all our people.
The village matters.
(EDITED TO ADD AN ADMITTEDLY GRUMPY POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I guess I really do need to say this; I didn’t originally do so in my piece because I thought we were talking at the grownups’ table. When I write about wanting society to take the R Word seriously as a form of hate speech, I’m referring to cases where it’s being used in that context. You can keep your fire-retardant ironic vintage Underoos, and your grandma can keep saying sweet things about that nice retarded boy who bags her groceries. I thought that was obvious. I still do, but here you go. -R)
Note: To support the site we make money on some products, product categories and services that we talk about on this website through affiliate relationships with the merchants in question. We get a small commission on sales of those products.That in no way affects our opinions of those products and services.
See, this kind of lunacy is the result of focusing our concerns on “What words are being used?” rather than “What is being said?”
I agree that the Mexico comment DOES represent hate speech. However, if someone posts “I think communities should provide more activities for the adult retarded”, that’s NOT hate speech. The proper response to the second is to place a polite comment requesting that the poster revise their language to use “intellectually disabled” instead.
Re: On using the circumlocution “the R word”. You can’t use this without promoting the belief that intellectual disability is a fate so dire that it shouldn’t be spoken of. Remember what Dumbledore said about the refusal to say Voldemort’s name?
I couldn’t agree more!
I think I was pretty clearly speaking of the use of the word as hate speech, not in every single possible instance where that word might escape the lips of another human being. Sorry, sort of, but you’re making the oldest and weakest counter argument to speaking out against the R Word. It’s a child’s argument. It’s a game of semantic wiggle room, an argument for the sake of argument. It doesn’t belong at the grownups’ table. Sorry, but it just doesn’t.
As for your last point, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s not about the idea that intellectual disability is a dire fate. It’s about using a term that relegates people with intellectual disabilities to the role of punchline, and to suggest that they are synonymous with stupid and the last thing a person would want to be associated with. It is in fact the opposite of what you’re suggesting. If “retarded” was being used to describe a condition, that would be one thing. We could discuss that. (To be fair, in my post, I didn’t specify that I’m reporting the word specifically when it’s being used as an insult, but I didn’t actually think I needed to. Clearly I was mistaken.) But it’s being used to equate that condition with being less of a human being.
Those of us in the disability community aren’t the ones promoting the belief that intellectual disability is some kind of curse. And honestly, I think you can probably see that.
Sorry to be so blunt, but GOD, do I ever get tired of this hipster semantic argument that tries so hard to rescue a space for this word, all in the service of not being told what you can or can’t say. You’re not fighting The Man. It doesn’t make you a warrior in the cause of free speech. It makes you something much more common.
Ask yourself this: Has making “the N word” taboo in public discourse done anything to eliminate racism?
Has changing our attitude towards racist language ended racism? Of course not.
Has the stigmatization of hate speech contributed to changing public attitudes towards race and diminished the societal dehumanization of those at whom it is aimed? Hard to say, but I suspect it has.
Is there valuable character information to be gleaned from observing those who continue to defend and use hate speech, even under the guise of being a free speech warrior? Absolutely. You can learn a very great deal about a person from the hill they choose to defend.
Same goes for anti-disability hate speech.
Isn’t “sterilize the ‘retarded’ and deport them to mexico” offensive even if you use the word “intellectual disabilities”? I agree that the word retarded is unacceptable (and, I, frankly, would comment if my mother use it to refer to the nice boy who bags her groceries). But in the other statement, it’s the sentiment that’s offensive, as well as the word.
Are you generally allowed to post “sterilize the “xxx’s” and deport them to mexico”? Or only if “x” refers to the disabled?
Well, obviously the sentiment is the most grotesque aspect of the comment, yes.
It is the medical description of what my son suffers from. He is mentally and physically retarded. The fact that society has turned it into an ugly word with their ugly sentiment doesn’t change that it is a true and acurate medical description of his condition. I admit because of societies’ misuse of the word it has been a hard word to swallow but I am taking it back, not being embarrassed or weakened by it. He does not have a mental disability, the ability is there he has actual great mental ability it is just retarded or slowly developing! It is his word, it is my word, it is not their word to misuse! Hate speach is bad no matter what word you use but they can substitute words all day to get their point across can’t they? This word is not a bad word, it simply isn’t.
You are certainly entitled to use any word you like in any way you wish. You should be aware, however, that the medical community and the federal government have both made official determinations that the words is not appropriate either as a medical term or a general descriptor. If you feel it’s the appropriate term for you to use in reference to your son, then you should continue to do so. But you should at least be aware of where it stands in professional circles.