User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-43874324-20200702151414/@comment-45692830-20200702231733

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-43874324-20200702151414/@comment-45692830-20200702231733 So I think there's a distinction between a word or depiction being "problematic" and one being "triggering". As for the latter, the less complicated, I endorse Scrooge's proposal. I haven't noticed anything on this wiki, but I have mild trypophobia (fear of irregular patterns or clusters of holes), and seeing the right kind of image could set me off all day. I would definitely appreciate that sort of template. (And for the record, I've found that a lot of people have this same fear when they actually look at the right images, so it's not like this is some big unreasonable ask.)

For the former, thinking about "problematic" words, we can just apply a historical, real world test. Consider the following thought experiment. Everyone who's poisoned suddenly thinks that the word "toxic" is offensive and shouldn't be used. Are we morally obligated to change our standards of language over this immediate change in their mental states? I think not. It might be polite, but it's not required, it's supererogatory.

Rather, what matters is whether the word has an actual history of being used to insult or contribute to the oppression of a marginalized group. Not merely to label them (hence why "person of color", while somewhat outdated, isn't a slur), but to actively insult or contribute to their oppression. Under this standard there are very clear ways to determine whether or not a specific word would be considered a slur or discriminatory, and should be handled with greater care.