there are a handful of responses to this (some just obvious rage bait, but several genuine and well-meaning) pointing out that "sa" isn't the same as the other terms i highlighted, which i think is a valid criticism, so let me give more context. i did clarify this already in the replies, but just to put it somewhere slightly more public, in the incident i was specifically referring to, my problem was less with "sa" being used, than the fact that she was extremely uncomfortable when i asked her to clarify and say the actual words. acronyms are not inherently evil. social service/non-profit workers speak in acronyms constantly. i say "dv" instead of "domestic violence" a lot, just because it's faster. but! these acronyms are mainly used to communicate with each other, not with clients, and they are said for ease, not for censorship. you'll hear us say "dv" and "domestic violence" in the same breath sometimes, because it has nothing to do with being afraid to say it. my trainee--whom, for the record, i liked a lot and who was a very capable young woman, but who also did not have a lot of experience in the field--did not say "sa" that way. she said it in an undertone voice, like it was a secret or shameful, and clearly wasn't comfortable saying the words in full, which simply cannot happen in the job position i was training her for. hence why i likened it to self-censorship
(also, side note, mb it's different elsewhere, but i pretty much never hear "sa" said aloud. written, yes, but not spoken. i had no idea wtf she was even talking about at first, that's just not something we tend to shorten when speaking)
the thing is, there is a difference between the type of self-censorship i'm referring to, and being able to read the room and know when softer language is needed. english has plenty of euphemistic language built into it already, that softens things without censoring it. like saying to someone, "i heard your mother died" vs "i heard your mother passed away," or "he took his life" rather than "he killed himself"
it works with triggers, too. at work, we might ask a survivor, "did they harm you," or, "did they ever make you perform sex acts you were uncomfortable with" instead of "were you abused" or "were you raped," bc those terms carry a lot of connotation and weight that survivors might not be ready to accept yet. but there's still a directness there that doesn't lessen the impact or shame the survivor
the dumbass algorithm terms are not like this. they aren't the natural evolution of language, as i've seen some people claim. if a term is conceived to first and foremost appease advertisers and corporations, it is not a term that exists to help someone. "unalived" is not compassionate and direct. "sewer slide" "grape" "pdf" whatever the fuck--these are not compassionate or direct. putting a weird slant rhyme on a word so an algorithm doesn't flag it is not "protecting survivors." you're using those terms because you think you're not allowed to say the real ones. that is, by definition, censorship. and when this happens to the point that the terms enter people's every day lexicon, you get people like my trainee, who are so used to thinking they're not allowed to say certain things, that they get uncomfortable and embarrassed saying the thing in a place that exists specifically to deal with that thing
ultimately, it comes down to this: if the purpose of your vocabulary is to promote fear, then your vocabulary is dangerous and should be reevaluated. language is such a big component in a society's belief system. do not let them control yours
areudirty
snowghoul
gummygunk
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
gracieabrams
