An algorithm to remove 'Karen'?

[BIWI]

It's a horrible misogynistic and ageist term.

I know you have an algorithm that deletes posts that mention certain other websites; is it possible to have an algorithm that at the very least deletes the word if it's being used? And then automatically posts to say that a word has been deleted because it breaks Talk Guidelines?

(I appreciate that if anyone is on the Baby Names board asking about 'Karen' that might be more difficult!)

The thing is, there are posters who don't seem to realise just what a horrible thing it is to say, but then the rest of their post is filled with people calling them on it, so they never really get an answer to their question.

@Drgnbllx

I've seen worse words used on here than Karen (and cis for that matter). Fully typed out raviak slurs. They do usually get deleted, eventually, but not automatically.

Exactly. It's kind of breathtaking that Karen inspires more ire among most MNers than actual racial slurs.

@Mlhactive

Typical mumsnet thinking karen is the worst thing you can call someone, not the racist insults that Karen's use.

Why not just call them racists then….?

I think there's lots of words ahead of Karen if any are to be removed

If this is the biggest concern in your life then you are very lucky

I agree. We need to stop this bullying of women.

"Karen's" don't use racial slurs, as a pp stated. Racists use racial slurs, male and female, they are not linked to the perpetrator by a particular name.

I'd rather a stronger line be taken on racism, particularly the more subtle type that is seemingly acceptable. The current Piers Morgan thread is a prime example.

Typical mumsnet thinking karen is the worst thing you can call someone, not the racist insults that Karen's use.

This.

And also... really? If we're doing Karen surely we also need to automatically censor Snowflake, any references to millennials, woke, cis, terf, cocklodger, feckless, manchild, trump and his orangeness, boris and his hair, biden and his dementia, nicola and her jimmy kranky, Chad (which would mean losing CHAD HOGAN WOOO SPRING BREAK), Dan, Ken, Becky, Stacey, Bye Felicia, Sure Jan, the office Sandra, and we should probably sweep up the covidiots and their arch-enemies the dementors, and anything related to tinfoil.

Any form of fat shaming and slim shaming.

Hairy hands? And that "a man has arrived" meme. Or someone typing the words. Even though I love the principle of it... fair is fair surely? Either stereotypes and mild insults are fine or they're not?

Either we have a moderation policy where a human decides if something is crossing the line, or we start blanket banning words? Is that really what people want .

Or is it just Karen, specifically? Because....? Why exactly? What makes Karen so special? (Pun fully intended).

I don't really get the argument to be honest.

Everyone knows what it's referring to and everyone knows that your name being Karen Chad Becky Jan Stacey Felicia Dan Sebastian Tarquin MacKenzeee etc does not mean you are the living embodiment of the stereotype. And stereotypes are rife on this site - how often do people say stuff about "Chelsea Tractors" or "athleisure wear" or MILs or NIMBYS or the in crowd on the school run or the performance parents etc. Or are those okay because they definitely don't apply to you whereas maybe the Karen stereotype might?

It's also kinda ironic / amusing that on a thread demanding to censor the word Karen, there are replies like "something needs to be done".

If it's the fact that a person's name is being used that is the issue, we could just replace Karens with 'something needs to be doners'.

@Mlhactive

Typical mumsnet thinking karen is the worst thing you can call someone, not the racist insults that Karen's use.

Calling shenanigans on this; there is no "typical mumsnet" given that anyone can easily make an account and post here anonymously, with a new username for every post if they want. I could just as easily say that the post I've just quoted is "typical mumsnet", thinking that because you belong to (or claim to sympathise with) a disadvantaged and marginalised group it's OK to use a slur against another disadvantaged and marginalised group.

That said, I don’t think mumsnet filters/blocks/masks any terms; you have to report and have a mod review the post.

I can think of some terms that likely could be banned without much unintentional fallout, but not sure Karen is one of them. There are people with Karen in their usernames, posts about Karen Millen (the shop) or about Karen Carpenter or Karen Blixen or Karen Pence or Karen Elson or Karen Mulder or the Karen characters in You and Will & Grace, etc.

I'm a mod on another (non-mumsnet-related) site where we do star out specific terms that are generally considered to be offensive. We had someone post a bit ago about “* * * * Cheney” (in reference to the miniseries Mrs. America), followed by a quick “FFS! RICHARD Cheney." Now every time someone wants to type dick, they type richard instead, e.g., “why is my boyfriend being such a richard about this trip?” (Fortunately that’s managed to stay contained to the site, and not go out and colonise the world like “Karen”.)

I do understand your frustration though, BIWI - there are a handful of posters on mumsnet who promote myths about “Karen” like it’s their job. And there are probably many others who believe the myths and spin that this is some term used so widely in the US black community that it's suddenly taken hold worldwide. That's not the case; its origin is a white child in the US lashing out against women and unleashing a tsunami of rape apologism and indifference to or promotion of VAWG. People who liked this idea started blaming black American women for inventing the term. At this point, I'd say that going battle to defend the term "Karen" (not necessarily just using it) is fuelled as much by (anti-black) racism as by misogyny.

There's PLENTY of racism on this site, despite the TOU, but objecting the the use of "Karen" as a misogynist slur isn't the best example of that.

If it's the fact that a person's name is being used that is the issue, we could just replace Karens with 'something needs to be doners'.

I think it's the fact it's a person's name. Try using "something needs to be doners" and see how that would catch on on twitter. Would it allow the sale licence to randomly criticise middle aged women? I doubt it.

@essentialhealing

I think there's lots of words ahead of Karen if any are to be removed

If this is the biggest concern in your life then you are very lucky

Don't be silly.

MNHQ are (generally, and when things are reported to them) very good at removing racist slurs.

But 'Karen' isn't removed.

Yes please. I left a medical support group for my daughters condition yesterday due to this. On Facebook not here. Its my sisters name and I said it upset me. People laughed and silly comments. I'm still sad about it.

@severelysound

Typical mumsnet thinking karen is the worst thing you can call someone, not the racist insults that Karen's use.

This.

And also... really? If we're doing Karen surely we also need to automatically censor Snowflake, any references to millennials, woke, cis, terf, cocklodger, feckless, manchild, trump and his orangeness, boris and his hair, biden and his dementia, nicola and her jimmy kranky, Chad (which would mean losing CHAD HOGAN WOOO SPRING BREAK), Dan, Ken, Becky, Stacey, Bye Felicia, Sure Jan, the office Sandra, and we should probably sweep up the covidiots and their arch-enemies the dementors, and anything related to tinfoil.

Any form of fat shaming and slim shaming.

Hairy hands? And that "a man has arrived" meme. Or someone typing the words. Even though I love the principle of it... fair is fair surely? Either stereotypes and mild insults are fine or they're not?

Either we have a moderation policy where a human decides if something is crossing the line, or we start blanket banning words? Is that really what people want .

Or is it just Karen, specifically? Because....? Why exactly? What makes Karen so special? (Pun fully intended).

I don't really get the argument to be honest.

Everyone knows what it's referring to and everyone knows that your name being Karen Chad Becky Jan Stacey Felicia Dan Sebastian Tarquin MacKenzeee etc does not mean you are the living embodiment of the stereotype. And stereotypes are rife on this site - how often do people say stuff about "Chelsea Tractors" or "athleisure wear" or MILs or NIMBYS or the in crowd on the school run or the performance parents etc. Or are those okay because they definitely don't apply to you whereas maybe the Karen stereotype might?

It's also kinda ironic / amusing that on a thread demanding to censor the word Karen, there are replies like "something needs to be done".

If it's the fact that a person's name is being used that is the issue, we could just replace Karens with 'something needs to be doners'.

But none of those things are specifically against Talk Guidelines. Which is entirely my point.

There are lots of words or phrases that get used here that are unpleasant, or which people may take a dislike to. But that doesn't mean that they break Talk Guidelines. Whereas 'Karen' does.

*Don't be silly.

MNHQ are (generally, and when things are reported to them) very good at removing racist slurs.

But 'Karen' isn't removed.*

Karen is not on the same level as a racist slur.

And racial slurs don't get auto-removed. Which you're suggesting Karen does.

I don't actually know what a "karen" is meant to be like. How has it transformed into an insult?

Can you specify which guideline it is in breach of OP, and how the other terms are not in breach?

Autodeletion of any term is a bad idea. It prevents discussing issues.

I'd hope MNHQ would delete posts which are reported to them which use any phrase as a slur or in an inflammatory manner. Calling someone a 'Karen' isn't 'in the spirit'.

There’s far worse things on here than ‘Karen’

@CorrBlimeyGG

Can you specify which guideline it is in breach of OP, and how the other terms are not in breach?

Er - it's in my OP? First line.

Terms suggested, like 'snowflake' or 'woke' are insults. Probably NITS, depending on how they're used - but not specifically against Talk Guidelines for being racist or sexist or homophobic or ableist or ageist.

@BIWI

	No personal attacks
	No posts that break the law, including hate speech of any kind
	No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
	No trollhunting
	No spamming

Are you saying it's a personal attack?

I had to google a clear definition and on reflection, yeah I can see it. But if we're using this definition (which Karen would fit under) then it also includes 70% of replies to 70% of posts on AIBU? And pretty much everything I said in my post you claimed didn't apply.

Personal attacks often involve someone making damaging remarks relating to somebody’s lifestyle or choices. These types of attack can include comments that question a person’s intelligence, values, integrity, motivations or decisions.

Though the two examples of attacks they give are Revenge Porn and Spreading Misleading or Malicious Gossip... which is sort of next level compared to being called a Karen by a stranger on the internet.

If you mean it's ageism then I'm not sure how you're drawing that conclusion.

Ageism has to concern the age, surely? "You're too old to be working" is ageism. Or an age-related slur or attack etc. I could find a couple but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

But Karen does not = age. Usually Karen = behaviour or attitude, right? And while the stereotype arguably has an age-bracket, it's not like you'd call any person of that age That Word just because they are that age.

Like 'Snowflake' means needs special treatment, and while the stereotype is usually a child and therefore has an age-bracket, you wouldn't call any child a snowflake just because they are that age.

Just to be clear, it's not something I actually use. Never had a need to, because I'd rather argue with the logic or attitude or behaviour than call the person a name. So I'm not "defending" the term Karen... I'm arguing for the slippery slope that is calling for algorithms to censor anything that offends you?

Whatever logic you have used for Karen equally applies to Cocklodger. It's a derogatory term to describe a male of a certain age who displays certain attitudes or behaviours. Swap the male for female and you have the definition of Karen.

So I don't see how you can censor one and not the other. Like I said, slippery slope.

Good idea

Post deletions

We're all for freedom of speech. That said, we'll remove posts we consider to contain personal attacks, to break the law and/or to be obscene, racist, sexist, disablist, ageist, homophobic or transphobic, once they are brought to our attention. We will also delete any posts that we think are just seriously unpleasant (please note that any subsequent posts repeating the words in the deleted post may be deleted, too)

Disagree that cocklodger is ageist - plenty of posts here would show that it's behaviour that can be exhibited by men of all ages! (And I've also seen a female version used too)

@essentialhealing

I think there's lots of words ahead of Karen if any are to be removed

If this is the biggest concern in your life then you are very lucky

This!

And it’s happened for ever. A while back it was Sharons, then it was Kevins, these things happen…

Definitely need to see it deleted. It's mysoginistic and ageist.