Linguist here. I don't work on hate speech specifically, but the issue is important and a matter of active scholarly discussion. I'm going to talk a bit about the literature, and then a bit about my own experience. The short version is that I would recommend erring on the side of caution wherever...
This is good to know and I can definitely see it being an issue. What would you consider "left unchallenged" to mean in this case? How would you recommend to challenge them in a presentation?
In my case, what I did was do some extra reading about the reclaimed slur in question and explained as part of my later apology (after the fact) how I had been wrong: the word has a very different meaning among in-group members than it does when used (or, in my case, presented uncritically) by an out-group member. In the future, I'd hide any slurs unless the talk were about those specifically; and if the talk were about those specifically, I'd at least check with the conference organizers for any blanket policies and also put in a careful disclaimer at the beginning.
The presentation and research methods are generally heavily dependent on the existence of specific slurs in the dataset as they are a signature of what I am looking for, but these may not all need to be listed...I will definitely ask the conference organizers first though.
Would you say there was significant benefit from presenting the slur, namely understanding that it has been reclaimed and may have different meaning in such contexts?
It's been reclaimed, to some extent, but in this case only among in the in-group (it's a big problem for an outsider to try to use that word given that its power as a slur comes from a long history of abhorrent oppression from people like me). Sometimes reclaimed words become something everyone can use ('queer' in American English is getting there, though in some places it's still used as an awful slur), but this is definitely nowhere close. More references on reclamation in the issue at the link - it's a fascinating process, but has to be voluntary and insider-led.
@trikeprof - Aren't you concerned that with research like your own, omitting slurs from the data that you share with people may affect their ability to understand the research, perhaps seriously? Sure, one could collate data and only report the categories, but just reporting a category for "racial slurs" would seem to completely deprive readers or the audience of the opportunity to draw precisely the sorts of conclusions that you mention in your answer: to distinguish between an increase in the use of racial slurs as an expression of hatred versus as self-description, for instance.
If racial slurs are bombs, then it sounds as if your research is about telling people how common specific products are in people's luggage, both bombs and other products, including context in which people might have a good reason to have a particular bomb in their luggage. Might it not be the case that for the sort of people who might be interested in what people have in their luggage, it might be extremely useful for them to know how to identify those bombs? Even we here are rendered less able to evaluate your answer by not knowing what the slur in question is.
As noted, my research is not on hate speech; I report here on what other linguists have said on the topic. In venues that are specifically about hate speech, organizers are free to set their own policies for handling these words. In terms of identifying what is and isn't a slur in the first place, it is profoundly unlikely that people are looking to linguistics exclusively for this purpose. Educational and anti-oppressive materials aimed at the public, written either by (hopefully) allies or by (hopefully well-paid) in-group members are plentiful and accessible - especially recently.
@trikeprof - I did not think that your research was about racial slurs, of course, but it sounded as if it was at least partly about determining which words were becoming more popular on social media, in which case I wonder whether knowing that people are starting to use particular racial slurs on social media might be a very important result to know. If I misunderstood that, and only some of the results from the table were relevant to your work, I of course retract what I said.
Oh, sorry, I see what you mean. No, there are almost none of these in the sorts of data I examine (I don't usually study words). In word that is specifically about particular slurs, it's important for everyone to understand which ones are being used - the most explosive ones can be partially covered up to mitigate their force, and/or warnings can be applied in the title, subtitle, or abstract.
@Obie2.0 I am a linguist too (but also not a hate-speech linguist). I don't think the metaphor is really that helpful here. There are some places where using the items censored would be fine, and some where not. It depends on the scientific question and the context of the presentation (an hour talk on methods vs. a brief part of a flash talk) that requires domain specific knowledge that using a metaphor just blurs. I think trikeprof gives a good overview, but there really can't be a more precise answer given the detail in the question.
@AzorAhai-him- Note that I did not come up with the metaphor. I agree that it is imperfect, but I wanted to discuss the matter without disputing the original author's characterization.
Caveat: mine is a layman perspective on this, since I'm not a specialist in the field. What I feel is that if the audience is made up of specialists who are there to do science, then censorship for sake of not hurting someone's sensibility may be highly counterproductive. Science needs the maximum degree of objectiveness, especially in fields where "objective", non biased experimental results are not so easily attained (I mean, linguistics is not physics after all). ...
... How do you talk about slurs without quoting them? With paraphrases? Then you could introduce more misunderstandings. Especially if the scope of the research is to produce useful results (maybe prevention?). To borrow a metaphor used in another comment, if you want to study the effects of bombs, sometimes you have to make the bombs explode (in a contained and controlled environment, I mean).
It's not censorship, and it's not about some people being overly sensitive. Slurs only get to be that powerful with a very long history of horrific lopsided mistreatment. The people who avoid being hurt by these words aren't the more 'objective' ones; they're simply the ones who haven't suffered from that bigotry. We all have a responsibility to push back on bigotry. In other words, Words have meanings, and sometimes the meaning is "WE HATE YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND HAVE FOR CENTURIES!" There is a natural response to that, which is to be dismayed and angry.
For it to be censorship, it would need to be someone with more authority telling us that we will be punished if we talk about it.
@LorenzoDonatisupportUkraine This is exactly my point. I am a specialist. Not every single application of linguistics demands that you write out all the relevant slurs. Sometimes you should, sometimes you shouldn't, and it's not something we can give a definitive answer on. I don't think a non-specialist perspective is that useful.
I'm not a specialist in linguistics (although I worked on linguistic resarch projects in my past), but I was in academia and research, so I take the scientific approach very seriously. I wouldn't consider science something where people talk about some sensitive argument with some "blindfold" on. Yes, this shouldn't happen before an uneducated audience, but as I understood that's not the OP case.
@trikeprof sorry no, i don't agree. The most subtle kind of censorship is self-censorship. If we are talking about science we must strive for objectiveness. Extreme example, if a scientist's son died from ebola virus should she avoid being involved in studies about ebola virus? Words can hurt and create huge damage, but if any science research is to be done, then it can't be "abridged material". Otherwise we are not talking about science, but about politics, religion or some other discipline, but not science.
@trikeprof An example of how self-censorship could do more harm than good: imagine doing a research on some terrible nazi texts. If you begin to abridge the material and reach some conclusion then you open the door for neonazis to tell you you "mistook" the sense of what you criticized or analyzed, so doing them a favor.
@trikeprof Please, don't get me wrong. If the OP audience were not made up of specialists, that is a whole different situation. In that case a rigorous scientific presentation/discussion is not to be expected and there is no need to be completely explicit and preserving the audience from the worst expressions not only is legit but also warranted.
Discussion on answer by trikeprof: Ho…
Discussion on answer by trikeprof: Ho…