Poll. Is curse word censoring really necessary?

[Sir_Lancelot]

No, peoples' excuse that "I didn't post a swear word, I just posted the symbols" is rendered moot.


Yes - its an insult to the intelligence of the moderators that people think they can argue their way out of an infraction after posting such things as "**** you" because 'it was only symbols'. This rule evolved because we got sick & tired of people claiming this.

And pushing us? We used to give people some leeway on this, and the behavior was appaling. For a week or so, we had to resort to instant 24-hour bans for language - not a great solution, but it was the only real way that we could set and get people to meet the expectations. I certainly don't want to have to do that again!

Looks like part of the problem here is the fact that you mistake @ for swearing.

However, I do give leeway. I (and most other mods) will just edit / delete language, with a reminder of the rules. I don't generally infract for language unless its specific and repeated.

That's nice of you, and alwo a reason for liking and respect.
I never thought of you as trigger happy.

This is an extension of the rule (as explained above) where we make no differentiation between people posting a swear word and posting the autocensor symbols.
As said (and quoted in agreement by you) - if you can't post without swearing, then don't post.

Neither of us like swearing. What differ us here is the definition of swearing.

I can't believe that an optimist who considers themselves a master of critical independent thinking wouldn't realise that there are two perspectives to every issue, and that on a site run as long and as successfully as this that perhaps, just perhaps, the rules had evolved over a period of time to meet changing circumstances, and that there is a valid reason for them.

I do realize that there are more than one perspective to every issue. I have expressed my perspective and I'm glad you took the time to read it.

Sure, this site has evolved to become a good place, still it needs to evolve more. The one problem here that I am pointing out, is the foolish illusion that #@ equals swearing. According to the rules it is, and that's exactly the problem. To continue defending the bad rule by waiving the very same bad rule (as you did in the beginning of your post) leads to nowhere, and I leave this now. I have made my point.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I think university professors have been fired for using the word "niggle".

I looked up this word, and it is not labelled as vulgar.

 

[Swedishguy]

Can anyone tell me why the first three letters of Japanese is a curse word?

 

[Masquerouge]

I looked up this word, and it is not labelled as vulgar.

I was referring to the incidents involving the word "niggardly".

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I have come to believe that some of what I have said may sound arrogant, depending on how it is read and understood. I apologize that. I often put a couple hours of work into my longest posts, but wording can always be better.


================================================


If it's true that internet addresses (url's) are subject to autocencoring, then it is an issue that should be addressed. Pun intended.

It's just an address. Some addresses may contain combinations of letters that a few may find offensive, but should we censor them? If I move to an "offensive" street address, should I be "cencored" and sanctioned? If my organization make a web page with an address that some find rude, should this alone make linking to our page impossible?

This is the internet. There will always be a name somewhere, which someone finds rude. Different languages, different cultures. Cyberspace is shared ground, a place where each one of us should try to be a bit liberal and tolerant. And friendly.


================================================


This is not related to the autocencoring here, but it is somehow related to the issues discussed in this thread. On a broader scale.

-The law regarding language (and nudity) restrictions on US television, is worldwide infamous. -Federal Communications Commission. -FCC.

It is, however, pleasing to see that the draconic regime is softening up a bit. I think that G. W. Bush and D. Cheney dropping a couple of "bombs" in public to some degree accelerated this development. I oppose abusing of language - even "nice" words - but there may be situations where the usage of even the worst words is not abuse.

Something that I hope can shed some light on this issue:

Spoiler :

Please note that neither myself nor CFC are responsible for the content on these web pages. I have not read it all, and I can not guarantee sensitive individuals will approve the content.

Spoiler :

New York Times:
Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency.

Court document:
BEFORE THE F.C.C. Washington, D.C. - In the Matter of Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the "Golden Globe Awards" Program.

Some Highbeam article:
Standards of Decency Evolve With the Times.

================================================


Today I watched a program on Discovery Channel. I can tell it was made in Britain, not only ecause of British accent. No bleeping sounds in the whole program. The F bomb was probably dropped 20 times. I'm sure a few bleeps will be added before airing in the US. Often the programmes are made in USA, and the bleeps actually annoys me more than the bad words themselves.


Good day all. Remember to be nice.