the profanity problem
- Thread starter test_specimen
- Start date
- Status
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Lefty, I will respect any rules TF decides to implement. After all, I realise this is his domain and we are but guests.
My point is that by saying ALL swearing is bad you detract from the REAL problem, namely a lack of respect to other posters.
My point is that by saying ALL swearing is bad you detract from the REAL problem, namely a lack of respect to other posters.
And that's nothing we can do about - it's up to the posters themselves.anarres said:
All we are doing are removing the visible provocative signs first.
Ultimately, we mods don't want to impose more rules either (it meant for work for goodness' sake!), but if more and more members decide to ignore mod warnings and slide around the censor or even just go at profanities/vulgarities, this is the way we'll go at it.
LLXerxes
Space Travel is Boring
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2004
- Messages
- 5,079
I am sorry. I will not swear here. I will obey the mods and TF for the time being
I has little intent of using any swear words.
In fact, I only remember swearing one time here(the post was edited
) and that was shock and utter disbelief...
I has little intent of using any swear words.
In fact, I only remember swearing one time here(the post was edited
) and that was shock and utter disbelief...
samildanach
Necrophile
I think that the restrictions on free speech are too much. Bad people should be allowed more scope to hang themselves with their own words. Provocation using profane or vulgar words is a useful tool in getting posters to reveal their true colours. For instance if I said something offensive towards a muslim poster and the muslim poster decides to use profanity to provoke me into even greater excesses, such as threats, then I think this would be a legitmate tactic allowing him to unveil my maliganacy. It would be especially pertinent if at some point in the future I went out and killed a muslim say while driving my car. The police could access these forums and establish malicious forethought. Getting me for murder as apposed to careless driving.
Also generally I see free speech being suppressed all around me. Irresponsible people having the book thrown at them for saying "bomb" on planes. Of course these people are complete idiots but by smacking them down hard we create an atmosphere where free speech is frowned upon. Free speech is in my view our greatest weapon against the terrorists, our freedoms should be used to encourage them to betray themselves. Prior to the 9/11 attacks a couple of the bombers were in a bar getting drunk, if America was a less prissy P.C. society these guys might have been provoked into spilling the beans. They had already brayed that they were Airline pilots - a big loud mouth drunk having a go at them at the right time could have enraged them into tipping their hand. Also, if people are watching what the say and an oppresive society encourages that, how are our security services supposed to catch anyone?
By suppressing free speech all we do is help the criminals. Here in Britain the cops read perps their rights, one of which is the right to remain silent. This is obviously to stop criminals from hanging themselves with their own dumb mouths when they don't have legal representation present. I believe this should be done away with and they should be encouraged to 'fess up straight away but that is beside the point. The point is by suppressing free speech in any form, whether that is by the right to silence, intimidation of loud mouth idiots or by clamping down on profanity, is playing straight into the hands of terrorists, the criminals and those with criminal intentions.
Also generally I see free speech being suppressed all around me. Irresponsible people having the book thrown at them for saying "bomb" on planes. Of course these people are complete idiots but by smacking them down hard we create an atmosphere where free speech is frowned upon. Free speech is in my view our greatest weapon against the terrorists, our freedoms should be used to encourage them to betray themselves. Prior to the 9/11 attacks a couple of the bombers were in a bar getting drunk, if America was a less prissy P.C. society these guys might have been provoked into spilling the beans. They had already brayed that they were Airline pilots - a big loud mouth drunk having a go at them at the right time could have enraged them into tipping their hand. Also, if people are watching what the say and an oppresive society encourages that, how are our security services supposed to catch anyone?
By suppressing free speech all we do is help the criminals. Here in Britain the cops read perps their rights, one of which is the right to remain silent. This is obviously to stop criminals from hanging themselves with their own dumb mouths when they don't have legal representation present. I believe this should be done away with and they should be encouraged to 'fess up straight away but that is beside the point. The point is by suppressing free speech in any form, whether that is by the right to silence, intimidation of loud mouth idiots or by clamping down on profanity, is playing straight into the hands of terrorists, the criminals and those with criminal intentions.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Oh dear...... 
Aside from the fact that your freedom of speech isn't applicalbe at these forums, a ban on swearing is not suppressing freedom of speech. This is not preventing you from presenting your point of view; it is just ensuring that you are careful in how you present it.
As for using vulgarities as a form of provocation, that is another issue; fondly called trolling.
Aside from the fact that your freedom of speech isn't applicalbe at these forums, a ban on swearing is not suppressing freedom of speech. This is not preventing you from presenting your point of view; it is just ensuring that you are careful in how you present it.
As for using vulgarities as a form of provocation, that is another issue; fondly called trolling.
bobgote
Trousers
I have no problem with the censorship, but certain titles of certain posters have so much tradition behind them, that it is surely far too late to deem such words as swearing now (when such terms have never been swearing anywhere before, least not that i know of). not just floppa i'm talking about either.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I basically have to agree with samildanach.
Of course I can prevent that, of course it is not hard to obey this rule, but the point is that it makes no sense. It creates a restrictive atmosphere, I basically feel like in a kindergarden.
While I don't find profanity offensive I do find censorship offensive. It's not black and white.
I'm always careful how I present my view or anything else. I don't troll people and also don't (intentionally, some people are probably offended by anything) insult them. I therefore find it ridiculous that I would get 'moderated' (how scary that is...) if I'd enter a certain s-word as a substitute for crap when describing something (not someone...).ainwood said:
Of course I can prevent that, of course it is not hard to obey this rule, but the point is that it makes no sense. It creates a restrictive atmosphere, I basically feel like in a kindergarden.
While I don't find profanity offensive I do find censorship offensive. It's not black and white.
Yup. But that is the real issue, no matter which words are used. "I think your opinion is ridiculous" (or in fact "Oh dear" followed by the infamous rolleyes) is no less offensive than being call a dumb-youknowwhat.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
Hitro said:
accusing a mod of trolling, oh yeah, that's a good idea
@samildanach: so you want us to have free speech so we're more likely to get in trouble?
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Oh dear...ybbor said:accusing a mod of trolling, oh yeah, that's a good idea
But seriously, fact is that the above reaction is disrespecting the person who you "throw it at". It is meant to express that one regards the other one's opinion (or whatever) as stupid or ridiculous.
Something like that in a serious context is clearly adding more to a negative atmosphere than a "bad word" in a playful context.
I think you guys are digging way too deep into this banning of profane words. So you can't say a few words. Who cares? It is not hindering you from expressing yourself, and it certainly isn't hindering you from getting into argument and still agitating other people. The English language is filled with millions of words, you are not being allowed to use twenty or so. Get over it. It isn't the end of the world. Your freedom of speech isn't being taken. Oh, and I have NEVER seen a swear word be useful in ANY argument. There are so many other, more courteous and humane ways to express one's self.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well, you miss the point:Moss321 said:
It makes no sense to ban words, the context is what matters.Hitro said:
For example I think those notorious "Uh oh, I see a banning coming this way" or "I give this thread ten minutes until it gets closed" posts are far more annoying and an expression of a "Blockwart" attitude. In fact they are blatant spam. It may be a little different if someone is notifying a newbie of this, but even then it should be left to the mods.
Now of course these things usually don't contain profanity. The point is that it is kind of ridiculous that it is cared about non-issues like profanity while things that really can have no other point but to annoy (troll) others go through.
I agree, but the fact remains that some people just don't like seeing profane words tossed about. I would much rather have someone say the things you mentioned to me rather than having them call me a dumb.... Sure the context of the meaning may be the same, but it is much more clean, much more direct, and much more civilized. Offending someone with offensive words just adds more fuel to the fire, offending someone with normal words is at least somewhat acceptable.
Kind of like I would much rather have someone say... Hey your ears are missing, then have someone say....hey your ______ earless.
Kind of like I would much rather have someone say... Hey your ears are missing, then have someone say....hey your ______ earless.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I completely disagree from a personal point of view, and that is what this is about.Moss321 said:
How is using something that circumvents the insult more direct? On the contrary it is much less direct. It may be more "clean" but that is a completely theoretical concept, a word is just word. What makes it profane is the meaning, and if you say something else with the same meaning nothing gets changed.
As you can't ban "meanings", especially as with some less direct ways of saying it people can always claim they meant something else, you shouldn't ban anything.
Well, I think I should get "warned" or whatever both if I'd call you an "earless imaginesomethingawfulhear" or "I think people without ears like you are bad", because it is always meant to be derogatory (this all under the general assumption that derogatory speech should be banned, which is an issue on itself).
What should not be banned would for example be if some friend of yours for some reason (crude humour or whatever) calls you "earless" in a playful, not at all offensive manner (of course assuming you guys would always do that).
To me it would be ridiculous to ban him for using the evil word "earless" but not the other, really offensive, person who happened to use politically more correct terms.
- Status
Similar threads
