the profanity problem

[carlosMM]

The point is that many people use swear words purely as intensifiers. 'Gosh' is an intensifier, yet it is not an obscenity. Ditto for darned.

And yes, gosh darned is (in my experience) a reasonably common polite alternative to swear words.

uh, 'Gosh' means 'God, but I am afraid to use the word because it is forbidden by the bible'

same thing goes for 'darned' - means, I want to swear but apper more intellectual and cultured.

I'd say it is a pretty lame way, same as saying 'feck' or 'fack' for the real word, or @sshole. the meanign is still exactly the same, as is the intent! Or would you see a differnce between being called that word with an a or an @?

 

[ainwood]

uh, 'Gosh' means 'God, but I am afraid to use the word because it is forbidden by the bible'

same thing goes for 'darned' - means, I want to swear but apper more intellectual and cultured.

It is an alteration of God. Darned is an alteration of damned. And yes, they were altered because people were afraid to use 'God Damned'. As such, these words, through many generations have become acceptable to use in polite conversation.

I'd say it is a pretty lame way, same as saying 'feck' or 'fack' for the real word, or @sshole. the meanign is still exactly the same, as is the intent! Or would you see a differnce between being called that word with an a or an @?

I agree - it is lame. Which is why I would leave it out altogether (unless being facetious, which is what I was doing in my original use).

 

[carlosMM]

@ ainwood: - I wouldn't use that stuff either. If I want to convey anger I'd rather use a word that gets autocensored (and take a ban if I think it is worth it).

but I have been a bit lax in wathcing my language lately I must admit.

 

[Halcyon]

And yes, gosh darned is (in my experience) a reasonably common polite alternative used where others may choose to use a swear word. In the sentenced I used, I could have used 'very', or I could have left it out altogether.

In my experience, it just makes you sound prissy. It's like using the word "poot".

Anyway. While I find little to disagree with in strict moderation of 'bad' language per se, it becomes highly disconcerting when you see people banned for words or phrases which to you seem entirely innocuous. It makes a forum so much more hostile when you have to think carefully about whether it's possible that anyone might find a particular word offensive. Offense is highly subjective, as you can imagine. For instance, very little offends me, let alone a mere word, yet there are people in the world who'll be deeply offended if you pass them the salt using the wrong hand. Seems to me that being offended by a phrase or action not intended as offensive is not the fault of the person who offended you, and you're just being unreasonable if you hit him with a hammer for it. Naturally, that's just my view, and this aint my party. But still..

 

[stratego]

Is it the intent or content of profanity that we worry about? If I call you a bugawuga, while I mean a-hole is that profanity? What if I use one of the censored words as a compliment? ie. You're an a-hole, I can always count on you to be behind me offering relief. Without you I'll be very irritated. Is it ok to use a censored word if it's meant as a compliment?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Is it the intent or content of profanity that we worry about? If I call you a bugawuga, while I mean a-hole is that profanity?

If we recongnize it in that context, yes.

What if I use one of the censored words as a compliment? ie. You're an a-hole, I can always count on you to be behind me offering relief. Without you I'll be very irritated. Is it ok to use a censored word if it's meant as a compliment?

Not ok to use.

 

[Tomoyo]

I see stratego removed the second line of his signature in the 15 minutes that I noticed...

Didn't we keep on discussing this in the other thread?

EDIT: Some mod merged the threads

 

[stratego]

Wow, I actually got through all 12 pages of responds. Pretty intense stuff.

To think about it, after reading the announcement that profanity would be banned without warning, it makes me want to bend the rules more.

If I make a list of censored words on my sig, and tell people those are bad words, is that a bannable offense? If not, I'm doing it.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

How about feldercarb, frell and other fictional swear words. Are they acceptable?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Is it the intent or content of profanity that we worry about? If I call you a bugawuga, while I mean a-hole is that profanity?

If we recongnize it in that context, yes.

So, if you try and use fake words in the place of other words and we think they are being used in that context, you will get warned for them.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

To think about it, after reading the announcement that profanity would be banned without warning, it makes me want to bend the rules more.

If I make a list of censored words on my sig, and tell people those are bad words, is that a bannable offense? If not, I'm doing it.

Try it. Then we'll see what happens.

 

[stratego]

Try it. Then we'll see what happens.

Wow, I have your approval? I'll do it.

 

[SesnOfWthr]

I can't believe two things:

That this debate is till going. I don't see why it's such a big deal to respect TF's wishes.

That Stratego really did it. FWIW, I almost *messed* myself when I saw it.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Wow, I have your approval? I'll do it.

As every other person in the forums realized, that was not 'approval'.

 

[WildFire]

Well then you're quite mistaken DoM.

You NEVER said "No."

And you DID acknowledge his post and, as I said, did NOT say no.

Therefore, he thought it was ok. Not his fault you were too subtle...

Moderator Action: Take 5 days restriction to meditate upon silly argument with and pointless irritation of moderators
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Turner]

Subtle? Hardly. Even my five year old knows what I'm saying when I say 'try it and see what happens.'

 

[WildFire]

But is the word "No" there?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

It doesn't need to be. There are ways to say things without saying the actual word.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Well then you're quite mistaken DoM.

You NEVER said "No."

And you DID acknowledge his post and, as I said, did NOT say no.

Therefore, he thought it was ok. Not his fault you were too subtle...

Even if DoM OK'ed it, I won't OK it.

Any more questions?

 

[Dell19]

Even my five year old knows...

Why do people seem to have a tendency to bring their children into arguements...