Discussing swearing and moderation [split] (language)

[ILUVSWTAS]

Mod: Split out of this topic so as not to spoil the OPs thread.

minor mod: language. Yes I know you were quoting.

Lol, yeh that wasnt me!! (for once) So that wasnt edited enough for this forum??

[walkinTas]

Apparently not - or was that a rhetorical question?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Fair enough.
I guess we gotta keep it at a kindy level for all the young bushwalkers out there!!

Anyway sorry, That was all cut and paste, and while I saw the F-word there, i thought it was already censored enough to paste in here.

Besides it was @#$%% funny!!!

[walkinTas]

OK. This is a very minor issues to moderate, so no real harm will be done by discussing it, and clearly you don't mind discussing it, so, just this once, I'll elaborate.

Fair enough.
I guess we gotta keep it at a kindy level for all the young bushwalkers out there!!

Actually that's part of the story. Rule 1 say family friendly and no obscenity. Words that everyone anyone would consider obscene are obscene. I know we have language filters, but in this case the word as quoted wasn't going to be caught by the filter.

It might appear like a very small issue, but as I said somewhere before, moderation, whether I do it, or members do it (self moderate) is simply a matter of everyone living within the rules. So in this case it looked like it wasn't conforming to rule 1. I figured the little mod was the easiest fix and removing the post wasn't necessary.

The whole question of language, family friendly, etc., can be discussed further if you would like. Here in this topic or similar. ....that is, if friendly discussion helps enhance understanding or improve the forum, then I won't mind a friendly discussion.

Edit: just for Macca81

[ILUVSWTAS]

Ok, so on the blog I cut and pasted from he had a 7 letter swear word with one letter substituted with #

How many letters of a 4 letter swear word need to be changed for it to be appropriate??? 3?? all 4??????

[walkinTas]

You're a big boy. I'm sure you can both read and understand rule 1. (edit: that sounds a bit sharp - probably needed a wink - - or two).

OK. I'll answer the question! Mostly, we ignore the language issue, because the filter will take care of it. So just typing the word (unmodified) is best. Modifying the word might mean it isn't filtered correctly. If a member wished to manually filter any words then it is best to do it like the filter does (replace the whole word). (Yes I understand in this specific case it was just cut an paste)

I'd make two more points: I'd don't moderate other peoples blog - just here on bw.com. And "words that everyone anyone would consider obscene are obscene" - which is in part influences any interpretation of rule 1.

Edit: just for Macca81

[ILUVSWTAS]

In this case I didnt type anything, just copy and paste.

[walkinTas]

(Yes I understand in this specific case it was just cut an paste)

Yeah! I noticed. ....But all posts still have to comply with the rules.

None of this is aimed at you, it is just a good example to use to discuss rules and moderation a bit more. This example does open an interesting question with regard to quoting other sites, but my take would be that, quoting or not, one needs to be mindful of the rules.

[tasadam]

Ok, so on the blog I cut and pasted from he had a 7 letter swear word with one letter substituted with #

How many letters of a 4 letter swear word need to be changed for it to be appropriate??? 3?? all 4??????

OK, I found the answer to this. I knew it existed...
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3043&p=32545#p32545

...Just a reminder, please do not try to bypass the swear filter. The forums preferences allow each member to choose whether they see the swear words or not. If you want to see those words, then choose that setting in your forums "User Control Panel". Please allow others who do want to use the word censor to do so, by not working around it.

The problem is, there was once a topic discussing the swear filter, and its use. One of the things discussed was that attempts to bypass it were not permitted. The above link is the only reference to it that I can locate at the moment.
As an example of what that means, We might all know a word too "risque" for around here, that starts with "blood". Typing blood is okay, but replacing the letter o with a zero is not, hence you cannot say "that word" starting in "bl00d".
So, in short, the answer is, the word should not be recognizable if you are going to edit any of it out. You are better off leaving a word intact completely so as to let the swear filter do its thing, that way it is legible for those that have turned on their swear filter, and to others they can fill in the blank with any "something" they like without the need to read obscenities.
As for copying and pasting, they may have done it that way to avoid their own blog swear filter or something, but it obviously didn't fit the rules here.

This has raised one important point that will be addressed in time, that rule 1 needs a minor change...

1. Keep all content friendly, polite and clean.

* Content should be suitable for a family audience.
* Content should not be offensive to other members, guests or third parties.
* 'Flaming', hostility, insults, obscenity, abuse and personal attacks are not permitted.
* Attempts to bypass the word censor are not permitted.

Offending content may be deleted without warning.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hmm good point well made Adam thanks. I understand and will be more careful when copying things next time.

For what it's worth I apologise to anyone who may have gotten offended here.

[walkinTas]

Hmm good point well made Adam thanks. I understand and will be more careful when copying things next time.

For what it's worth I apologise to anyone who may have gotten offended here.

There's no need too. The f-word is in the blog anyway.

As Adam just explained, there was a very old discussion about this. Still, some of this is worth revisiting.

[Macca81]

"words that everyone would consider obscene are obscene"

i dont consider any words to be obscene, do i still count as one of 'everyone' in this instance??

[ILUVSWTAS]

"words that everyone would consider obscene are obscene"

i dont consider any words to be obscene, do i still count as one of 'everyone' in this instance??

Yes.

You can sit at my table at the anniversary walk......

[walkinTas]

Obscene:- meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable". Call them obscene words, swear words, vulgarities, profanities, or cuss words, its all the same.

i dont consider any words to be obscene, do i still count as one of 'everyone' in this instance??

Incorrect use, even inappropriate use, of compound pronouns aside.... I will be surprised if the statement "i dont consider any words to be obscene" is entirely true. I suspect you are just trying to be bait me... ...but I don't really know you that well, and for all I know you might be a saint.

Ok, you've succeeded. I'll take the bait, just for the fun of writing it down. ... I'll ponder your piety another day.

To begin with, I'd argue that whenever a person uses a word or words with the intention of being or sounding vulgar, (i.e intention of swearing or using vulgarities, or sounding foul, repulsive and detestable) then they have already accepted that word can be obscene. Conscious intentions or thoughtless outbursts, doesn't matter. Choice of words does matter. The expression of vulgarity with words is clearly acceptance that words can be obscene.

Even a person with limited vocabulary skills and who considers certain words to be "normal", still uses those words with some sort of understanding of the meaning and unless they exist is a complete vacuum would understand that others consider these words to be vulgar.

If one does nothing more than accept that others "hear" the obscenity, then there is still passive acceptance (acknowledgement) that words can be obscene. Unless you want to try a for solipsism.

You could try a post-modernist argument that it isn't the words themselves, but rather the listener's perception of the meaning that causes the perceived obscenity (if you're a post-modernist nothing is real). Post-modernists would argue the intention of the person using the words had nothing to do with the listeners perception. Even, maybe, that there was no intention, just a perception. This sort of cogitation is painful. Fact is, the listener's perception has nothing to do with the speaker's decision to use certain words. One usually chooses words to fulfil an intention and convey a meaning. If the intention is to be vulgar, or one wish to imply a vulgar meaning, then there is acceptance that words, through their meanings, can be obscene.

You might argue that the word can't take on a nature, or that the whole idea of obscenity is a crazy one. The very concept of obscenity shows the limit of our epistemology. Nothing is truly obscene - word or deed. However, you'll have to convince me that you don't for one second accept the concept of social norms; not at all; before I'll believe you are a devotee to this line of reasoning. Community standard or social norms have long been accepted as a suitable judge for what does and does not constitute swearing and vulgarities. We could debate nuances of definitions or meaning, but the actual definition is irrelevant to the argument, because once you accept the need for a definition, you have already accepted the existence of the concept. If you feel the need to define 'obscene' words, then you have already accept the concept that words can be obscene. So what's left, a debate on whether words can exist separate from meaning or understanding, or some similar esoteric argument.

So really, It would be rare to find a person that honestly doesn't think words can be obscene. It would at least require that such a person has never said anything with the intention of being (sounding) or appearing to be (sound) obscene (in all the above meanings) and probably would require they have never acknowledged that other people do this. It might be possible if such a person totally lacks the social awareness and understanding that is necessary to recognise when they, or others, are being foul and repulsive and detestable and so doesn't think that words or actions are (can be) obscene.

Of-course, we could just throw reasoning out the window and try being cynical instead.

...but hey, I'm interested AND willing to learn. Tell me, why don't you consider any words to be obscene?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Tell me, why don't you consider any words to be obscene?

For me, it's because I went to Rose Bay High School.

[tasadam]

Even a person with limited vocabulary skills and who considers certain words to be "normal", still uses those words with some sort of understanding of the meaning and unless they exist is a complete vacuum would understand that others consider these words to be vulgar.

Don't know if it helps you, but when I'm walking and my hat is hiding that low log over the track and I walk into it and my head goes clunk and I go backwards to the ground, my immediate reaction, which happens before I realize I've said it, is to say a particular four letter word starting with s.
And when I'm wandering along the track and there's a big tiger snake in the middle of it that I didn't see until I'm way too close for comfort, this is when the F word is instantly used.
Both examples would be using these words as reflex, with no thought or no time for thought about whether there was anyone nearby that might find my verbal offering vulgar.
And it's consistently those words for those circumstances. Strange...

Perhaps this brings some enlightenment into the possibility that there is a normality about some words when used often enough (yes, I sometimes swear, oh dear ). And if like-minded people converse with such words frequently, the barriers of others' considerations would not enter into the equation, with or without vacuum.

Just a thought.

[walkinTas]

For me, it's because I went to Rose Bay High School.

Circumstances like this are intriguing. My first job after highschool was a labouring job. Everyone swore. It was the accepted norm. We knew we were swearing, and outside of work and in certain circumstances we easily moderated ourselves (well some of us did), but on the job there was no attempt to moderate the language. I suppose someone has a theory on this sort of behaviour. One could even argue that swearing on the job was itself the moderation of the language, maybe, done in an attempt to fit into the social circumstance. Off the job and not swearing was the real norm.

And it's consistently those words for those circumstances. Strange...

Expletives! Why? And why those particular expletives? I don't know. And strangely different people have different expletives, yet sometimes whole families have a common expletive. Maybe its something learned that eventually becomes a habit, but really I have no idea why we do it.

[Nuts]

Were a weird mob... lucky you didnt go to christ college ilswt, you wouldnt even be able to mention it
edit. hold on, that seems to be working now... well... i swear it was a no no?
Perhaps someone in the filter factory realised how ironic that particular word filter was..

[Macca81]

I will still stand by the fact that words themselves are not vulgar. I can be far more rude and crude and offensive without uttering a single explicative in a single sentence, than the average Gagebrook bogan can in an entire conversation (if you can call it a conversation...).

I honestly do not find WORDS offensive, any of them. I honestly dont see how anyone can find a word offensive. The way in which a word is spoken/written or the context of a series of words, can very often be offensive. But a single word? I think not...

I openly admit that i swear quite often. I find that certain 'swear words' are extremely flexible in their use and can be used to describe a multitude of different feeling/situations/sizes/appearances/anything. The 4 letter F-word is the perfect example of this, i believe it to be the most flexible word in the English language.
Now a former colleague of mine, was(still is) deeply religious and felt that every second thing you could do was a sin (i have no problem with religion, but some people just seem to miss the point... but that is an entirely different topic) including swearing. As such, she did not utter a single 'swear word' in the whole time i have known her (not even while quoting people... and she would often quote people about how disgusting they spoke but would censor herself during the quote... making for some interesting quotations lol).
One thing i noticed about this woman, was that although she would not 'swear', she would substitute a new word instead. The word "flop" was used as a direct substitute for 'the other 4 letter F-word'. Even extensions of this word, such as "flopping", "flopping harry", "flopping heck", "flop me" were used. im sure you could easily word out what extensions of the F-word these match up to.
now when using these words, she would use them in EXACTLY the same context as i would use the F-word. Exactly the same... Now she would deny to the day she died that she was not swearing, and that she was not substituting a swear word, or that she was not meaning it in the same way as me. But it was quite clear that the context and the intent of expressing herself, was exactly the same as mine. I just used a more widespread, albeit less acceptable(?) word.

Now, i will continue to claim, that the intent and context of saying "flopping harry!" is just as offensive as saying "*&%$#! oath!".
If i want to offend/shock/sicken people, i dont need to use "offensive, vulgar, obscene, detestable" words. I can offend people quite fine without it.

It is the context and intent, not the words, that people with the ability to gather intelligent thoughts should be offended by...

[Macca81]

For me, it's because I went to Rose Bay High School.

I understand, I am a Claremont Primary/High/College lad...

[walkinTas]

I will still stand by the fact that words themselves are not vulgar. I can be far more rude and crude and offensive without uttering a single explicative in a single sentence

I think there is a duplicity in your argument. You readily accept that a gesture can be offensive (vulgar), but argue that a word with the same meaning can't be. If you continue the claim that you 'don't consider the word offensive', then on what grounds do you, can you, consider the gesture offensive.

I honestly do not find WORDS offensive, any of them. I honestly dont see how anyone can find a word offensive. The way in which a word is spoken/written or the context of a series of words, can very often be offensive. But a single word? I think not...

So what's left, a debate on whether words can exist separate from meaning or understanding, or some similar esoteric argument.

Without meaning and context, spoken words are nothing more than noise, as experienced when listening to another language. And even certain noises can offend, but that's another whole topic. Without understanding (the ability to read) written words are little more than ugly graphics. The argument that the word is separate from the context or meaning is really esoteric. When words are used and moderated in this forum, it is often because of their meaning and context as much as it is because of the word itself.

There is another discussion we could have here, I'll try to explain quickly. It has to do with meaning and who's meaning is used. The speaker might have a clear idea of the meaning and may well understand that the word has multiple meanings. The speaker never intended a vulgar meaning. The listener has a different understanding of the meaning and so "hears" the word differently than the speaker intended (and maybe thinks its a strange word to use in that context and is annoyed by the vulgarity). This isn't an argument that word can't be offensive or obscene, it is more an argument the one needs to carefully choose ones words. As many a visitor to a foreign country has discovered.

I find that certain 'swear words' are extremely flexible in their use and can be used to describe a multitude of different feeling/situations/sizes/appearances/anything.

I totally agree with this. I occasionally tell people about an experience in my first job when I heard a man describe, accurately, what was wrong with a piece of equipment. The sentence started with "The" and the rest was nothing but the F-word (noun, adjective and verb included).

One thing i noticed about this woman, was that although she would not 'swear', she would substitute a new word instead. The word "flop" was used as a direct substitute for 'the other 4 letter F-word'. ...Now she would deny to the day she died that she was not swearing, ..... it was quite clear that the context and the intent of expressing herself, was exactly the same as mine.

Again, I agree. She achieved the intention to be vulgar. You understood the intention to be vulgar. Flop was being used as a vulgar word. And she was probably very careful about where she spoke like this. If so, she understood she was being a little vulgar.

But I'm sure you would understand that some words are much more offensive and shocking than others and there is widespread acceptance that some words are very offensive. This might change with time. Community standards aren't set in concrete. One day Flop might well be considered more obscene that the current title holder. Either way, some words are obscene and shouldn't be used in "Family Friendly" or polite conversation. Moderation would be necessary even if it were true that obscenity is not the words fault, or the speakers fault, just the listeners interpretation (see above argument to the contrary). And IMO, using those words when you know they will offend some listeners (readers), is being impolite.

Anyway, we could discuss this forever. Probably best if I let others have a go. That is if there is anyone who got this far without going to sleep.

[Macca81]

^^^ i like this guy i hope to have a yarn around a campfire/trangia/<insert flame source or choice> one day.

[Nuts]

... zzzz..zzzz..zzz.zz.....z....

[walkinTas]

Yeah Nuts, but I know you are secretly the purple Wiggle. And the Groucho disguise isn't fooling anyone!

[Nuts]

#$@%$#@ doh!

[walkinTas]

^^^ i like this guy i hope to have a yarn around a campfire/trangia/<insert flame source or choice> one day.

Yeah mate, hope we can have a yarn around a fake fire some day.

[corvus]

What a lot of verbosity about a couple of four letter words !! so much angst about s*&^%$#a??
c

[ILUVSWTAS]

WT *$&# is s*&^%$#a Corvus?

[walkinTas]

angst: 1) A feeling of anxiety or apprehension often accompanied by depression.

angst: 2) (Philosophy) (in Existentialist philosophy) the dread caused by man's awareness that his future is not determined but must be freely chosen.

Oh no! Swearing is not my destiny... I have to make a choice.... this is just too depression depressing.

[ollster]

this is just too depression.

I am disappoint.