[Tiresias]

I wrote:

After watching a few more videos, I have actually come to realise that this guy was being a colossal ********. Was the taser necessary? Probably not. But it wasn't unprovoked. The whole thing pisses me off because it distracts from cases where Tasers really are misused.

Am I to conclude that you—MacNN—asterisk the word D-I-C-K-H-E-A-D but not "piss" ?

I laugh in your face! What complete *********!

[OreoCookie]

I haven't heard `retarded' since high school.
The swear filter can be bypassed easily as everybody here knows, so this isn't exactly a new revelation.

[Kevin]

Why do you even NEED to say those words? Not that I've never cussed, I have. But I've always felt sorry for people that HAVE to cuss, or NEED to say derogatory words.

[Sherman Homan]

Sometimes it is just better to use less offensive, more descriptive words.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I haven't heard `retarded' since high school.

They must be painful memories.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I haven't heard `retarded' since high school.

I actually think that fits Tiresias's age demographic so ...

[ghporter]

The filter is intended (as far as I can tell) to keep accidental utterances, as in a really full-tilt rant, from showing up. There are many ways around it.

However, I've always found that using better verbiage, as Sherman mentions, is much more effective. If I can point out our character flaws, poor education, evidently poor upbringing, possible genetic problems, and unsavory personal habits without using a single word that is objectionable in "polite company," then I think it gets the point across all the better. Using Anglo-Saxon monosyllables is cathartic at times, but these forums are not the real life in which one might just miss the nail and hit the thumb-the immediacy of the "need" for cursing, swearing, and obscenity are completely lacking in online discourse.

So yes, the swear filter is anything but perfect. So are we all. What's the point.

Further, your response to Oreo Cookie was far from mature. What's your problem with his post?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I actually think that fits Tiresias's age demographic so ...

You are more entertaining when you are licking Doofy's boots.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

You are more entertaining when you are licking Doofy's boots.

So being friends with someone is licking their boots?

Why the need to constantly insult people? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

Psychologically speaking MOST "bullies" and people who constantly degrade other people have some sort of personal insecurity or inferiority complex that makes them lash out at other people to make themselves feel "superior". It's a self defense mechanism.

Of course no one that does this for this reason ever admits to it. That would be too damaging to their psyche.Or it could just be simple immaturity.

Tell us Tire, why do you do it?

[Cold Warrior]

His style is sooo Tired. Hah.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

However, I've always found that using better verbiage, as Sherman mentions, is much more effective. If I can point out our character flaws, poor education, evidently poor upbringing, possible genetic problems, and unsavory personal habits without using a single word that is objectionable in "polite company," then I think it gets the point across all the better. Using Anglo-Saxon monosyllables is cathartic at times, but these forums are not the real life in which one might just miss the nail and hit the thumb-the immediacy of the "need" for cursing, swearing, and obscenity are completely lacking in online discourse.

Indeed not, but the need for being a prude who's ashamed of his linguistic traditions is absent both here and in "real life."

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So being friends with someone is licking their boots?

Why the need to constantly insult people? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

Psychologically speaking MOST "bullies" and people who constantly degrade other people have some sort of personal insecurity or inferiority complex that makes them lash out at other people to make themselves feel "superior". It's a self defense mechanism.

Of course no one that does this for this reason ever admits to it. That would be too damaging to their psyche.Or it could just be simple immaturity.

Tell us Tire, why do you do it?

Fundamental attribution error much?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

His style is sooo Tired. Hah.

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Fundamental attribution error much?

I was giving you my opinion Tire. Then I requested your own as to why you act this way.

Why did you ignore that part?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I was giving you my opinion Tire. Then I requested your own as to why you act this way.

Why did you ignore that part?

Lighten up Kevikins. I'm just goofin' around.

[adamfishercox]

Lighten up Kevikins. I'm just goofin' around.

Now that you've been ganged up on, you are...

[Kevin]

Oh I see. It's the attack people and call them names. Them when asked why get the pretentious and condescending "I was just joking.. sheesh ... why are you so uptight" spin.

I assure you, I am not "heavy"

Anyone that knows me in any decent way knows I rarely get "upset" or "riled up"

I was just simply asking you a question.

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Now that you've been ganged up on, you are...

Exactly. See Tire, I am not the only one that saw that.

[Chuckit]

Have you ever noticed how often your goofing around is mistaken for insults? Maybe you ought to work on your delivery.

[Kevin]

No he is insulting. It's only "goofing around" when he gets flack for it.

It's another self defense mechanism.

[Tiresias]

Your mancrush on doofy creeps me out.

There. I said it.

[adamfishercox]

[Timo]

retarded?

[brassplayersrock²]

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Timo

retarded?

I think he means retahded.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If I can point out our character flaws, poor education, evidently poor upbringing, possible genetic problems, and unsavory personal habits without using a single word that is objectionable in "polite company," then I think it gets the point across all the better.

But if you feel the need to point out my character flaws, poor education, etc., I’d say you deserve an infraction regardless of whether you do so in the most politically correct way possible or by calling me an annoying, spoiled, braindead, stinking f*cking idiot, making (in my opinion) the asterisk filtering system completely worthless.

Is anyone really offended by seeing the mere word (a string of letters on a screen) ‘sh*t’, just the word itself? Wouldn’t it be more easily expected that someone might take offence at what the word is taken to mean (“You’re a sh*tfaced f*ckhead”)? And that this is no less offensive if worded non-obscenely (“You are an ill-prepossessing abhorrentificator”)?

So what’s the point of censoring out the ‘ugly’ version, but not the ‘non-ugly’ version? Like ‘regular’ (non-obscene) words, profanity can be used for more than insulting—in fact, when used properly, they can assist in creating some of the funniest lines possible.

[Chuckit]

Oisin has it exactly right. The meaning of the phrase is the rude part — what words are considered "obscene" is just a very fleeting cultural oddity.

[Cold Warrior]

Very fleeting? While some words may change over time, the fact that some words are cultural taboos is far from fleeting or an oddity. Societies reserve certain words as profane, for whatever reason, and this isn't an "oddity": it's a fact of culture and linguistics.

Someone who routinely uses profanity comes across as base, rude, uneducated, and undisciplined. Regardless of our attempts to psychoanalyze it, that's the way the world works.

Profanity should stay on the fringes of these boards, unless we want to sound like the dailykos posters.

[Oisín]

Someone who routinely uses profanity comes across as base, rude, uneducated, and undisciplined. Regardless of our attempts to psychoanalyze it, that's the way the world works.

I won’t agree with that absolutely, but I’ll definitely agree that those who use profanity as a fall-back (because they’re unable to accurately express their intentions/feelings without them) do come off as all that. But they do so whether or not their profanity is censored or not. Someone whose posts consist in half of asterisks comes off as every bit as base, rude, uneducated, and undisciplined [not sure about that last one, but all right] as the same individual does in real-life situations where you hear the profanity aurally.

(Incidentally, I swear all the time, though not in English—this is one of the aspects where it is clear that English is not my native language: while I have no problems understanding English swear words and can use them if needed, the fact that my English comes mainly from mainstream media in the ’80s and ’90s means that I speak it quite ‘cleanly’. In my own native tongue, however, I tend to swear like a sailor on a bad day—but deliberately, inventively, and for effect.)

Profanity should stay on the fringes of these boards, unless we want to sound like the dailykos posters.

I agree—on the fringes of the boards. Not completely banished. People swear anyway, and everyone is even able to glean perfectly well from the context what swear word is being used (usually), so it doesn’t even really do any good. Those people look just as inarticulate and rude posting asterisks as they would do posting profanities.

And it makes it extra annoying for someone like me who does occasionally use profanity for effect, deliberately, and usually in jest (quite obviously so) that I have to jump through all sorts of hoops to make the desired word appear.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Very fleeting? While some words may change over time, the fact that some words are cultural taboos is far from fleeting or an oddity.

Yes, but there's not anything wrong with the words themselves — a bunch of people with sticks up their asses just get together and say, "I think I'll be scandalized by this word today!" It's completely ridiculous to respect that. By way of example, the original post in this thread objected to the word "piss" — yet that very word is contained in millions of King James Version Bibles worldwide, which are very often owned by the same people who make up these asinine rules in the first place!

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Someone who routinely uses profanity comes across as base, rude, uneducated, and undisciplined. Regardless of our attempts to psychoanalyze it, that's the way the world works.

"That's the way the world works" is a poor argument for anything. This is the same kind of limp excuse you'll get from people who say that women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry.

Also, just to throw it out there: I find people give me more respect and want to be around me more when I'm honest and natural than when I'm walking on eggshells. People who get upset when I swear tend to be exactly the sort of vapid dolts you'd expect to care more about how I talk than what I'm saying.

[Cold Warrior]

When the overwhelming majority of a society agrees that certain behavior and words are taboo, it doesn't mean they have 'sticks up their asses', only that they have set those as the boundaries of good conduct. People use words, and words have nuanced meanings which help or inhibit a functional society and interpersonal relations. To judge a society based on its chosen boundaries and customs is itself indicative of a stick up your ass. Stop trying to impose your beliefs on others, and don't dismiss the overwhelming sentiment of billions worldwide just because you feel you know better.

[Chuckit]

Gosh golly gee willickers, I don't feel I know better. I do know better. And I am telling you that in my practical experience, most people do swear occasionally and feel more comfortable around people who also swear than around people who are judging them for it. The prohibition against swearing is prescriptive, not descriptive. It's just a minority of people who try to make everybody else feel bad about it, just like everything else pleasurable.

I'm not trying to accuse you of being in some vast right-wing conspiracy or anything. I'm just saying, not that many people are actually against it. In fact, almost everybody swears. Everybody has this feeling that everybody else objects to it, but it's actually just a noisy minority.

But your point about nuanced meanings is an interesting one: If I call someone a "jackass," is that really worse than if I had called him a "mental midget who would do the world a favor by ending his existence in the quickest way possible"? The latter seems to have a much more awful meaning to my ears. Yet it's the former that would get the "moral majority" all riled up. I would suggest that nuanced meanings have nothing to do with it.

[Oisín]

When the overwhelming majority of a society agrees that certain behavior and words are taboo, it doesn't mean they have 'sticks up their asses', only that they have set those as the boundaries of good conduct.

Profanity is not a societal taboo. It’s a natural part of all languages, one that just happens to be frowned upon to varying degrees in varying contexts and circles. “The majority” of society does not consider swearing a taboo. A bad habit, perhaps (probably), but not taboo, which implies it’s something that’s either too horrible or that you’re not allowed to do or talk about. Only a relatively small part of society considers profanity an actual taboo.

And yes, when people start listening only to what words you use, rather than the content of what you’re saying, that is having a stick up their arse [profanity!]. Just like it’s stuck up to go through an entire Internet forum post, ignoring the content, and pick apart the grammar and spelling, it’s stuck up to ignore what people are saying at get mad at them because there was a, “Damn” in there somewhere.

People use words, and words have nuanced meanings which help or inhibit a functional society and interpersonal relations.

Precisely. Words have nuanced meanings. Their meanings are not absolute, and they change drastically by context. Therefore, it’s counterproductive to completely and unflexibly removing all instances of a particular word, regardless of its nuanced meaning in the context it’s used. Especially when it’s censored in such a fashion that it’s instantly recognisable for what it is, anyway. The only thing asterisking profanities does now is draw more attention to the profanities by making them something you have to look at and think about (if only for half a second) in order to process, rather than simply another word in a block of text.

Stop trying to impose your beliefs on others

Chuckit is no more imposing his beliefs on others than you are.

and don't dismiss the overwhelming sentiment of billions worldwide just because you feel you know better.

“Overwhelming sentiment of billions worldwide”? (Nearly) everybody swears. It’s merely the intervals at which we do it that vary. There are no billions worldwide that have an overwhelming sentiment that profanity is such a horrible thing.

I visit several other Internet forums where there are no censorship filters, and guess what—people are generally a lot nicer to each other on those forums than they are here. And they don’t swear any more than they do here, either. I’m not saying the two are directly related, because I don’t think they are, to that degree (more likely it’s because the other forums are much smaller communities), but the fact that you can swear without being asterisked doesn’t actually mean any kind of degradation in moral standards or anything like that.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

However, I've always found that using better verbiage, as Sherman mentions, is much more effective. If I can point out our character flaws, poor education, evidently poor upbringing, possible genetic problems, and unsavory personal habits without using a single word that is objectionable in "polite company," then I think it gets the point across all the better. Using Anglo-Saxon monosyllables is cathartic at times, but these forums are not the real life in which one might just miss the nail and hit the thumb-the immediacy of the "need" for cursing, swearing, and obscenity are completely lacking in online discourse.

I couldn't agree more. Whilst swearing is extremely cathartic in real life, it's largely devoid of the same satisfaction when you actually have to type it out. It loses its flavour somewhat, I feel. However, I've always been riled by notions of 'polite company', mainly because many people I've known seemed to view me as some kind of 'educated savage'. (It's a long story—best not to ask.)

I do take issue with one element of your post, though: why point out a boor's "character flaws, poor education, evidently poor upbringing, possible genetic problems, and unsavory personal habits" when they're so plain to see? It seems rather a waste of effort...

[Oisín]

However, I've always been riled by notions of 'polite company', mainly because many people I've known seemed to view me as some kind of 'educated savage'.

Also, what defines ‘polite company’?

The workers that are currently drilling, hammering, and generally tearing our building apart and putting it back together again at the moment are all perfectly polite and very nice people—yet they use profanities constantly and, well, talk like workers do.

Conversely, many a professor I’ve known at the university are very well-spoken and would never dream of uttering a word that might be considered improper or profane or put a toe out of place—yet they are often, if you’ll pardon my French, snide sons of b*tches who go out of their way to thwart others to make themselves seem more important, and they make subtle remarks that make you feel like you don’t know whether they just insulted you or not.

So, which of the above are more ‘polite company’? Going by what I read ghporter’s definition to be (and what I would extrapolate Cold Warrior’s definition to be as well), it should be the latter, who don’t break these so-called taboos of society by always staying PC and quietly anonymous.

Yet, I’d still say the workers are the more polite, since they, regardless of their choice of words, are “respectful and considerate to other people” (from OS X dictionary’s definiton of ‘polite’) and don’t send off subtle little jabs.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Also, what defines ‘polite company’?

The workers that are currently drilling, hammering, and generally tearing our building apart and putting it back together again at the moment are all perfectly polite and very nice people—yet they use profanities constantly and, well, talk like workers do.

Conversely, many a professor I’ve known at the university are very well-spoken and would never dream of uttering a word that might be considered improper or profane or put a toe out of place—yet they are often, if you’ll pardon my French, snide sons of b*tches who go out of their way to thwart others to make themselves seem more important, and they make subtle remarks that make you feel like you don’t know whether they just insulted you or not.

So, which of the above are more ‘polite company’? Going by what I read ghporter’s definition to be (and what I would extrapolate Cold Warrior’s definition to be as well), it should be the latter, who don’t break these so-called taboos of society by always staying PC and quietly anonymous.

Yet, I’d still say the workers are the more polite, since they, regardless of their choice of words, are “respectful and considerate to other people” (from OS X dictionary’s definiton of ‘polite’) and don’t send off subtle little jabs.

'Polite' company is, as you correctly ascertained, commonly considered the latter group. And I completely agree with your assessment: the 'educated' tend to be infinitely more treacherous than the 'great unwashed'. In my personal experience, I vastly prefer working as the admin for a workshop (as my last job was) than working in a purely office-based environment. There's less back-stabbing and falseness involved. If someone had a problem with something I said or did in my old job, they told me in no uncertain terms they had a problem with it, often in a very profane manner. I appreciated that. In other, purely office-based jobs I've worked, nothing would be said to me and instead I'd hear about it third-hand. I certainly did not appreciate that.

Also, I find that the guys in my workshop tended to have much better working relationships with each other, probably because there was less pretension toward being 'polite' or 'civilised' than there is in an office.

[irunat2am]

I call people *********s. That's what I do. The fact that this word turns into stars is the only thing that I care about. Everything else is fine.



D
O
U
C
H
E
B
A
G

[adamfishercox]

A great contribution to the discussion, no doubt...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Your mancrush on doofy creeps me out.

There. I said it.

What is with your homophobic comments?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But if you feel the need to point out my character flaws, poor education, etc., I’d say you deserve an infraction regardless of whether you do so in the most politically correct way possible or by calling me an annoying, spoiled, braindead, stinking f*cking idiot, making (in my opinion) the asterisk filtering system completely worthless.

You are completely right-though in a real world situation it's usually helpful to make the person whom one finds so wanting wonder what it is one has said, and thus lose his train of thought for whatever oddness he was perpetrating.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Is anyone really offended by seeing the mere word (a string of letters on a screen) ‘sh*t’, just the word itself? Wouldn’t it be more easily expected that someone might take offence at what the word is taken to mean (“You’re a sh*tfaced f*ckhead”)? And that this is no less offensive if worded non-obscenely (“You are an ill-prepossessing abhorrentificator”)?

The words are not the issue. The fact that we strive to keep this from being a set of "adults only" forums, that we want to be "family friendly" enough that people aren't going to depart in disgust, IS the point. It is sort of a ground rule that's promulgated and enforced passively and only when that rule is violated-typing in a word on the "banned list" makes one's post look odd.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

So what’s the point of censoring out the ‘ugly’ version, but not the ‘non-ugly’ version? Like ‘regular’ (non-obscene) words, profanity can be used for more than insulting—in fact, when used properly, they can assist in creating some of the funniest lines possible.

Insults and curses, whether using profane or scholarly verbiage, are neither appropriate nor welcome here. My point in my first paragraph was not that it was better to call someone names using big words, but that curse words by themselves are not necessary in most conversations, and are better reserved for use (if at all) in an emergent and obviously stressed real life situation. Expressing one's disgust with, let's say an extremely poor driver who is causing an ongoing traffic hazard (something I experience on an almost daily basis here) through vocalizing "you freaking freak-headed freak!" is a real-world reaction to a real world situation. There's no time to ponder, proof read, reword or otherwise reconsider one's wording, and the vocalization (usually only to oneself) helps reduce the perceived stress of the situation. Online, there is ALWAYS time to reconsider what one posts, and even whether or not to post at all. Our curse filter and the censoring it does are simply a way to remind us all that outbursts in our posts are noticed, and hopefully remind those of us whose posts are so censored that we've stepped over a line.

On the other hand, you are completely correct at how silly and hilarious appropriate use of less common and less familiar words can be. Such speech should indeed be reserved not for insults, but for better applications.

[Oisín]

The words are not the issue. The fact that we strive to keep this from being a set of "adults only" forums, that we want to be "family friendly" enough that people aren't going to depart in disgust, IS the point.

But the words themselves do become the issue when the filter is (by the limitations of the system, I know) set up to work on a purely word-by-word basis.

It is sort of a ground rule that's promulgated and enforced passively and only when that rule is violated-typing in a word on the "banned list" makes one's post look odd.

It also makes the profanity stand out and draw attention to itself, which I would argue is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

I can see the reasons for wanting to apply such a filter, and the ideals it is hoped the filter will help (in a small way) to maintain; I just don't think it works at all like it's supposed to, in practice. Quite the contrary, really.

It's a bit like saying to children, “That's forbidden!”—it will only make them more adamant to do it!

[Kevin]

Insults and curses, whether using profane or scholarly verbiage, are neither appropriate nor welcome here. My point in my first paragraph was not that it was better to call someone names using big words, but that curse words by themselves are not necessary in most conversations, and are better reserved for use (if at all) in an emergent and obviously stressed real life situation. Expressing one's disgust with, let's say an extremely poor driver who is causing an ongoing traffic hazard (something I experience on an almost daily basis here) through vocalizing "you freaking freak-headed freak!" is a real-world reaction to a real world situation. There's no time to ponder, proof read, reword or otherwise reconsider one's wording, and the vocalization (usually only to oneself) helps reduce the perceived stress of the situation. Online, there is ALWAYS time to reconsider what one posts, and even whether or not to post at all. Our curse filter and the censoring it does are simply a way to remind us all that outbursts in our posts are noticed, and hopefully remind those of us whose posts are so censored that we've stepped over a line.

Indeed

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It's a bit like saying to children, “That's forbidden!”—it will only make them more adamant to do it!

And I am sure those that act as children in here will be treated as such. As adults, we should have outgrown such tendencies. We should realize how such a plight is futile and doesn't add anything to our lives.

[Oisín]

Well, it was only an analogy, not an actual correlation. I simply meant that asterisking out profanities draws far more attention to them than simply writing them out uncensored does. In the same way those *beep* sounds on American television are far less inconspicuous and draw far more attention than the profanity they're put there to replace.

In many, if not most, cases, I don’t even think people would notice the profanity if it weren’t enhanced and singled out with asterisks or *beep*s.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Well, it was only an analogy, not an actual correlation. I simply meant that asterisking out profanities draws far more attention to them than simply writing them out uncensored does.

They don't to me. Though when I see someone's post that has a ton of them, it does say something else to me.

[red rocket]

+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+
|I|f| |w|e| |d|i|d|n|'|t| |h|a|v|e| |a|
+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
|p|r|o|f|a|n|i|t|y| |f|i|l|t|e|r|,| |t|h|e|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|m|o|d|s| |w|o|u|l|d|n|'|t| |h|a|v|e| |t|o|
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|a|s|t|e| |t|h|e|i|r| |p|r|e|c|i|o|u|s|
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
|t|i|m|e| |t|o| |e|d|i|t| |t|h|e| |p|o|s|t|s|
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
|o|f| |p|e|o|p|l|e| |w|h|o| |m|a|k|e| |t|h|e|
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
|e|f|f|o|r|t| |o|f| |e|v|a|d|i|n|g| |i|t|.|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
|S|e|r|i|o|u|s|l|y|,| |t|h|i|s| |s|h|i|t|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|i|s| |f|u|c|k|i|n|g| |i|n|s|a|n|e|.|
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[Oisín]

You started writing that when this thread first began, and only just finished now, didn’t you?

[Kevin]

I didn't even bother to read it. Made me cross-eyed. Congratulations.

[red rocket]

+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|o|t| |r|e|a|l|l|y|.|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[ghporter]

Cute, red rocket, really cute. In fact the staff here do have a bunch of stuff to do outside policing the forums-like lives. I'm in a professional graduate program (I always thought grad school was about thinking deep thoughts and carrying a 6-10 hour course load-how about 16 or 17 hours every semester!). I have a family and I do things other than exist to watch the forums. So yes, having an automated method of preventing text that might get us (and MacNN) in trouble in some situations is something that saves me "precious time."

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But the words themselves do become the issue when the filter is (by the limitations of the system, I know) set up to work on a purely word-by-word basis.



It also makes the profanity stand out and draw attention to itself, which I would argue is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

I can see the reasons for wanting to apply such a filter, and the ideals it is hoped the filter will help (in a small way) to maintain; I just don't think it works at all like it's supposed to, in practice. Quite the contrary, really.

It's a bit like saying to children, “That's forbidden!”—it will only make them more adamant to do it!

We expect our users to be at least somewhat mature about their posts, and to behave in a somewhat adult manner. So sure, the asterisks do call attention to the fact that something has been censored out. But considering how many posts we have that have nothing at all censored (because the users didn't put anything in them that might be off-color), I think the asterisks help identify users who've lost control to some extent, rather than highlighting their words. And adults really should have enough self control to be able to pass up the "this is forbidden so I must do it" urge.

[Oisín]

Again, I wasn’t saying people use profanity because it’s forbidden, just that—to me, at least—the filters have the exact opposite effect from what they’re intended as, just like forbidding children things tends to have the exact opposite effect from the intended one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think the asterisks help identify users who've lost control to some extent, rather than highlighting their words. And adults really should have enough self control to be able to pass up the "this is forbidden so I must do it" urge.