Wow (language filter split)

[Pluvius]

Can't I just type as I type & let the censor do the work? I have no intention of censor dodging, as I figured from the start the filters were in place for a reason.

[Sonic#]

The filters are more a temporary failsafe if you happen to forget (we all do sometimes). It's more that you're cursing, rather than what the curse word is displayed as, that goes against the rules.

[Pluvius]

What if I memorize the word filter & manually type out stuff like -Fatal Hopper-?

[Alunissage]

What if you save yourself the trouble and instead learn to communicate without cursing even indirectly? It's a valuable skill.

[Pluvius]

George Carlin & Eddie Murphy never needed that supposed "skill".

I mean, not using them ever is the same as not using any colloquialisms. It's silly.

I'll just use gris a lot. A whole grising lot.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

George Carlin & Eddie Murphy never needed that supposed "skill".

I mean, not using them ever is the same as not using any colloquialisms. It's silly.

I'll just use gris a lot. A whole grising lot.

It's a built-in thing with people. so built-in that it even has a lot of the non-christians thinking like that. the idea that there can be several words for the same thing and only 1 or 2 of them be "bad" is idiotic. if penis is acceptable to say, then that should apply to cock as well.

of course there's always the "you cuss because of a weak vocabulary" argument. which i'd say is just stupid. people say that because they think it's true since they've been hearing it their whole lives.

[Werefrog]

I wrote a long post and deleted it. I'll try to be more concise. It's really about knowing when it's acceptable and who is offended. Bad words are bad because they make people offended or uncomfortable (or in the case of racial slurs incite hatred). If you're with people with which none of these conditions apply, it's no longer a bad word.

Also, I'll make the quick comment that I think Carlin probably does communicate effectively without profanity. The ability to self-censor based on the type of crowd is very important for comedians.

[Kizyr]

Copied from the rules:

1) Regarding Profanity

We try to keep the boards on a PG-13 level. So please, don't curse or try to trick the word censor (using 5=S, !=1, etc.). Letting the occasional word slip out is one thing, but if you start swearing too much--or do so in your sig--then it's a major problem. Even if you slip up now and then, please consider that there are younger viewers who see the boards.

You're not George Carlin, and you're not doing stand-up.

Please keep swearing down, despite the word filter. End of discussion. This topic is going to be locked now since it's completely gone off-topic. KF

[Alunissage]

I kept going with this because the language discussion is an interesting one.

---

Ah,the absolutism of youth.

George Carlin & Eddie Murphy never needed that supposed "skill".

I mean, not using them ever is the same as not using any colloquialisms. It's silly.

I'll just use gris a lot. A whole grising lot.

You don't have enough data about other people's lives to judge whether they ever needed to use more refined language than that for which they're famous. They're not always performing. It's extremely naive to think that profanity is always going to be welcome; job interviews come to mind.

Regarding colloquialisms, see below. This statement of yours is really quite ridiculous; obviously refraining from using a subset of all slang and colloquialisms is not the same as refraining from using all slang and colloquialisms.

"Gris" just suggests "gray." A nice neutral word, one might say.

It's a built-in thing with people. so built-in that it even has a lot of the non-christians thinking like that. the idea that there can be several words for the same thing and only 1 or 2 of them be "bad" is idiotic. if penis is acceptable to say, then that should apply to cock as well.

That point of view might work for, say, Esperanto. But for languages which have more than word for the same concept, there will always be shades of meaning distinguishing those synonyms -- and the essence of profanity and vulgarity is that there is a negative meaning attached to the literal one, or a tone of contempt or hatred, etc.

I'm not a student of comparative religion, but I really doubt that the concept of profanity or blasphemy is characteristic solely of Christianity. But it should be pretty obvious that concepts with religious origins are only a small subset of terms deemed offensive/obscene/etc. The more pungent ones aren't religious at all; they're about violence, hatred, racism/sexism, and disgust.

of course there's always the "you cuss because of a weak vocabulary" argument. which i'd say is just stupid. people say that because they think it's true since they've been hearing it their whole lives.

This sounds like another classic youthful reflex of automatically dismissing with scorn anything that suggests that you take something other than the easy way out (such as using strong language instead of careful language to convey emphasis). Does it never occur to you that some of the people who say this have observed, considered, and come to this conclusion independent of other people saying it?

Actually, I don't think I ever heard anyone say this to me at all; it was entirely obvious from what I could see. People who substitute profanity for vocabulary tend to come across as less-educated, less intelligent, less logical, less reasonable, and more emotional, because intensity is used to promote a viewpoint instead of rational support for that view. Of course, this isn't always the case, but it's incredible that someone could actually say that one would only come to that conclusion via parroting; just look at the comments to any public blog and see which posters tend to sound more reasonable and worthwhile.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

i view "you swear because of your lack of a good vocabulary as means of tricking someone into getting what you want. you make it seem like they're stupid for doing it and it challenges them to prove otherwise. i'm amazed that it works on anyone over 10.

i convey my messages as they naturally occur and if it's a message that makes me an ass, then it won't be any different if i swear or if i decide i want to get out a thesaurus.

also, the point of a word isn't the letters but the meaning. he substituted grising for f'ing. what makes it any different?

[ilovemyguitar]

I never thought I'd say it, but I actually sorta agree with B_G here, to an extent. Judging someone's intelligence on the basis of the fact that they choose to express themselves verbally in a way that's different from how you would reeks of elitism. The same goes for attempting to invalidate someone's opinions by referring to them as a "youthful reflex."

[Sonic#]

also, the point of a word isn't the letters but the meaning. he substituted grising for f'ing. what makes it any different?

What meaning?

Even though grising (and - Fatal Hopper - ) lack any real negative connotation, they are still doing what Alunissage said, substituting an effective word choice for a relatively empty "every word."

I curse occasionally. My substitute sometimes is "frillin'", but I don't pretend that I'm breaking down vocabulary barriers when I say it. It's a short cut. It expresses nonspecific frustration, vague enthusiasm... but it doesn't really do anything otherwise.

I don't personally oppose people cursing every once in a while. Occasionally people are frustrated, mad, confused, and then the word's appropriate. What I oppose is people using it in an apathetic way, when they use one all the time, whether at the job or relaxing at the coffee shop. I don't like wading through all of that. The people who don't curse with any apparent feeling. At that point, they're abusing it. And perhaps maligning others' intelligence isn't right, but it makes their talk... predictable. Boring.

Now, as an admin, I'm not going to pursue punishing someone saying "grising," because it doesn't violate the word filters and it isn't obscene cursing so much as empty expletives. But as a poster, I will wince... but it won't be too big of a deal if it's every once in a while. But I will enforce the rules.

[ilovemyguitar]

I don't personally oppose people cursing every once in a while. Occasionally people are frustrated, mad, confused, and then the word's appropriate. What I oppose is people using it in an apathetic way, when they use one all the time, whether at the job or relaxing at the coffee shop. I don't like wading through all of that. The people who don't curse with any apparent feeling. At that point, they're abusing it. And perhaps maligning others' intelligence isn't right, but it makes their talk... predictable. Boring.

Again, this basically sounds like you think other people should change the way they've learned to converse, and try to speak the way you would. It's an elitist and judgmental mindset, the belief that the way you talk and act is better than the way others choose to.

[GhaleonOne]

Just a note, as I don't plan on entering a discussion of language... in regards to cursing on the boards, I don't care about the arguments for and against. That's the rules, and that's the way it is. Deal with them, or don't post. You are guests on these forums, and should respect the rules of them, regardless of whether you agree or not.

[Pluvius]

"Gris" just suggests "gray." A nice neutral word, one might say.

"Gris" is the example word from the GameFAQs' terms of service' explanation of filter dodging.

I curse occasionally. My substitute sometimes is "frillin'", but I don't pretend that I'm breaking down vocabulary barriers when I say it. It's a short cut. It expresses nonspecific frustration, vague enthusiasm... but it doesn't really do anything otherwise.

Frillin is so Krillin awesome. It makes everything else look like gris.

Just a note, as I don't plan on entering a discussion of language... in regards to cursing on the boards, I don't care about the arguments for and against. That's the rules, and that's the way it is. Deal with them, or don't post. You are guests on these forums, and should respect the rules of them, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Naturally. I don't think anyone expected the rules to change.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

"Gris" just suggests "gray." A nice neutral word, one might say.

"Gris" is the example word from the GameFAQs' terms of service' explanation of filter dodging.

I curse occasionally. My substitute sometimes is "frillin'", but I don't pretend that I'm breaking down vocabulary barriers when I say it. It's a short cut. It expresses nonspecific frustration, vague enthusiasm... but it doesn't really do anything otherwise.

Frillin is so Krillin awesome. It makes everything else look like gris.

Just a note, as I don't plan on entering a discussion of language... in regards to cursing on the boards, I don't care about the arguments for and against. That's the rules, and that's the way it is. Deal with them, or don't post. You are guests on these forums, and should respect the rules of them, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Naturally. I don't think anyone expected the rules to change.

haven't you noticed that the internet is immune to logical arguments?

[Alunissage]

I never thought I'd say it, but I actually sorta agree with B_G here, to an extent. Judging someone's intelligence on the basis of the fact that they choose to express themselves verbally in a way that's different from how you would reeks of elitism. The same goes for attempting to invalidate someone's opinions by referring to them as a "youthful reflex."

We're not talking choosing to speak English vs Paamese or some other language here, or speaking with an accent. I'm talking about substituting (implied) intense negative emotion for actual content. How do we judge the intellect of others? By what they say and do. If their language use is limited to schoolground obscenity, what is there to suggest that they're capable of more? How long do you go on saying "Well, they might be capable of more critical thought than they're displaying" before giving up and saying "maybe they are as dumb as they sound"? Lack of content and presence of obscenity are not synonymous, but they are frequently coexistent.

And really, have you (Joe) never looked at some post and thought "That person sounds stupid"? Or do you honestly automatically assume that what one writes has absolutely zero to do with what one is? Even online, when all you know about a person is what they write?

Oh, I missed that last sentence at first. Yes, I criticize what I see to be a kneejerk reaction rather than an actual thoughtful response, and I think some types of responses and reactions are typical of youth. Making sweeping equivalencies like "not swearing is the same as not using any colloquialisms" or "people just say that to manipulate other people" (or, more generally, "you're just telling me thing X is bad because you want to control me", which really strikes me as a teenage-rebellion attitude). Mind, not all young people are like this, and obviously not all those who are outgrow it.

Elitist against those who haven't been able to acquire language proficiency for reasons beyond their control (age, education, resources, background)? I try not to be. Elitist against those who choose to be lazy and go for the cheap impact of strong language instead of engaging their brains? You bet.

i view "you swear because of your lack of a good vocabulary as means of tricking someone into getting what you want. you make it seem like they're stupid for doing it and it challenges them to prove otherwise. i'm amazed that it works on anyone over 10.

I assume the missing quotation mark goes after "vocabulary". But it continues to puzzle me that you cling to this belief, when I think I had made it clear that when I say that swearing tends to make one sound like one lacks vocabulary it is NOT to "trick" anyone but because I honestly believe it to be true. I had a similar discussion with Phyco a couple of years ago, though I think it was about general care in writing online rather than specifically about swearing, and it wasn't because I wanted to trick him or control what he says for my own comfort but because it really is the sort of habit that can result in shooting oneself in the foot figuratively and he's had enough aggravation in his life without inadvertently bringing on more.

Naturally. I don't think anyone expected the rules to change.

You seemed to expect the spirit of the rules to change, though, when you asked if you could just type the censor to indicate that you were intending to swear in a setting which has a rule against it.

haven't you noticed that the internet is immune to logical arguments?

I seem to recall that you've made this type of comment frequently after an intense discussion. The presumed intent is to call the participants of the discussion foolish for actually attempting thoughtful argument because everything online is meaningless (ignoring the fact that discussion is what forums are for), with amused condescension. This particular instance suggests that the person you're quoting was being logical and that no one else was responding to logic, thus again minimizing and dismissing all of the comments that have proceeded from it. I know you prefer to treat my own comments that way, but does this extend to ignoring the responses from Sonic and Werefrog as well? At any rate, it adds nothing to the topic. Nor does quoting his entire post.

[Pluvius]

Naturally. I don't think anyone expected the rules to change.

You seemed to expect the spirit of the rules to change, though, when you asked if you could just type the censor to indicate that you were intending to swear in a setting which has a rule against it.

How would typing the filter be changing the rules at all? The rules say nothing about Fatal Hopper mentions being disallowed, among whatever other filter results are in place.

[Ozone]

What if you save yourself the trouble and instead learn to communicate without cursing even indirectly? It's a valuable skill.

We <3 you, Alunissage.

[Pluvius]

In the end, all of these judgements, even those based on intelligence, are elitist. Saying otherwise is hypocritical.