EM Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 This week's "Off The Spike" covers new journalistic territory for the ST. No swear filters there.Interesting. I hadn't noticed and don't have a copy to read here, but did ask someone to read it to me over the phone. Maybe it is just me, but it didn't seem particularly extreme. The strongest word seemed to be sh*t, or did I miss something. Functional use too. Incidentally I noticed that David Attenburgh (surely one of the most gentlemanly of individuals) said b*gger during his interview on the BBC World Service this week. Whenever dealing with people swearing on the gaming sites, I point out that 3 year olds can hold full conversations, and indeed heartfelt screaming arguments all without a single swearword. What that means for the mental age of said protagonists is left for them to consider..I don't follow the logic here at all. I presume that you are trying to smugly suggest to the swearer that they have a mental age below three. This does not, however, follow. Just because a three year old can say something without using a particular class of word says nothing about people who do, other than perhaps that three year olds have not developed as versatile a vocabulary as the gaming site swearers. You might as well tell the people who say "awesome" the whole time that three year olds can express themselves without use of that word. What is the difference? Whilst anyone may be excused for swearing when they trip, fall, or hurt themselves in some way,...Why on earth should they need to be excused? What have they done wrong? How is the world a worse place after a swear word has been uttered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 ^^ Excused if they had done so in front of a room full of mothers, children, grannies, nuns, monks etc. Obviously if they are on their own, go for it! Regarding the other paragraph above, I've never suggested anything about the protagonists mental age, but its amazing how many spring to the same conclusion, when the actual point is that 3 year olds could follow the site rules, so why can't they. Don't forget we're discussing use of language on internet/forums etc with guidelines and terms of service to adhere to, there's no such thing as free speech online. As I've also said many times, if someone "needs" to swear, open up notepad or a word processor and type away to your hearts content, it can be thereaputic after all! Among adults, I have no problem with it at all, indeed this brilliant clip from Stephen Fry's 50th birthday show sums it up in a nutshell : (sorry mods, I know its a bit OT, but it is relevant in some ways!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 ^ So long as people who watch the video are aware that there'll be some rude words involved, I don't think it's inappropriate to post that video in this thread. My children have taken to saying 'beep' in replacement for any swear words. My son just remarked that 'the beeping cat wants to go out again' and it sounded just as rude as if he'd used an actual swear word (>_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Anyone who's saying "oh sugar" is basically saying "oh [RHYMES WITH HIT]". I can't really take someone who doesn't swear seriously. It seems so fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 ... this brilliant clip from Stephen Fry's 50th birthday show sums it up in a nutshell...Perfect. I know its a bit OT, but it is relevant in some ways!)In some ways? I'd argue that it is indeed highly relevant to all the issues raised, and should be compulsory viewing in school. ...if someone "needs" to swear, open up notepad or a word processor and type away to your hearts content,Well here you are disagreeing with Stephen somewhat. As he says, the cushion is not necessary, but there is no requirement for things to be needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 ...embrace all thoughts (but keep your own)What on earth do you mean by that? Even though I don't know what you mean precisely, I rather expect that you will not actually mean anything like that. It is all very hip to spout relativistic "everyone's opinion is equally valid" sharn, but there are many cases where I would strongly suggest people draw a line and reject rather than embrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertieiddabanks Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 so am i allowed to say cock?how about pussy?bitch?lots of people find the word spastic offensive these days.bar steward?...aha, that last one didn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anyone who's saying "oh sugar" is basically saying "oh [RHYMES WITH HIT]". I can't really take someone who doesn't swear seriously. It seems so fake. Saying "oh Sugar" is swearing. People seem to have forgotten swearing is not necessarily related to "naughty words". Indeed, a vast percentage of the time you hear uttering profanities it's almost farcical. (see Stephen Fry clip above) ... this brilliant clip from Stephen Fry's 50th birthday show sums it up in a nutshell...Perfect. I know its a bit OT, but it is relevant in some ways!)In some ways? I'd argue that it is indeed highly relevant to all the issues raised, and should be compulsory viewing in school. ...if someone "needs" to swear, open up notepad or a word processor and type away to your hearts content,Well here you are disagreeing with Stephen somewhat. As he says, the cushion is not necessary, but there is no requirement for things to be needed. Wish I hadn't included the clip now in some ways! The fact is Stephen is talking about adults talking among themselves, and pointing out how silly and farcical swearing is. This thread is about appropriate actions on an internet forum viewable by all ages and bound by varying (depending on ISP etc) terms of service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 This thread is about appropriate actions on an internet forum viewable by all ages and bound by varying (depending on ISP etc) terms of service.Exactly. Because we wish to keep things suitable to all ages and many people do not wish to respect this deliberate policy decision, we are left in the position of having to police language and content somehow. The swear-filter does a semi-half-baked job of catching things and is all too frequently circumnavigated, but it does at least let people know where The Line is (or even that there is a line). It would be great if people respected, accepted and upheld the sentiment behind Shetlink's policy, rather than trying to demonstrate how it isn't perfect with 'clever' use of * or $, or arguing that it is somehow unnecessary to have a filter. I wish it was unnecessary and that people could swear occasionally if the circumstances warranted it. I'm all in favour of allowing the occasional rudeity, but not everyone is cooperating. It really is a case of the few spoiling things for the many but, whilst those few persist in spouting obscenity without regard to context or appropriateness, then we need something to make the moderation job even half-way possible. Enter the imperfect swear filter. In short: any cooperation with avoiding bad language will be much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 There is never a need to swear...As Stephen explained so well, why should there have to be a need? There are only a very few things in life which are strictly needed (food, shelter, health care etc.) Have you heard what he had to say? If so, how do you respond to his arguments? so therefore you MEAN to offend..This is utter rubbish. If you think that the use of swearing is about causing offence then you must have led a very sheltered life. Swearing can be used offensively, but more often it is not. dont be a sheep, ... all folk should enjoy....OK lets consider your animated bug avatar. I personally find it extremely irritating. Perhaps not offensive, but certainly something which I do not enjoy. It is not needed of course, but I presume that some people think it is great. I can certainly live with it, because ultimately it just doesn't matter. It should be the same with swearing. The same avatar was used by someone else on Shetlink (might have been JAS but I don't remember who). Do I hear the meh of a sheep perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Swearing.......is that not a thing that teenagers do because they think it's cool........and some folk don't grow out of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 It would be great if people respected, accepted and upheld the sentiment behind Shetlink's policy, rather than trying to demonstrate how it isn't perfect with 'clever' use of * or $ Does this mean we should not use any symbols even to half cover up potty mouth antics but leave it to the filter to wash away all trace of foul mouth fun and make total nonsense of sentences with added emotion. Today while watching Sponge Bob square pants, the crab said "c'mere you little (word that sounds like booger)"; but here, all we get is sausages. Don't get me wrong, I don't care enough to complain about all this but by using * or $, I thought that would just be more acceptable to most rather than a demonstration of Shetlinks imperfections.Surely if someone fills in the 'f@(%!^g' gaps and makes a sweary out of it, this is down to their potty mind and not mine. ^That word I used there to demonstrate, was in fact "fizzing" behind the symbols.Just in case you thought I was being a crass {by the way, do you realise I tried to swear here?}. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Catlover Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 i dont think anyone shoud swear, its' not very, nice and can make people feel bad like wen my sister somtimes swears at me sometimes i feel quiet bad but i will confess that i somtimes say swears like poop but then its only wen ive had a poop or somthin smells like poop like wen i go far a walk past som parks with cows and i smell their poop lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavrossT Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 ^poop lol Quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 It would be great if people respected, accepted and upheld the sentiment behind Shetlink's policy, rather than trying to demonstrate how it isn't perfect with 'clever' use of * or $ Does this mean we should not use any symbols even to half cover up potty mouth antics but leave it to the filter to wash away all trace of foul mouth fun and make total nonsense of sentences with added emotion. I think this was covered perfectly by Njugle : The letters behind the asterisks exist in your mind, but to a four year old, they are just asterisks. One of those small bits of logic so often ignored.. If you're "clever" enough to swear, you should also, by default, be clever enough to be able to do so in a discreet manner. Lets put it this way - my inclusion of Stephen Fry's excellent and funny "rant" a few posts back was to point out how funny a "wee swearie" can be, and that those with a better intellect/vocabulary, and therefore general intelligence, tend to be those who swear most. It follows then, that such intelligent, articulate, people, woud be those who set an example of how to coverse in an environment where certain content is restricted (something they themselves agreed to by signing up for an account) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.