The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Bribles wrote:If one is using Firefox, then one could download Greasemonkey. Then one could install a profanity filter. There also exist un-censorers for those feeling too coddled by asterisk riddled words.

Good stuff for a first post Bribles. It was helpful, had links to the subject matter, it wasn't even overtly sarcastic. Nice work.

However, if I were to say something like "Who gives a ****" , where the profanity is replaced with **** it doesn't take much of an imagination to figure out what it was I said. In fact it kind of worsens the profanity factor by leaving it up to the individual to supplant the **** with damn, shit, piss, or God forbid, fuck.

The point is that any kind of "censor" can be beaten. If you make a program that blocks the word "damn", I can easily leave off the "n" and type dam all day long. Block the word "dam" and I can simply add "m" or "n" until I get past the block. You can do this with any blocked word. Fuck becomes Phuck or Ffuck or Fuckk or Fucck or, well you get the point. Any person intent on using profanity will find a way to do it regardless of any censors put in place. In fact, they may even be more determined to do so just to **** with people. (BTW, whose to say those 4 stars didn't mean "mess") Self censorship doesn't work either. Asking people to self censor themselves (or doing it of your own volition, sorry Signboy) is akin to asking them to be someone they aren't.

Censorship in any form is wrong. As has been said many times before in many places, I may not agree with something someone said (or typed), but I will defend their right to say it. If anyone doesn't like something they read, they can definitely post an objection. or as in this case, a suggestion to resolve the issue. I'm just trying to be a realist and saying no matter what, people will find a way to get around the technology if they want to.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: Censorship in any form is wrong.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes Seriously though, that's kind of a ridiculously all-encompassing statement to make. There are all kinds of good reasons people censor things, especially themselves. Just because you don't care whether your swearing offends someone doesn't mean you never censor yourself, otherwise you would say everything that pops into your head and I'm sure that your wife and your boss (among others) appreciate that you don't do that

Secondly, and as already mentioned, my suggestion was to put in place something that is completely unobtrusive to anyone who chooses not to use it (thanks btw for that link Bribles, that's an ideal solution). Since no one knows whether I'm choosing to censor them or not, they have no reason to attempt to circumvent the measures I have in place. And for what it's worth, when I read your ****, I did read "mess".

Way, way, back in the day I used to belong to this local BBS thing. They had pretty strict censoring in the live chat-rooms.
It became a running joke to say completely innocent things which would trigger the censors.
Example: "Chardonnay" would be rendered "C******nay". Likewise "I wish it would", "I wi** ** would".
The fun really went out of it when some software upgrade actually would automatically disconnect you after being caught three consecutive times by the swear-filter.

Something similar happened at school two years ago when I asked the tech guys to activate a filter on the message boards for my Popular Music class. (There were one or two kids who, despite their best intentions, could not prevent themselves from typing "shit" in the required class discussion threads.) Anyway, after they implemented the filters, an online English class, completely oblivious to our pop music class, started seeing things like "Emily Dickinson" and "Charles Dickins," thereby changing completely neutral terms into lascivious ones. I thought it was pretty hilarious.

Okay, smartypants, how do you censor something like "Jesus loved nothing more that to have sweaty intercourse with goats."?

If you're a xtian, is that more offensive than the f-word? I guess what I'm saying is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? If you don't like seeing swear words here, maybe you should ask yourself what it is exactly about swear words that offend you?

The difference, Mark, is that I'm probably not going to see the above phrase in the middle of a review of a song, or a poll about how many blades I like on my razor, for instance. As far as explaining what is offensive about swear words to me, well, I don't know how I'm supposed to explain that. Why is anything offensive to anyone? I mean, everyone draws lines somewhere, right? Our ability to draw a line between what we individually feel is right and wrong is what makes us human and makes us different from animals. Where we draw those lines is likewise what makes us individuals.

By the way, I don't know that I understand what I've said before that made me a "smartypants". I'm really not trying to be condescending.

Really, I'm not trying to be a dick here (honestly), but I find it kind of offensive that you'd suggest that because YOU find swear words offensive, that ALL OF US should be subjected to a word censor. An analogy would be the holier-than-thou right wing fundamentalist who finds homosexuality to be 'icky', so makes laws against it...

[edit] I just now, after reading through this entire thread again, realised that you were only looking for a way to turn on your individual word censor thingy. The rest of my post is good though, I think.

They're just words. You've been programmed to respond in a certain way to them, sure, but they're just words. The reason I used the Jesus example above was to illustrate my point that it's not WORDS that should offend you, but the meanings behind them... 'fuck' means many things, the most common usage of it is 'have sex with'. Why would 'have sex with' be offensive to you? Sex is a beautiful thing. If I said 'fuck you', it could probably be transliterated into 'curse you' or 'something bad happen to you' or similar. I don't know if many people would find that offensive, maybe a bit provocative. 'shit' really only has one meaning, 'faeces'. Not a very attractive substance, but very natural. See also: 'piss'. Everyone poops and pees. 'cunt' is either a crude slang for a female vagina, or an undesireable person. Female genitalia is beautiful. I like it, you like it, hell, even some women like it. Most women like their own genitalia quite a bit. What's offensive about it? Same thing with 'cock'. And 'tits'. Should these words be plastered all over a public forum ALL THE TIME? I'd say no, but I think we're mostly capable of self-policing here, and when one starts making suggestions to impose RULES about what you can or cannot write here, no one benefits in the end. We lose a bit of freedom. Why do you hate freedom so much?

Eric Y. wrote: Example: "Chardonnay" would be rendered "C******nay".

Yes - to be polite, I always ask the waitress for a C-stiffy-nay



Actually, that would make a great cryptic crossword clue:

Before the horse makes a sound, an erection follows 100 white wines. (10)

I don't see any difference between allowing individuals to censor swear words and allowing them to completely ignore specific users (which one can currently do by listing them as "foes"). It doesn't really matter why KillMeSarah is sensitive about swear words and trying to impose your personal opinion about them on him is stupid. Since his request doesn't impact anyone else in the least, why not honor it?

If only this were the case. If no one was impacted IN THE LEAST, I would turn it on in a minute. However, since it is currently ON in everyone's profile, if we enabled it globally, everyone who didn't want it would have to go to their profile and turn it off. That may be a small impact in some people's opinions, but it is an impact. It seems to me that a solution has already been provided, so why bother?

SPUD

Spud wrote:It seems to me that a solution has already been provided, so why bother?

For people who don't read every thread or may join at a later date and don't know there is a workaround? I do see your point; however, that's certainly not the reasoning JB used ("I want my joke filter! I like swearing! Etc!") and he seemed to be the one speaking for the administration as far as this topic is concerned.

That's why there are two of us. If he is being an ***, I can compensate.

SPUD

And this way I get to be a ***! I approve!

Caravan Ray wrote:
Actually, that would make a great cryptic crossword clue:

Before the horse makes a sound, an erection follows 100 white wines. (10)

This made my day. Give this man a gold censorship star! Or five!

*****

Just to be clear, here:

cock /kɒk/ –noun
1. a male chicken; rooster.
2. the male of any bird, esp. of the gallinaceous kind.
3. Also called stopcock. a hand-operated valve or faucet, esp. one opened or closed by rotating a cylindrical or tapered plug having part of the passage pierced through it from side to side.
4. (in a firearm)
a. the part of the lock that, by its fall or action, causes the discharge; hammer.
b. the position into which the cock, or hammer, is brought by being drawn partly or completely back, preparatory to firing.
6. a weathercock.
7. aleader; chief person.
8. Chiefly British Informal. pal; chum.
9. British Slang. nonsense.
10. Horology. a bracketlike plate holding bearings, supported at one end only. Compare bridge1 (def. 17).
11. Archaic. the time of the crowing of the cock; early in the morning; cockcrow.
–verb (used with object)
12. to pull back and set the cock, or hammer, of (a firearm) preparatory to firing.
13. to draw back in preparation for throwing or hitting: He cocked his bat and waited for the pitch.
14. to set (a camera shutter or other mechanism) for tripping. Compare trip1 (def. 28).
–verb (used without object)
15. to cock the firing mechanism of a firearm.

dick /dɪk/ –noun
1. a detective.
2. a male given name, form of Richard.

Don't get any ideas here. There is no muse.

Märk wrote: They're just words. You've been programmed to respond in a certain way to them, sure, but they're just words. ...

First of all, I agree with your post. They are just words or conglomeration of sounds in a specific order not unlike any other, except that we have deemed them offensive.

I'll even agree that the things they represent are usually pretty harmless as well. I'll even go as far as believing the words are necessary to accurately describe an action or to convey the full emotional impact of its given use.

However, I have had this discussion with my cousin's wife who is the mother of a young child. Her argument weak. She came at me with the 'it just is' explanation.

I thought about that though. I came to realize that these same words would completely lose their impact if they weren't deemed offensive in the first place. So, they need to be offensive in order to keep them genuine. So there IS something to the 'it just is' explanation. And as long as those words are offensive, then they have the impact needed to actually be offensive.

BTW, Jesus would never have sexual intercourse with a goat so the implausibility of the statement just makes it satire, therefore funny. Thats my opinion. I believe other Christians would shake their bibles at you. Therefore your statement reserves its right to be offensive to SOME people.

They must secretly believe that Jesus WOULD have sex with a goat.

Why, do gay people have goat sex?

Paco Del Stinko wrote:Why, do gay people have goat sex?

Why are you assuming the goat is male? Perhaps you are only interested in sex with male goats but the rest of us men would like the option of a female goat on the table at all times.

Ha! I hadn't even considered the goats' gender. But for me, if it really comes down to that, gender probably won't be an issue by that point.

Paco Del Stinko wrote:Ha! I hadn't even considered the goats' gender. But for me, if it really comes down to that, gender probably won't be an issue by that point.

It'll matter to the goat.

Sheep go to Kevin
Goats go to hell
- Cake