its cool that you think that

but other people have different opinions than you

It's really not a big deal to not use vulgarity.

Thirteen year olds are dependent on vulgarity to make a point.

You should be plenty able to handle not dropping f bombs to get your point across.

yep

I should also be allowed to use that word if I think it is nessecary

We we ever want this to be a real community such precautions are necessary for any younger people that appear, or more delicate people that simply don't want to read unneeded vulgarity.

yeah but you don't get to be in charge of what is "unneeded" though

and you don't get to be in charge of saying what is "needed"

Chao--er, Lily, what do you think of the non-censoring of gendered slurs?

The only reason I'm involved in this at all, outside my perennial complaint about the lack of transparency, is because I don't like that homophobic, racial, and gendered slurs are being treated differently, but that hinges on the assumption that women on this board feel roughly the same way about gendered slurs as I feel about slurs against queer people.

Not to say that you speak for all women, or anything ridiculous like that, but I'd be curious to hear your opinion, since I might be totally off-base to assume that our feelings and experiences are similar.

Would it make you feel better to know that there's at least one mod who feels that we shouldn't even have a filter?


EDIT: this was openly discussed before we went live btw http://woodenmarble.freeforums.org/filters-huh-what-are-they-good-for-t24.html

Except there is no instant where it is necessary.

And the negatives (driving off traffic) is far more important than your petty desire to swear.

you're right tony, expressing one's self on an internet forum for discussion is not that important

I see why my opinion is wrong now

Not... really, sorry.

The new argument that has not been answered is that gendered slurs are being treated differently than sexuality-based slurs and racial slurs. That seems contradictory. No one has yet replied to that argument beyond Fire's very unsatisfying "The FCC has consistent standards" (which frankly was ALSO not a reply to my argument against the way ratings are handled on TV and in movies, since "consistent" doesn't mean "not prone to demonizing female and queer sexuality").

If you feel you need you have to swear to make your opinion important enough for people to care, your opinion isn't worth stating.



Well given how desperate you all are to be able to swear, I think that assumption is pretty well justified. As for the winner comment, it's pretty hilarious given the glimpses of your personal life you've shared with us.


Not being able to curse is really not a big deal. There is nothing that we have to be able to curse for or can't function and on the flip side it could be a big deterrent to possible traffic and future users. The pros and cons of being able to swear are completely one sided against it. And again, it really is not a big deal. Especially as Butthead so graciously explained, you are going to so rarely curse it's an irrelevant issue and it appears you two will complain about anything just for the sake of complaining.

Sure.

I've deleted a bunch of back-and-forth insult posts that weren't on-topic for the thread and edited out the same from posts that had other content. I would really appreciate it if posters would stop insulting each other, especially in a thread where a policy discussion is supposed to be taking place. I don't always have a lot of free time to spend here, and I'd really much rather spend it conducting meaningful policy discussions than doing the moderator equivalent of cleaning up litter.

Seriously, guys, attacking other posters? Not cool. Stop doing it.

Okay, with that out of the way, on to actual (hopefully) productive discussion!


...and now I have now officially sat down to write this post five times, each time being interrupted before I can complete so much as two sentences. I don't want to have the posts that I removed remain without explanation for any longer, so I'm posting this now and hopefully can actually complete the full post later.

Sorry, Keeper.

The problem with using the same allowances of what can/can't be on television is that people can choose what to see or not see. There are ratings on television shows, there are stations and shows that promise not to have vulgarity of any kind, and people know what shows they wish to avoid, so they simply choose not to watch certain things. You can't really say the same about a forum. Anywho, not taking sides, just making note that the two shouldn't be used to prove each other.

~SE++

you can block people who don't make posts that use language you like

it's even better than changing the channel on a TV

These are all from the discussion we had over at the set up forums on this very issue and I would like to remind everyone that during the discussion due to language that wasn't at the time filtered we had two folks end up taking a break due to a poster's use of offensive language

Some people will leave because certain words are allowed. Some people will leave because they aren't. You won't please everyone, even if the ideal is "we want this to be a community where everyone feels welcome." Different people feel welcome in different environments, any statement like that quote is really just marketing gibberish, so that a policy stance can be handwaved away. There really isn't a method to make everyone feel welcome.

It's one thing if you want to come out and say to people that you might doubt their noble intentions, that perhaps their desire to not have a swear filter isn't as pure as they present, or even that you might doubt their actual ability to use the lack of a swear filter without purposefully being offensive (or being purposefully destructive to a social community, rather than constructive). But using the fact that some people won't participate if there isn't a swear filter as justification for its implementation is one-sided.

That people advocate for censorship is balanced by those who advocate against it; the willingness to participate by either side in the other's environment shouldn't be used to make the decision of which environment we have. It's all about which community is desired, because there are many cases where you just can't have both.

Ultimately it's up to miss_bun and the mods to decide what kind of community is desired. But once that decision is made, it needs to be transparently communicated.