A profane question 2

[IPGuru]

I find profanity is difficult to create a rule for, what may be considered profane in one sentence may be perfectly acceptable in another.


with regards to masking words, if you do not know the meaning of scumblesnorter (I just made that up) then writing it as s$@&*^%£$%^&*r should mean nothing to you except to tell you the author considered it might offend.
Therefore people are getting offended because they have been told they should be not because they are.

I could just have easily written it as <insert expletive here>, in which case the reader is surely offending them-self!

of course using the Mc prefix may have scared the moderators in case they had to face the wrath of a certain purveyor of fast food.

I think the problem you had is the example words are open to debate where as the rule clearly stated that masking was not allowed.


Computers are like Air conditioners:-
Both stop working when you open Windows

 

[kwbMitel]

Noway2,

I would ask if you were aware of the rule banning substitutions. If you were and you used them, then it is an obvious violation to me. The relative weighting of meaning is totally beside the point.

I wonder what might have happened if you instead chose to write McDuck instead of Mc'!@#$. Personally, McDuck makes a more immediate impression with me and "Sounds" profane but is not.

@IPGuru <insert expletive here> would probably cross the line as well although I am not in a position to know for sure.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I agree that using the term Mc'!@#$ is a clear violation of the creative characters to mask profanity rule. To me that point is not debatable.

==&gt; The rule states that one should speak as if they were talking to a respected elder.
Unfortunately, any rule like that is not only entirely subjective, as indicated by the series of questions posed in the OP's final paragraph, it's inherently unfair because the oldest person in the room has no elders per se. Rules in that form have zero literal value. Anyone can at anytime make a case for anything said. It's very similar to Supreme Court Justice Stewart's remarks with respect to porn.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [&quot;hard-core pornography&quot;]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

I'm not sure you can define what is or is not profane or obscene, but we all know when we see it, even though we may draw the line different places.

That being said, it's not at all hard to grasp the spirit and intent of that rule, and I think anyone can find the words to express their point without having to resort to questionable words or phrases.
McDonald's doesn't care about its employees.
McDonald's treats employees disdainfully.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[Noway2]

Interestingly, I have received some replies from the forum management on this subject, both from the moderator in question and from an administrator, one level up, whom I contacted regarding this.

The moderator did not even attempt to address the question of determination as to whether or not a word is profane and instead said that !@#$ stands out more than a word buried in a paragraph and suggested that I use the report feature on offensive material. To me this is tacitly acknowledging that the other words are taboo. Whether or not action was taken on those, I know not.

The administrator thinks that banning usage like !@#$% is silly but had previously given up on fighting the battle. Their interpretation of creative characters is usage of terms like FU(|< that are designed to get around a word filter, that is apparently in place. Their belief is that the word filter should simply, and automatically replace taboo words with asterisks and that be the end of it. In my opinion, especially with words that are in the grey area, this would handle the case of, "I think this is normal speech." He did say that he liked my suggestion of the broadcasting standard as a more explicit rule and was going to suggest it to forum management. I am pleased to say that he also reversed the infraction.

To answer the question of, did I know that creative characters was prohibited, yes, and see CC's point about it being construed as a blatant violation. At the time of writing, I didn't think of it in those terms and as I said, I wasn't thinking of it swearing as one normally would. Yes, one could express the same basic sentiment with statements like yours, however, they lack the striking impact that was part of my intent in the same way that statements like, 'he is a really, mean and nasty person', doesn't have the same impact as 'he is one bad-ass blank-ity blank'. Is that not one of the justification for reserving profane words, so that they don't become mundane through overuse?

The question of terms like McDuck, or even more nebulous, McDuff (thinking of the Simpsons and of Shakespeare) is a good question. It kind of reminds me of the joke about the woman who was a member of the parish of Pastor Muff.

The broadcast standard brings me to the concept that pre Janet Jackson's Superbowl incident, adult oriented television had started to incorporate some expletives as well as mild nudity. I know to our European members, this will probably induce yawning but to us Merkins, it controversial.

 

[SamBones]

Specifically, the line between speech that is acceptable and speech that is considered profane, as in where is this line?

(Emphasis added)

There is no written rule for where the profanity line is. I find profanity to be highly subjective. I know some people that drop the "F-bomb" at least once in every sentence out of their mouth, and would even do so to respected elders. I also know some people that take mild offense to the use of "Heck" and "Darn" because they are just masking the words "Hell" and "Damn".

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter a @#$%!&* damn what you or anyone else thinks is profane, it matters what the moderator thinks. He/She is the judge on that playground.

 

[2ffat]

I grew up with the Alley Opp comics and I still read it today. They always substituted "!@#$" and similar wingdings for swearing. I always found it humorous. To me it can mean anything.




James P. Cottingham
[sup]I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229![/sup]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Yes, one could express the same basic sentiment with statements like yours, however, they lack the striking impact that was part of my intent in the same way that statements like, 'he is a really, mean and nasty person', doesn't have the same impact as 'he is one bad-ass blank-ity blank'. Is that not one of the justification for reserving profane words, so that they don't become mundane through overuse?
Reserving profane words? I don't think the intent of the rule is to reserve profane rules for any specific or emphatic use, but to prevent their usage. But I do get your point.

English is replete with striking adjectives (vicious, sadistic, barbaric, ruthless, virulent, malevolent, etc.) that can be used in place of profanities, but I grant you they don't play as well on the street as does profanity. In my opinion, the use of profanities as emphatic adjectives is another example of dumbing down language. But that's just my opinion, and I'm probably in the minority, but so be it.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[Noway2]

the use of profanities as emphatic adjectives is another example of dumbing down language.

I understand this statement, I think it makes sense. This was addressed, though perhaps it wasn't (or maybe it was) the point in the movie Start Trek 4, the one with the whales. There was the comment by Spock where he notes that since arriving in the 20th century that Kirk's speech became laced with "colorful metaphors", to which Kirk responded that, "if you don't swear, every other word, people won't understand you." So even if it isn't dumbing down the language, it is certainly making it more vulgar, as in common or low class. This of course, implies a lower level of education and sophistication.

As an aside, the comment about pornography, a tip from a lawyer for returning something unwanted that arrives in the mail is to label it pornographic - return to sender. The post office will return it, and charge the original sender for the privilege. It stems from the "I can't define it, but know it when I see it" ruling.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> This was addressed, though perhaps it wasn't (or maybe it was)
Indubitably.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[SantaMufasa]

The notion that obscuring profanities with special characters, thus leaving the interpretation to the beholder reminds me of other "obscurities":

(Daughter arrives home from a date and slams the front door.)

Mom: "So how did your first date go with Steve?"

Daughter: "It was terrible...dirty songs, all evening long."

Mom (in great surprise): "You mean he sang dirty songs to you all evening?"

Daughter: "No, he whistled them."

Several decades ago, my 4-year-old daughter storms into the room, tattling on her older brother:


Daughter: "James, just called me the 'S'-word !"

I: "Uh, oh. I'm sorry he did that. I promise that you won't get in trouble if you tell me which 'S'-word he called you."

Daughter: "He called me 'Stupid'."

Back on direct topic, my colleagues and I have been discussing this very topic here at the office. We noted that in our community, although "standard" profanities are are strictly and universally taboo, we seem to have no problem with using "place-holder" or substitute profanities such as "gosh", "dang", "flippin'", "freakin'", "shoot", "crap", et cetera.

We've noted that these substitutes are profane in much the same way as the "real thing" and that if we wouldn't use the "real thing", then we shouldn't use the "conversational special characters" either.

We also recognized that when we use such substitutes, we are attempting to emphasize some emotion such as anger, disappointment, sadness, surprise, et cetera. So, we have individually (and collectively) resolved to use the real words for our emotions. It has been amusing, entertaining (and uplifting) to hear my colleagues exclaim, "Sadness !", or "Anger !", or "Joy !" instead of the real (or substitute) profanities from before.

I believe that those who are prone to (written or spoken) profanity deminish their verbal/intellectual stature to the listener...No one hears profanity then stands up and shouts, "Well, said!", or "He's soooo intelligent !"

Using "special-character obscurities", however, shouldn't bug people (unless it's not obscure enough <grin>).

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
“People may forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel.

 

[Annihilannic]

In the immortal words of Billy Connolly (excuse me if I paraphrase slightly):

You tell me the equivalent of f*** off and I'll happily use it... it certainly isn't "Go away!"

"Feck" has become so common in Ireland that I hardly heard the original word at all while I was there.

Annihilannic
[small]tgmlify - code syntax highlighting for your tek-tips posts[/small]

 

[Noway2]

I still like the choice word from Battlestar Galactica: Frack.
In the forum in question, that one has been explicitly made taboo too.

@Santa, it sounds like you work in a fun place!

 

[Annihilannic]

What sort of Orwellian forum is it?

Annihilannic
[small]tgmlify - code syntax highlighting for your tek-tips posts[/small]

 

[Noway2]

Annihilannic,

It is called defensivecarry. It is a pro-2nd amendment site with a mission of focusing on education towards the subject. The tend to frown on offensive or controversial topics, such as religion or politics because they degenerate quickly.

Overall, I think it is a pretty good site, with a lot of knowledge and experience packed away in their back end database.

 

[KenCunningham]

To be quite honest, having briefly checked that site out, I find the subject matter much more worrying than the threat of a couple of profanities!

The internet - allowing those who don't know what they're talking about to have their say.

 

[Noway2]

To be quite honest, having briefly checked that site out, I find the subject matter much more worrying than the threat of a couple of profanities!

While it is going off on a tangent, would you please explain? What do you find worrying about the subject matter?

As a point of reference, you might want to review this thread in STC:

http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1652626&page=2

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> While it is going off on a tangent, would you please explain? What do you find worrying about the subject matter?
Great questions, but not necessarily pertinent to this forum. Let's please discuss them in STC.

Thanks.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[1DMF]

Being offended is subjective and you cannot make a rule or pass a law regarding it.

Tying to do so leaves us in the current 'PC' climate we have where eveyone seems to be offended by everything.

If you're offended , then be offended , it doesn't actually hurt anyone.

As a comedian on TV said, "I'm offended by boy bands, should we ban them?"

If you're offended, so what, be offended, it's your right to be offended, but it is also my right to not be demonised because you took offence.

To not be allowed to offende anyone, is not allowing anyone to say anything to anyone, incase they take offence or you are offended that they are offended!

freedom of speech is worth offending!

However, rules of a forum are rules of a forum, and if you break them , expect to be offended by the moderators ;-)

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

MIME::Lite TLS Email Encryption - Perl v0.02 beta

 

[BadBigBen]

>> freedom of speech is worth offending!

I do hope, that you meant ... is worth defending!...

btw. I did enjoy the discussion, I live by the old adage "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me..."



Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[SamBones]

Thank you CajunCenturion for requesting that the tangent be taken off thread. I too saw we were about to take a hard right turn into the wall.

As a comedian on TV said, "I'm offended by boy bands, should we ban them?"

Yes!