4 ms·

Gotta love how they write an article about the word fuck yet censor it throughout the article.

• pmalynin 11y ago
  Yes they quote fuck verbatim but censor shit and fuck when they say it. Sidenote: Oh what a world when deplorable violence and torture and borderline pornographic scenes are okay to show on TV and yet swearing is very taboo (I first realized this watching the show Firefly)
  • vacri 11y ago
    It might be software-based; the clbuttic mistake. My favourite clbuttic error was "consbreastutional"...
    • smcl 11y ago
      Similar to this is the "cupertino" effect: there's a number of examples in the first few minutes of this episode of RadioLab (and a few more scattered throughout): http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/ IT's when a legitimate word is mistakenly auto-corrected or switched out by a filter - apparently named after the word "co-operation" being mistakenly corrected to be "Cupertino". One of the examples given is a christian website which bowedlerised* the word "Gay" to "Homosexual" and posted an article about talking the 100m sprinter "Tyson Homosexual"
    • gadders 11y ago
      Apparently it's now known as the Scunthorpe Problem for obvious reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
  • gmac 11y ago
    s/what a world/what a USA/ In the UK (for example) the rules are significantly less unbalanced.
    • kunai 11y ago
      Isn't the Mail a UK publication?
      • gmac 11y ago
        Yes, but my comment was in reply to a comment about TV.
• DonHopkins 11y ago
  I hoped this adjacent HN discussion [1] was about a new updated version of the word fuck, but was disappointed: F* reworked and released as v0.9.0 (lambda-the-ultimate.org) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217199