3 ms·

Religion's got nothing to do with it. Racial slurs are a subset of "profanity", and I wager that you support Google's desire to not have apps in their store whi

by jaspax 6y ago

Religion's got nothing to do with it. Racial slurs are a subset of "profanity", and I wager that you support Google's desire to not have apps in their store which prominently feature racial slurs. Every culture has its "bad words" which are forbidden to use in polite company. (Of course the actual app in question is still completely innocent, because Google's vetting process is a trash fire.)

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Religion's got nothing to do with it. Racial slurs are a subset of "profanity", and I wager that you support Google's desire to not have apps in their store which prominently feature racial slurs. I have no objection. > Every culture has its "bad words" which are forbidden to use in polite company. I'm not so sure that that is true. I do not think there is but a single word in the Dutch language that cannot be featured even on children's programming. Some cultures have a concept of “taboo words”, and others seem to lack it.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Wikipedia has quite a long list, including wide assortment of racial slurs. Would all of this really be acceptable in kids tv? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity Also this entry is interesting: > Kankerlijer means "cancer sufferer". It is a strong insult: an example of its legal status can be found in a 2008 court case, in which using the word kankerlijer to insult a police officer was cited as a serious offense. Though, little surprise if "offensive to an authority figure" is a lower bar than "offensive to parents"
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    > Wikipedia has quite a long list, including wide assortment of racial slurs. Would all of this really be acceptable in kids tv? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity Absolutely. They simply feature such swearwords as well as genitals. > > Kankerlijer means "cancer sufferer". It is a strong insult: an example of its legal status can be found in a 2008 court case, in which using the word kankerlijer to insult a police officer was cited as a serious offense. > Though, little surprise if "offensive to an authority figure" is a lower bar than "offensive to parents" It isn't about offending, but insulting. It isn't legal in the Netherlands to insult police officers in function regardless of how polite the language is. One can't walk up to one and say “I find your face most æsthetically displeasing.” for instance. Certainly not a law I agree with, in any case, and thankfully it's becoming more and more of a dead letter, but occasionally people are prosecuted for it.
handoflixue 6y ago
It seems disingenuous to bring up racial slurs in the context of profanity. They're two very different categories, even if they are both subsets of "words that can get you in trouble." As you acknowledge, the app in question was blocked for profanity, not slurs. As parent comment says, profanity seems to be mostly a religious issue. I can say "fuck" on TV, or in my novel, or even in my Hacker News comment. But I doubt I'd get away with such language in church, or a show I wanted to sell to a Puritanical USA audience. None of that has anything to do with slurs, which are much more widely agreed as "wrong." You can reasonably expect a service or file extension that turned out to accidentally be a slur would get a lot more attention, unlike "ASS"
- ttt0 6y ago
  First of all, do you think that promoting LGBT would fly in a church? I'm pretty sure it's far more offensive to a religious person than saying "fuck". Second, before this issue got so big and everyone started talking about it, the official line was that they need to be "advertiser friendly". As stupid as I think it is, it seems far more likely than your explanation.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    You seem far more sure than you should be; many churches are openly accepting of LGBT people.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Hadn't that changed only very recently though? Not an American, so I forgot for a second that it's different there.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Generally speaking, profanity is language that is socially offensive. The reasons that the language might be offensive depends on the social makeup and norms of the group you're referring to. Sometimes those norms are driven by religion, sometimes they are driven by other factors, and sometimes it is a combination of reasons. For example, you can find instances of social groups that: 1. are not religious, but recognize the concept of profanity. 2. do not recognize some slurs as profane. 3. are religious, but do not recognize the same profanity as other social groups that belong to the same religion.
samatman 6y ago
The taboo against racial slurs is itself religious, by any clear-eyed concept of religion. In the same sense that Thanksgiving is a holiday of the American civic religion, Martin Luther King, Jr. is a martyred saint of that religion. He has statues and a day of remembrance; any attempt to separate this from religious observance is going to have its work cut out for it. I expect this will be interpreted as disrespecting the tenets of that religion, but I revere the Reverend Doctor and abstain from saying slurs out of piety, as well as ordinary fear. I offer this as evidence: if the prohibition were part of a more general idea that we shouldn't insult other people, the use-mention distinction would still apply. Yet many lecturers have been dismissed for mentioning the n-slur, without directing it at anyone. The only conclusion which fits the facts is religious taboo.

by jaspax 6y ago

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Religion's got nothing to do with it. Racial slurs are a subset of "profanity", and I wager that you support Google's desire to not have apps in their store which prominently feature racial slurs. I have no objection. > Every culture has its "bad words" which are forbidden to use in polite company. I'm not so sure that that is true. I do not think there is but a single word in the Dutch language that cannot be featured even on children's programming. Some cultures have a concept of “taboo words”, and others seem to lack it.

klyrs 6y ago
Wikipedia has quite a long list, including wide assortment of racial slurs. Would all of this really be acceptable in kids tv? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity Also this entry is interesting: > Kankerlijer means "cancer sufferer". It is a strong insult: an example of its legal status can be found in a 2008 court case, in which using the word kankerlijer to insult a police officer was cited as a serious offense. Though, little surprise if "offensive to an authority figure" is a lower bar than "offensive to parents"
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Wikipedia has quite a long list, including wide assortment of racial slurs. Would all of this really be acceptable in kids tv? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity Absolutely. They simply feature such swearwords as well as genitals. > > Kankerlijer means "cancer sufferer". It is a strong insult: an example of its legal status can be found in a 2008 court case, in which using the word kankerlijer to insult a police officer was cited as a serious offense. > Though, little surprise if "offensive to an authority figure" is a lower bar than "offensive to parents" It isn't about offending, but insulting. It isn't legal in the Netherlands to insult police officers in function regardless of how polite the language is. One can't walk up to one and say “I find your face most æsthetically displeasing.” for instance. Certainly not a law I agree with, in any case, and thankfully it's becoming more and more of a dead letter, but occasionally people are prosecuted for it.

handoflixue 6y ago

It seems disingenuous to bring up racial slurs in the context of profanity. They're two very different categories, even if they are both subsets of "words that can get you in trouble." As you acknowledge, the app in question was blocked for profanity, not slurs. As parent comment says, profanity seems to be mostly a religious issue. I can say "fuck" on TV, or in my novel, or even in my Hacker News comment. But I doubt I'd get away with such language in church, or a show I wanted to sell to a Puritanical USA audience. None of that has anything to do with slurs, which are much more widely agreed as "wrong." You can reasonably expect a service or file extension that turned out to accidentally be a slur would get a lot more attention, unlike "ASS"

ttt0 6y ago
First of all, do you think that promoting LGBT would fly in a church? I'm pretty sure it's far more offensive to a religious person than saying "fuck". Second, before this issue got so big and everyone started talking about it, the official line was that they need to be "advertiser friendly". As stupid as I think it is, it seems far more likely than your explanation.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  You seem far more sure than you should be; many churches are openly accepting of LGBT people.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Hadn't that changed only very recently though? Not an American, so I forgot for a second that it's different there.
kube-system 6y ago
Generally speaking, profanity is language that is socially offensive. The reasons that the language might be offensive depends on the social makeup and norms of the group you're referring to. Sometimes those norms are driven by religion, sometimes they are driven by other factors, and sometimes it is a combination of reasons. For example, you can find instances of social groups that: 1. are not religious, but recognize the concept of profanity. 2. do not recognize some slurs as profane. 3. are religious, but do not recognize the same profanity as other social groups that belong to the same religion.

samatman 6y ago

The taboo against racial slurs is itself religious, by any clear-eyed concept of religion. In the same sense that Thanksgiving is a holiday of the American civic religion, Martin Luther King, Jr. is a martyred saint of that religion. He has statues and a day of remembrance; any attempt to separate this from religious observance is going to have its work cut out for it. I expect this will be interpreted as disrespecting the tenets of that religion, but I revere the Reverend Doctor and abstain from saying slurs out of piety, as well as ordinary fear. I offer this as evidence: if the prohibition were part of a more general idea that we shouldn't insult other people, the use-mention distinction would still apply. Yet many lecturers have been dismissed for mentioning the n-slur, without directing it at anyone. The only conclusion which fits the facts is religious taboo.