4 ms·

For the record, I posted this without the full expletive* in the title. It looks like dang edited it back in. * I dashed the two middle letters, but in retrosp

For the record, I posted this without the full expletive* in the title. It looks like dang edited it back in. * I dashed the two middle letters, but in retrospect, a wittier work-safe title would be "Gutter Expletive: A Magazine of the Arts (1962-1965)" which echoes Ed Sanders' choice of words https://youtu.be/BYgv7ur8ipg https://youtu.be/BYgv7ur8ipg

metadat 4y ago
There's nothing wrong with preserving the work FUCK. This isn't a YouTube channel channel for infants, censorship is not needed.
- boxmonster 4y ago
  I say, bloody well said Smedley
- thomassmith65 4y ago
  The magazine was created to shock the public, but I posted it because I think it is interesting as a historical artifact. In 2022, nobody is likely to call the police over the four letter words, but some people still find naughty language obnoxious. There's a line I love in a book review by George Orwell: "When I first opened Tropic of Cancer and saw that it was full of unprintable words, my immediate reaction was a refusal to be impressed." My self-censorship of the title was also an attempt, and maybe a misguided one, to signal that my posting the link is not some feckless attempt at being edgy.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    I find it delightful that you call "naughty" (ex 'naught') expletives, which are born for expressing drastic positivity.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > my immediate reaction was a refusal to be impressed Do not get confused: of course in front of the sensational you will oppose "a refusal to be impressed". But you are supposed, as an adequately mature individual, to have well developed filters¹ - exercised since day one of the spark of insight. We cannot assume that you use language sensationally, childishly. It cannot be the default. ¹Edit: I replaced with 'filters' the formerly used 'control', which may sound too active (there is of course no need for active contrast, against common agents, in the mature individual).
- bergenty 4y ago
  It’s not censorship, it suggests a moral framework and a reluctance to be too forward. These are good things.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Is using "curse words" supposed to be immoral now? Shit..
    - bergenty 4y ago
      It’s not that, it’s an attempt to appear genteel or not appear crude. No one is seriously offended by curse words but making an attempt to not throw those out exhibits control. That is desirable.
  - exogeny 4y ago
    Fuck that.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Which moral framework would disregard "distance"?
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > This is not a... channel for infants Very well said, because this is why some of us are here.
wccrawford 4y ago
Never stop doing what you think is good when it's not hurting anyone. Don't take these downvotes as a sign that you need to change. It's okay to be kind, even if people don't want it.
- thomassmith65 4y ago
  Thanks, I agree! There's no worries around my taking criticism in this thread overly personally. It's natural for people to have strong opinions about censorship in general, and I don't think anyone here means to imply that the title of this one post is a matter of dire importance in the grand scheme of things :)
deltarholamda 4y ago
You were correct to edit it out, and dang was correct to edit it back in.

metadat 4y ago

There's nothing wrong with preserving the work FUCK. This isn't a YouTube channel channel for infants, censorship is not needed.

boxmonster 4y ago
I say, bloody well said Smedley
thomassmith65 4y ago
The magazine was created to shock the public, but I posted it because I think it is interesting as a historical artifact. In 2022, nobody is likely to call the police over the four letter words, but some people still find naughty language obnoxious. There's a line I love in a book review by George Orwell: "When I first opened Tropic of Cancer and saw that it was full of unprintable words, my immediate reaction was a refusal to be impressed." My self-censorship of the title was also an attempt, and maybe a misguided one, to signal that my posting the link is not some feckless attempt at being edgy.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  I find it delightful that you call "naughty" (ex 'naught') expletives, which are born for expressing drastic positivity.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > my immediate reaction was a refusal to be impressed Do not get confused: of course in front of the sensational you will oppose "a refusal to be impressed". But you are supposed, as an adequately mature individual, to have well developed filters¹ - exercised since day one of the spark of insight. We cannot assume that you use language sensationally, childishly. It cannot be the default. ¹Edit: I replaced with 'filters' the formerly used 'control', which may sound too active (there is of course no need for active contrast, against common agents, in the mature individual).
bergenty 4y ago
It’s not censorship, it suggests a moral framework and a reluctance to be too forward. These are good things.
- metadat 4y ago
  Is using "curse words" supposed to be immoral now? Shit..
  - bergenty 4y ago
    It’s not that, it’s an attempt to appear genteel or not appear crude. No one is seriously offended by curse words but making an attempt to not throw those out exhibits control. That is desirable.
- exogeny 4y ago
  Fuck that.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Which moral framework would disregard "distance"?
mdp2021 4y ago
> This is not a... channel for infants Very well said, because this is why some of us are here.

wccrawford 4y ago

Never stop doing what you think is good when it's not hurting anyone. Don't take these downvotes as a sign that you need to change. It's okay to be kind, even if people don't want it.

thomassmith65 4y ago
Thanks, I agree! There's no worries around my taking criticism in this thread overly personally. It's natural for people to have strong opinions about censorship in general, and I don't think anyone here means to imply that the title of this one post is a matter of dire importance in the grand scheme of things :)

deltarholamda 4y ago

You were correct to edit it out, and dang was correct to edit it back in.