9 ms·
I often find people expressing that sentiment mean only the words they happen to be cool with, and on examination say well obviously we should still censor thos
by hanoz 4y ago
I often find people expressing that sentiment mean only the words they happen to be cool with, and on examination say well obviously we should still censor those words.
- feanaro 4y agoI never find this. Isn't it quite weird to spend time thinking about which words should or should not be censored? How about we just leave people to speak their minds instead of slowly but surely meandering into newspeak?
- simonh 4y agoSome words have specifically pejorative or derogatory meanings, and if general swears are considered acceptable I'm afraid there are people who will exploit that for genuinely offensive purposes.
- CoastalCoder 4y agoJust for clarification: Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in the antonym of "defensive"?
- simonh 4y agoI mean people's feelings. See my reply to Brendinoo for my position on that in more detail.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Swizec 4y agoIs it less offensive to use the n-word with explicit intent to offend by saying “n-word” or by actually saying the word? I think it’s the same. ie: it’s not the word that’s the problem, it’s how you use it. To expand further: I think the obsession over words is the left’s version of thoughts and prayers. We would rather debate what something should or shouldn’t be called than fix the problem. Because it’s easier and feels like progress.
- tsimionescu 4y agoCensoring words is much more the right's obsession than the let's. You're right in the particular case of the n-word, and slurs in general, but the conservative right has been adamant in banning all use of swear-words in mass media for decades.
- Swizec 4y agoYou are right and I think censoring swear words is even sillier. Although it does lead to the particularly beautiful art of the British swear word. How they can turn any random noun into an insult is pure poetry. I wish American media did more of that.
- UncleEntity 4y agoI don’t think the conservative right gives a flying fuck about censoring swear words. The religious right, on the other hand, cares a whole ducking lot. Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together though.
- tsimionescu 4y agoWhat non-religious conservative right is there, at least in the USA? Who would be an example of such a thing? I do agree that the libertarian right does not care about this (say, Ron Paul).
- UncleEntity 4y agoThere are plenty of people who are politically conservative but don’t have particularly strong religious beliefs. Not every republican is anti-abortion and pro-prayer in school no matter how the media portrays them. You should meet some real people sometime and see how the other half lives. —edit— Though…if you don’t look like you walked straight off the set of Duck Dynasty they are probably closet conservatives and won’t risk offending some random stranger with their “hate speech” because that’s what ‘merica has become.
- Handytinge 4y agoAs someone from a culture with normalised swearing, yes this happens sometimes. However dickheads are dickheads, and will abuse and exploit regardless of the rules.
- jodrellblank 4y agoNo more weird than spending time thinking about what other behaviours should or should not be censored (criminalised). Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions? Is it the case that blaring a loud noise at night is harmful enough to be banned, but putting racist leaflets through letterboxes is harmless? What about online forums where it's not about moralistic control, but a pragmatic action because if you don't censor some kinds of words and speech, it's like a positive feedback loop where everything gets more intense until Godwin or his equivalents turn up? It does seem to be the case that control feedback is needed to keep discussion forums relevant and on topic, and that involves thinking about what needs censoring and by whom and in which situations. Does that same effect and consideration not apply in wider society?
- ellopoppit 4y ago>Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions? Have you ever been physically assaulted, punched in the face, had your ribs broken, or been put in a strangle hold?
- jodrellblank 4y agoThankfully, I haven't. Telling someone who was physically assaulted that at least they weren't murdered isn't much comfort. If you're saying "the amount of harm they do is different", I agree. If you're saying "people can't be harmed by words", I disagree - especially at a population level; popularising and spreading of ideas that certain subgroups are subhuman has happened over and over in many countries and caused lots of harm. Punching someone is worse than calling them a moron, but bruises from childhood heal in weeks where verbal assault from childhood (e.g. by an abusive parent or teacher, as well as by peers) can still be hurting decades later with wider knock-on effects.
- toolz 4y agoI think people very generally miss the very important subtlety that words never hurt people. It's the intention behind the words that hurt and you don't need words to communicate intent. So banning/censoring words really doesn't do much other than placate the people who just wanted to feel involved in changing the status quo. Compare that to a punch to the face. It really doesn't matter if someone was just joking or angry with you, 150 psi to your jaw is going to do damage.
- knorker 4y agoI have never heard this in my life. Either people treat words as magic or they don't. There's a difference between "you'll never hear me say that word, just all other words" and trying to censor. I won't say the n word, but I'll watch a Tarantino movie.
- smegsicle 4y agotarantino the p*dophile apologist? i'd rather say the n-word
- thiht 4y agoWhy do you self censor the word « pedophile »? No judgment, just an honest question. Do you also self censor « murderer » or « rapist »?
- smegsicle 4y agothe topic originally under discussion being self-censorship, it is an expertly subtle reference to how things like rape (especially child rape), while not directly censored in the same way as expletives, are very rude subjects to bring up in polite conversation
- swayvil 4y agoAh yes, the "u r dum" retort. Wait, are we still allowed to say "dum"? Is this even visible? It's doubly hard to predict what will be censored these days given that so often the censored words lists are themselves secret and, well, censored from view. To combat spammers no doubt. Funny how "secret" and "censored" overlap.
- Brendinooo 4y agoUpvoted because I make this argument too, but I think it’s better applied to the kind of person who says “words are just words, man” than free speech absolutists. Though, to one who believes that swear words have power but shouldn’t be censored: is that just in a legal sense or in a societal sense?
- simonh 4y agoIt very much depends on the context. As an advocate of free speech rights I believe the only justification for legally penalising speech is when it is incitement to violence or criminality. Speech being offensive is no good reason to penalise it legally, otherwise it's no freedom at all. However social groups and independent forums or publishers should be free to set their own editorial standards. Nobody (acting in their private capacity, that is not as a government employee) should have any obligation to repeat, distribute or publish the speech of others that they disagree with.
- int_19h 4y agoYet at the same time, there must be enough independent forums for a true diversity of opinions. If they all end up being owned by a couple of monopolists, any semblance of free speech is just that.
- simonh 4y agoIn theory maybe, but in practice we're nowhere even remotely near that. E.g. Twitter is full of very vocal politicians complaining loudly that their political beliefs are being, er, silenced on Twitter. It's all part of the show. The western media landscape is incredibly diverse, pretty much every conceivable opinion and niche community is available and discoverable. In fact there seems to have been a huge boom in fringe attitudes and beliefs, as barriers to communication have fallen away, exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if communications was being meaningfully restricted and moderated at the societal level.
- int_19h 4y ago
- Cloudef 4y agoI hate when games have no option to turn word filter off. Souls games are infamous of the word Knight getting censored, the word filter is so bad most people invading are just asteriks
- icod1 4y agoWhy would "Knight" get censored?
- JasonFruit 4y ago"Nig" is sometimes used as a racial slur by older, lamer racists.
- buchoo 4y agoReminds me of a Udemy Unreal Engine course where the instructor would pronounce APawn* as "APawn star", which Udemy's subtitle generator would suitably render as "a ** star".
- bogota 4y agoI have never met anyone who thinks words should be censored in print. Maybe this is specific to the US?
- swimfar 4y agoDefinitely not a US-only thing. Every time there's an article on BBC about someone getting in trouble for saying something offensive they often don't even provide a quote of what was said.
- kube-system 4y agoA review of Chinese mobile games found 180,000 different censored words. https://citizenlab.ca/2017/08/chinesegames/ https://citizenlab.ca/2017/08/chinesegames/ The idea that print shouldn’t be censored is more of a progressive western idea, than a non-US idea.
- koonsolo 4y agoNo, it's because we are non-US. We don't want that fucking stupid censor bullshit in the rest of the world.
- shrimp_emoji 4y agoCensorship is the norm practically everywhere EXCEPT the U.S.
- thiht 4y ago
- Handytinge 4y agoThat's categorically false.
- IncRnd 4y agoIf you think there is no censorship outside the US, even in places like Belgium, you are sorely mistaken.
- koonsolo 4y ago
- sebastianconcpt 4y agoHow deeply narcissistic arrogant and authoritarian one should be to promote the normalization of any kind of censoring?
- haunter 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial Do you think these countries are "deeply narcissistic arrogant and authoritarian"? I don't think so
- ellopoppit 4y agoYes, those countries indeed have a history rich with arrogant authoritarianism. Those laws are a literal recognition of that fact.
- jodrellblank 4y agoHow deeply narcissistic arrogant and selfish one should be to see all the harm that comes from a free-for-all and still promote a free-for-all because you think you'll be one of the winners and other people's suffering doesn't matter?
- ellopoppit 4y agoHiding from reality via censorship sets one up for even greater harm and suffering, because they never have a chance to build up their mental strength and armor that they will need in the real world. Like never letting your child ever ride a bike without training wheels. It's a form of agoraphobia. Kevin Hart talks about the fact that no one can insult or harm him with words because of the initiative gauntlet he went through to become a comedian.
- jodrellblank 4y agoMore like never letting your child ride a bike with training wheels because falling off builds character, and when they grow up they're bound to be falling off a lot and need the callouses to protect them. Did your parents skip your childhood vaccinations on the grounds that a bout of polio or tetanus builds physical strength? Or did they prefer a more gentle introduction to let your immune system become accustomed in a protected, simplified, environment?