5 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
Some 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 ago
  Just for clarification: Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in the antonym of "defensive"?
  - simonh 4y ago
    I mean people's feelings. See my reply to Brendinoo for my position on that in more detail.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- Swizec 4y ago
  Is 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 ago
    Censoring 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 ago
      You 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        What 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 ago
        There 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 ago
  As 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 ago
No 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 ago
    Thankfully, 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 ago
      I 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.

simonh 4y ago

Some 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 ago
Just for clarification: Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in the antonym of "defensive"?
- simonh 4y ago
  I mean people's feelings. See my reply to Brendinoo for my position on that in more detail.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Swizec 4y ago
Is 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 ago
  Censoring 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 ago
    You 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      What 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 ago
        There 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 ago
As 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 ago

No 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 ago
  Thankfully, 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 ago
    I 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.