3 ms·

I bet it wouldn't ban for "bum", which is less offensive to Americans but potentially moreso for the sorts of anglophones who are likely to say arse. Why are w

I bet it wouldn't ban for "bum", which is less offensive to Americans but potentially moreso for the sorts of anglophones who are likely to say arse. Why are we still treating words like everybody has mid-20th century sensitivities? Shit, fuck and ass are all mild words in modern parlance but American tech companies are totally out of touch.

snarf21 2y ago
It is as simple as money. More open expression is nothing compared appeasing the puritanical powers that be. Don't put anything in your product that would stop adoption or prevent people giving you money.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Do the "puritanical powers that be" still even exist? I think you'll have to look in nursing homes to find many Americans who are genuinely scandalized a bit of standard cussing. The "bad words" which are actually taboo in this century are slurs and the like. Companies probably lose more people by banning cursing than would be driven away by cursing.
  - GJim 2y ago
    > standard cussing...... slurs and the like. And the difference is? Ergo, what is considered offensive is based on social construct. (In more religious times, "god damn you" was heinous insult, which I doubt would register with anybody in modern secular Blighty.)
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      The difference is how they are presently perceived. I am arguing that shit, fuck, etc are not presently taboo, while other words (slurs) are. Yet American companies treat words like fuck as though they are still widely considered offensive. These companies are out of touch with modern culture; that's my point. So what is your point? Why do you feel the need to tediously explain that offensive words are a social construct, something obviously understand already because I just got done explaining that the set of taboo words has changed over time?

3 ms·

I bet it wouldn't ban for "bum", which is less offensive to Americans but potentially moreso for the sorts of anglophones who are likely to say arse. Why are w

by lupusreal 2y ago

snarf21 2y ago
It is as simple as money. More open expression is nothing compared appeasing the puritanical powers that be. Don't put anything in your product that would stop adoption or prevent people giving you money.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Do the "puritanical powers that be" still even exist? I think you'll have to look in nursing homes to find many Americans who are genuinely scandalized a bit of standard cussing. The "bad words" which are actually taboo in this century are slurs and the like. Companies probably lose more people by banning cursing than would be driven away by cursing.
  - GJim 2y ago
    > standard cussing...... slurs and the like. And the difference is? Ergo, what is considered offensive is based on social construct. (In more religious times, "god damn you" was heinous insult, which I doubt would register with anybody in modern secular Blighty.)
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      The difference is how they are presently perceived. I am arguing that shit, fuck, etc are not presently taboo, while other words (slurs) are. Yet American companies treat words like fuck as though they are still widely considered offensive. These companies are out of touch with modern culture; that's my point. So what is your point? Why do you feel the need to tediously explain that offensive words are a social construct, something obviously understand already because I just got done explaining that the set of taboo words has changed over time?