Bad Language Options

[GMR]

You mean you can't use damn? That is bad.

[GMR]

S****thorpe.

Scunthorpe?

[Simon Kirby]

The question is, why would you need to swear?

I think Philip Larkin answers that best:

This Be The Verse

They fcuk you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fcuked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.


All I'd say is that if Philip Larkin had a better grasp of the language than you or I, and if he found a use for profanity then that's good enough for me. Of course, he used it for effect, and like all the other literary devices he used, it was only effective because it was fresh, but I'm not arguing here for routine profanity, and like I said I'm making an effort myself not to swear, but I'm just saying it has its place and it's not reasonable to have a blanket sensor of profanity, leastwise, not such an inconsistent one as we have.

[motormad]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM‎

[x2lls]

And this is hilarious!

Angry Kid, Tourettes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA9HHRZdQP8

[CharlieF]

Yet curiously enough I can talk bollocks.

The word bollocks was put on trial in the 1970s and acquitted! The Sex Pistols album cover was defended by John Mortimer (of Rumpole of the Bailey fame). So it's *officially* not a swear word.

[On the edge]

Its simply evolution, f*** was an absolute no when I was a lad, p*** to describe a gay person quite normal and acceptable. Indeed, gay then described a happy joyful state of being! Rather like other things that offend what is thought to be society. For instance would Private Eye get away with the Cloggies and the Blagdon Amateur Rapist today? Back then, thought very funny and so quite acceptable. Some might claim many of these changes are for the better, taking the long view, they are simply fashions which will inevitably change over time. Has society improved? I don't think so; just check out the emerging pariahs, ginger haired people, fat people, smokers, drinkers....wait and watch.

[JeffG]

just check out the emerging pariahs, ginger haired people, fat people, smokers, drinkers....wait and watch.

I don't mind ginger haired people...

[On the edge]

Well, in really small numbers.....

[Simon Kirby]

Its simply evolution, f*** was an absolute no when I was a lad, p*** to describe a gay person quite normal and acceptable. Indeed, gay then described a happy joyful state of being! Rather like other things that offend what is thought to be society. For instance would Private Eye get away with the Cloggies and the Blagdon Amateur Rapist today? Back then, thought very funny and so quite acceptable. Some might claim many of these changes are for the better, taking the long view, they are simply fashions which will inevitably change over time. Has society improved? I don't think so; just check out the emerging pariahs, ginger haired people, fat people, smokers, drinkers....wait and watch.

I actually think that society is becoming kinder and less hateful, and our attitude to hateful language reflects that change.

As a for-instance, this story caught my eye the other day:

Man caught with hooker claimed she was helping him buy TOMATOES

Maybe the Pun's readers still call people "hookers", but my feeling is that this kind of misogynistic language for sex-workers is becoming less common because misogyny itself is less common.

Likewise, I was surprised the other day to hear someone using "gay" as a homosexual pejorative. I don't hear that very much, and I think it was significant that the guy was a pensioner.

I think the disabled also have much greater acceptance now than in my formative years, and there is a whole lexicon of hateful language for disability which is less and less acceptable, some of which I still use and I'm challenging myself to stop.

I understand that "sh1t" was at one time the worst word you could use, and I don't understand why that would be, but it just goes to show how these things change.

[On the edge]

Perhaps its step by step and over a very long period. Homosexuality appears to have been accepted in ancient civilisations and then gradually stigmatised. Arguably, we were fast coming out of this particular one between the wars, but it was kept going by reactionary individuals. What I'd term the gobby party politicians both sides suffer from. These are the ones the leaders worry about; because they are scared to tell them they're wrong. Differences are stigmatised, that seems to be human nature. The weaker the victim group, the longer it takes to correct.

We might have become kinder in some places and often at an individual level. Throughout my career, I've generally found most people willing to assist and have seen some acts of very great kindness. However, on a collective level, that is politically and in leadership, we have become unprincipled and brutish. Demonstrable by the lack of difference between political parties and their inability to clearly state their purpose. The players are simply interested only in self promotion. Therefore, Policy is not driven by principle or the want to improve, but simply self preservation in terms of votes.

[Andy Capp]

The players are simply interested only in self promotion. Therefore, Policy is not driven by principle or the want to improve, but simply self preservation in terms of votes.

I think that is understandable when you consider how ignorant and naive the electorate can be and how manipulative the media can be too.

[JeffG]

However, on a collective level, that is politically and in leadership, we have become unprincipled and brutish.

Since 1979, when it all started.

[On the edge]

Since 1979, when it all started.

Wouldn't disagree!

[Gazzadp]

Late to the party as I always am.

But in my experience with using the phpBB forum software the use of a so called "profanity" filter is requires the site admin (creator) to firstly ACTIVATE that feature.

Then admins must manually specify the words to be banned!

However as SK has rightly pointed out banning words is a bit hit and miss and can at time be likened to using a sledge hammer to crack a nut!

As it will lead to all words that include that innocently contain a string of letters (word) being banned too, as many sites have found (facebook et al)!

Me personally I feel that when a public forums has a minimum age for registrations, then the question has to be does it or should also have a "profanity" filter. I think not. But I do accept that the fact is there nothing to stop a user registering and using a fake date of birth to get round that, in saying that that is not the fault of the forum owners, staff or legtimate members.

[gel]

[Biker1]

[JeffG]

[motormad]