Author Topic: Swear Filter (Read 34849 times)

obesebear · « **Reply #50 on:** 2011-04-10 21:55:09 »

If it creates disruption, yes.

Kudistos Megistos · « **Reply #51 on:** 2011-04-10 21:59:44 »

Quote from: Obesebear on 2011-04-10 21:55:09

If it creates disruption, yes.

That would probably be how I'd deal with it too.

One of the reasons why there was a scene the last time I disagreed with Seifer is because everyone felt the need to "help" to stop anything escalating. Sometimes interference in arguments cause the escalation it seeks to prevent.

Cupcake · « **Reply #52 on:** 2011-04-10 22:11:21 »

Kudi, here's the problem. Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue. There is no debate that it's dated. This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.

obesebear · « **Reply #53 on:** 2011-04-10 22:12:54 »

If you want legitimate definitions for words use urban dictionary.

/thread

Kudistos Megistos · « **Reply #54 on:** 2011-04-10 22:18:12 »

Quote from: Cupcake on 2011-04-10 22:11:21

Kudi, here's the problem. Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue. There is no debate that it's dated. This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.

The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".

Cupcake · « **Reply #55 on:** 2011-04-10 22:48:25 »

Quote from: Kudistos Megistos on 2011-04-10 22:18:12

The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".

The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language. If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word. Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay. So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in. If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect. Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no. How do you not grasp this concept?

The Seer of Shadows · « **Reply #56 on:** 2011-04-10 22:51:27 »

In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it. Does that make sense? It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world

I think I'll retire from this thread now.

Kudistos Megistos · « **Reply #57 on:** 2011-04-10 23:06:09 »

Quote from: Cupcake on 2011-04-10 22:48:25

The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language. If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word. Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay. So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in. If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect. Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no. How do you not grasp this concept?

How do you not grasp the concept of not affirming the consequent? Even if we assumed it were true (it isn't) that words aren't valid if they're not in the dictionary, it doesn't follow that they are valid if they are in it. If all cats are four-legged animals and my dog is a four-legged animal, does that mean that my dog is a cat?

The OED simply records words that are used in the English language. Many of those words might no longer be used or might only be used in certain dialects or registers. This is one of those words. If the linguistic community does not accept that "gay" means "happy", then it does not mean "happy". If it seems strange, that means it's not being used in a way that people consider acceptable.

Quote from: The Seer of Shadows on 2011-04-10 22:51:27

In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it. Does that make sense? It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world

You more or less have the right idea.

obesebear · « **Reply #58 on:** 2011-04-10 23:23:08 »

<-- That's dedicated to the forum and this thread in particular.

Bosola · « **Reply #59 on:** 2011-04-11 00:31:58 »

Do we have anything more to say about the swear filter? This linguistics stuff is at risk of commandeering the whole thread.

Mako · « **Reply #60 on:** 2011-04-11 00:49:33 »

Actually this thread didn't go off topic...Breakdown Time:

Someone: The word "gay" is stupid to use on here and offensive.

DLBP: No its not! it means happy!

Kudi: Not it doesn't it means you are a "buttpirate" <---Added my own colorful spin

DLBP: Its still valid!

Kudi: Not it is not this [insert link here] said it isn't

DLBP: Blah

Kudi: Blah

---------------------------------------------
Now to add my 2 pennies: Its a word and it's offensive here. Case closed for you keeping track at home that's me siding with Kudi. Long live team Kudi!

Tune in next week where our next debate will be over "French Fries" vs "Chips" till then this is your host Mako see you next time on...
The Nerd Olympics

.

Bosola · « **Reply #61 on:** 2011-04-11 00:57:53 »

It became less about the policy on 'gay' (which isn't a rule, it's just a preference of mine), and more about etymologies and what makes a word a word. Whilst that's very interesting, I think this thread is better used as an opportunity to discuss forum 'censorship'.

On that note, how do we feel about hyperlinks to 'controversial' or adult material? Leave it so long as there's an (NSFW) tag and the link text is clear about where the user is going? Purge them altogether? Or let the reader beware whenever they leave Qhimm.com?

Cupcake · « **Reply #62 on:** 2011-04-11 01:05:44 »

Quote from: Mako on 2011-04-11 00:49:33

for you keeping track at home that's me siding with Kudi. Long live team Kudi!

Mako, I am disappoint

yarLson · « **Reply #63 on:** 2011-04-11 01:35:03 »

offense can only be taken on the side of the receiver. There is nothing in itself which is ultimately offensive, only when one receives those words as offensive does it become so. Therefore your both right so...

YAY! no more fucking arguing

Cupcake · « **Reply #64 on:** 2011-04-11 01:48:23 »

Quote from: yarLson on 2011-04-11 01:35:03

YAY! no more fucking arguing

Who said there was no more fucking arguing? I sure as hell didn't... Those sound like arguin' words, come to think of it.

Mako · « **Reply #65 on:** 2011-04-11 01:54:28 »

Quote from: DarkFang on 2011-04-11 01:51:12

I just translated "You cum guzzling douche bag" into Japanese and got this.
あなたががぶ飲み潅水袋を兼。
And it flipped the sentence.

So now it says "Cum guzzling douche bag you are."

What a disgusting thing to say

What does that have to do with the debate going on here? Weird...

sl1982 · « **Reply #66 on:** 2011-04-11 01:55:47 »

NSFW links: Allowed with caveats. Posting to content that actually has some sort of content on it that is not pornographic is allowed (ie sanaku). Must have a NSFW notice posted with it. Posting links to pornographic or other questionable content not allowed. Basically if the content you wish to link is not questionable but other things on the site such as advertisements are then use a NSFW tag.

DarkFang · « **Reply #67 on:** 2011-04-11 01:56:00 »

Quote from: Mako on 2011-04-11 01:54:28

What a disgusting thing to say What does that have to do with the debate going on here? Weird...

I was testing out the filter duh! >.>

sl1982 · « **Reply #68 on:** 2011-04-11 01:57:06 »

Quote from: DarkFang on 2011-04-11 01:56:00

I was testing out the filter duh! >.>

It has now been tested. Be careful as you are on a short leash as it is.

DarkFang · « **Reply #69 on:** 2011-04-11 02:02:04 »

Quote from: sl1982 on 2011-04-11 01:57:06

It has now been tested. Be careful as you are on a short leash as it is.

Yeah I just remembered that. Sorry.

yarLson · « **Reply #70 on:** 2011-04-11 02:07:53 »

Quote from: Cupcake on 2011-04-11 01:48:23

Who said there was no more fucking arguing? I sure as hell didn't... Those sound like arguin' words, come to think of it.

nope just sarcasm

Bosola · « **Reply #71 on:** 2011-04-11 02:13:05 »

Quote from: sl1982 on 2011-04-11 01:55:47

NSFW links: Allowed with caveats. Posting to content that actually has some sort of content on it that is not pornographic is allowed (ie sanaku). Must have a NSFW notice posted with it. Posting links to pornographic or other questionable content not allowed. Basically if the content you wish to link is not questionable but other things on the site such as advertisements are then use a NSFW tag.

In any case, we should probably announce somewhere that we aren't responsible for the contents of other sites. Just because a site is SFW today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.

On a similar matter, I think it's also appropriate that posters are responsible for the contents of any image they embed. I'm thinking about anti-hotlinking htaccess traps, where an image is replaced with an offensive alternative when it's embedded into a forum post.

obesebear · « **Reply #72 on:** 2011-04-11 04:01:00 »

Has this really ever been a problem? Outside of the purposeful spamming of the forum, the worst I can think of are the rare occasions kudistos links to that site he gets his news from. And even then he always announces it's probably nsfw.

Bosola · « **Reply #73 on:** 2011-04-11 14:22:43 »

I guess not, I just thought I'd be a good time to properly discuss it.

Prince Lex · « **Reply #74 on:** 2011-04-12 01:46:07 »

If I can just weigh in here, I'd like to agree with Bosola and say I also don't like use of the word "gay" as an insult. I fucking despise the word "faggot", but having read Encyclopedia Dramatica to the point where I can't breathe from laughter/ am immune to all things; have come to understand the internet lingo of "macfag", "britfag" etc. (Thanks to you Kudistos

). This is an example of a shift in perception from my point of view.

I use the word fag to describe cigarettes - that's a British thing. If an American were to use the word fag in speech it would mean something entirely different.

Just my opinion. I've stated my distaste and offence for use of the words "gay" and "faggot" in derogatory context many times before (at least 5) and I'm glad that for the first time in the 10 years I've been browsing this board, someone else has said something about it.