h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I know that the Towers have more than a lot on their plate right now, but it would be good to have some clarity on swear words. I have seen bastard used to mean someone who is illegitimate, and it has been asterisked out in its entirety in one thread, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585?thread=111517 post 11 and subsequent) and not asterisked out in another thread. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F64564?thread=105889 post 13) Of course it is possible that in the second thread the words were asterisked by the posters and not the moderators, in which case it really shows how much we need the rules to be defined. Secondly, some of us swear with accuracy and descrimination, and our words are distorted if readers cannot tell what they were. When they are fully asterisked is impossible to distinguish between B*****ds - British English word for testicles, rubbish, nonsense B*****ks - Illegitimate people, people who behave very badly to others Buggers - Sodomites, blokes, people I posted a comment about this in another thread, and the first two were asterisked out an the last one was not, which astonished me. So, as well as a clear definition of what will and will not be asterisked, can we please asterisk in such a way that we can actually see what the original word was? This does matter. agcB

I think you've confused the meanings b******s and b******s in your post there...

My understanding is that bastard=illegitimate is ok, whereas b*****d=bad person is not ok. Though calling someone illegitimate could be libel or offensive, of course.

Similarly, 'b******y' is a name for a crime in UK law, and a 'bugger' would be someone who performs said crime, and both would be ok. But b#gg#r=bad person, or (oh) b******y=bother, are both not ok.

As far as I was aware, b******s was not a hitlist word - though saying that someone is speaking a load of b******s is likely to be libellous and/or offensive.

As noted, however, the moderators appear largely incapable of distinguishing between the dual meanings of words like bastard. My own experience has been that unless a post has liberal {note to moderator} subtitles in it, such words have around a 50% chance of being destroyed, regardless of the context.

And actually, post 10 by MaW on http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585?thread=111517 is referring to bastards in the illegitimate sense, if you check the context - so it goes from post 10, not post 11... ;-)

My point exactly!

Thanks

agcB

While I'm here, I'd like to officially complain about some of the moderation of my post 2 to this thread:

In the first sentence, two words were starred out. In both cases my use of those words was referring to agcb's use of the same words, which were left unstarred.

In the third line, 'b#gg#ry' was starred out. But 'beggary' is an equally effective substitution of letters for hashes, which is not swearing. Similarly for 'b#ll#cks' and bullocks.

--

The following abreviations are used in this post:

B*RY == the synonym for sodomy: b#####y
B*R == one who commits B*RY: bugger
B*KS == the synonym for testicles: b######s
B*K == the singular of B*KS, ie b#####k.
B*D == illigitimate person: bastard
--

Hmm, so it would appear that you *can* call someone a B*R, but you can't refer to B*RY or B*K or B*KS in any context.

Note that B*K has an alternative meaning which is so non-vulgar as to be quite amusing. Specifically, a bollock is a pulley-block at the head of a topmast, otherwise known as a bullock block. This was used to great effect in the past to prevent the "Never Mind the B******s" album (Sex Pistols?) from being censored.

Section twelve of the 1956 sexual offences act refers to B*RY. According to this, B*RY is sexual intercourse between males or between male and female in an "unnatural manner", or between male or female with an animal in any manner whatsoever.

There is a third meaning of B*D, incidentally, aside from the two mentioned: it's a similar meaning to "mongrel" and so forth. One might say that american english is a bastardised (B*Dised) form of british english.

--
Checking out dictionaries, starting with dictionary.com :

B*RY: Vulgar
B*R: not found
B*KS: not vulgar
B*K: not vulgar
B*D: vulgar in one meaning, not vulgar in other two.

Next, merriam-webster :
B*RY: not vulgar
B*R: not vulgar
B*KS: not found
B*K: not found
B*D: not vulgar
{and yes, lots of other words are vulgar in m-w...}

I've had disscussions with Peta before on this subject (on't ask for the thread cos, there is way too much backlog to search through).

The summary is that the legitimate use of a word is ok (providing its in context) but the slang use isnt. If you feel a word is improperly moderated then pop along to http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Moderation-HelpDesk and complain, I do.

This is just true about B*D, though, unless I'm mistaken. The legitimate use of the word B*RY, for example, appears to be dissallowed.

One further query is use of the word where the meaning is unclear. For example, if I say "I am a B*D", then this phrase has two possible meanings: one censorable, and the other not. Whether they are censored or not appears to be largely random: I've seen plenty in both states, though somewhat more get censored.

Someone should make an unedited guide entry to put down in a single place some of the stuff we've managed to discover about the rules. Though it is silly when you have to work so hard just to find out what the rules are.

so you voluteering ?

Well, this was one of my motives for writing my Short Guide to Short Words. Admittedly it is much more geared towards definitions usage and anecdotes, but that was because only the Towers can give the definitive answer on asterisking in h2g2.

I think I may start using the word 'asterisk' as an all purpose expletive here. That'll put the asterisks up the asterisking asterisks, won't it? Well, it'll be asterisking funny, and ammuse the asterisks out of me, anyway.

My Red Dice has contributed a lot to the Short Guide already, and thanks for the details on the the Sex Pistols case - I knew about it but did not know the details. I'll add them in tomorrow.

Happy Dude - take a look, there is a link to it from my personal space.

agcB

Hi all

Ben, I'm getting your page on swearwords through at the moment, I should be able to come back to you this soon, and I think it'll be fine too.

Context on swearwords is everything. And yes, its possible the moderators get it wrong sometimes. That's because they're human.

I'm beginning to feel rather sorry for the moderators. We are a finikity lot, us H2G2ers, and clever and quick as anything, and it is a difficult subject for anyone to know where to draw the line.

As I have said in another thread, I personally think that it should be up to the individual researcher to asterisk or spell in full all words with the possible exception of the c-word which I think should probably always be asterisked.

My two exceptions to the no-asterisks rule would be pornography and flaming, and neither is that appropriate to H2G2. And how you deal with them is another matter, but still a practical concern.

I am trying to remember what actually happened pre-BBC. I do remember one offensive individual (Essex Grunger Boy?? Mark someone?? - DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS IT MAY BE LIBELLOUS!) who turned out to be about 14, but who was astonishingly unpleasantly and crudely offensive. It would be good if we could stamp more on flaming, and less on asterisking.

The Yikes button should help. How much is it used?

How often ARE H2G2ers offended by what other members have said? Mind you - we are a fairly self-policing lot. Have you seen the thread on Closet Beleifs in Misc Chat?

The one subject which does provoke flame-wars, it seems to me, is religion. But I have stayed off any election threads, so I dont know what they are like.

Enough rambling, hope some of this helps. I try to be constructive and make useful suggestions, in my own bizzare way.

agcB

Ok, its emailed and linked from my page, as promised.

Thanks for your help My Red Dice - I have quoted some of what you said verbatim, if that is ok. This is becoming a co-authored effort with significant input from you and from Wand'rin Star, as well as lots of help from others. I am very grateful.

agcB

"I'm beginning to feel rather sorry for the moderators. We are a finikity lot, us H2G2ers, and clever and quick as anything, and it is a difficult subject for anyone to know where to draw the line."

We are a LITERATE lot, and we don't take kindly to anyone reducing our vocabulary in any way.

Ben, the taboo of swear words is very similar to taboos for clothing and nudity. Different cultures have different standards for what words are taboo and what parts of the body are taboo to show. If everyone would calmly and carefully approach words that are currently taboo, they would find that there's nothing wrong with them, nothing that will get people killed or warp the minds of young children (who will find out these words anyhow, and who can always find euphemisms for even the most foul ideas conveyed by swears) -- in exactly the same way that people survive without clothing. Nudists don't necessarily rape each other more often than clothed people, don't warp the minds of young kids who learn to understand a naked groin as boring and normal as a naked elbow.

Even the c-word won't hurt anyone. Much more dangerous I think are words like "friendly fire" or "collateral damage," that teach people like Timothy McVeigh how killing innocents in Oklahoma City is as acceptable (when you have a supposedly higher political goal) as the innocents that were killed by his country in Bagdad or Panama or Vietnam or Dresden or Hiroshima or you get the picture.

In fact the c-word is kind of silly, but probably doesn't carry the sexist sting that "bitch" carries (which we're surprisingly allowed to write on h2g2). Calling someone a "bitch" is not only an insult to that person, but carries an implied statement about all women, in the same way that using the N-word (think Huck Finn) simultaneously insults one person while making a statement against all Blacks. I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned "bitch" or the c-word as something like "hate speech."

I suspect that this is a cultural thing, and that bitch carries less weight in the UK. I shall ask my american adviser next time I see him on AIM. (He lived and worked in the UK and w/ Brits including me, poor bugger, for a year, and is great at translating usage from one culture to the other).

For example I was discussing ethnic issues with a white South African, another Brit and an American in a bar in Stockholm, as you do, and the American brought me up short. I needed a word to cover the mix of blacks in the UK. There are major differences between the cultural histories and experiences of a Kenyan, a Black South African, a Ghanaian, and a Jamaican for example, and we have people whose parental heritages are all of those things.

I wanted to respect those differences and acknowledge their common ancestry. So I used the word 'Negro'. She - rightly - pointed out to me that in America that word carries with it the images of lynching, and burning crosses, which it simply does not have here in the UK. I used the word innocently, and out of respect. She heard it fairly, but gave me some good advice.

It still seems to me to be an issue - how do Americans acknowledge the common ancestry, and more recent differences between people whose ancestors were West Indian slaves, people whose ancestors were American slaves, and people who migrated directly from Africa?

agcB

Of course, the word n****r is completely inoffensive when 'reclaimed' and used by a black person.

As Peta says, context is everything. I just wish I had more faith in moderator's abilities to judge that context - "possible" and "sometimes" don't reflect my own experience...

The mods are doing a pretty good job lately, and hey, you have to look at the system *overall*. You of all people Lucinda should know that I follow up if asked to. Moderators don't need to have such great abilities about context - they just have to identify it as a possible issue and then refer it to me, so that I can evaluate. As a system, this works best.

Oh yeah - they do a great job mostly, mainly because so much of h2g2 is so blatantly above board and not in need of moderation that all they have to do is press the button marked "pass"...

The moderation helpdesk is of course just the tip of the iceberg. If people get wrongly failed or edited over an entry it's a lot easier to edit...update, rather than posting to the helpdesk and waiting for a reply. If people get wrongly failed or edited over a post, then most days the post will be lost in the backlog by the time you fix it, especially in the case of editing, where it may take a day or two to realise that it has been edited {IE between the time of posting and the next time of logging on to h2g2}. Again, it's easier to just repost the text that's been removed, and hope for a more favorable roll on the Moderator Reaction Table.

If it was as easy to complain about wrongful failing as wrongful passing, then you'd be seeing a lot more. Or rather less, if you routed such complaints past the moderators as a first stop in the same way that the yikes complaints travel.

Deliberately over-provocative statement:

Peta said: "Moderators don't need to have such great abilities about context - they just have to identify it as a
possible issue and then refer it to me, so that I can evaluate."

So why not use machines?

Because then some silly trained ape of a fool has to program the damn machine (presumably it would not be from h2g2), and then it would make even more mistakes. Also, just think of all the students that currently do it that would be in even worse financial trouble than they are due to tuition fees and student loans!

"Also, just think of all the students that currently do it that would be in even worse financial trouble than they are due to tuition fees and student loans!"

I assume by the smileys following that sentence that you work joking a little. But some people have pointed out this minor argument a few times about the moderators -- isn't it nice that h2g2 has provided a job for them?

No. When the job is unneccessary, the fact of creating jobs is not really enough to justify it. Back during the depression, there was an organization in the U.S. started under Roosevelt called the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). The group served a purpose something like an internal Peace Corps or National Guard, but the main reason for their existence was to create jobs for millions of Americans out of work. Keep them from starving, keep them from wandering restlessly and maybe rioting if they had nothing better to do.

The CCC accomplished a lot of good things, planted millions of trees, fought wildfires, etc. But when they ran out of legitimate things to do, they would sometimes be instructed to dig holes. Then fill in the holes. Then dig more holes. The government still wanted to provide jobs, keep them fed or keep them from rioting, even when there was no work to be done.

It was sort of an admirable thing to do in a time of emergency like that. But it certainly doesn't justify creating more jobs when the main work of the job is to prevent h2g2 researchers from writing what they want to write.

Sorry if I'm taking your words too seriously. Some people have advanced the same argument as if they were serious.

I agree with your other point, that censoring software would probably be too difficult to write, and wouldn't work as well as human censors. In fact, some of the current automated features have already demonstrated bugs. Some guide entries that were removed by moderators had the message "This entry was deleted by the author" due to a glitch. Although they've fixed the software and corrected the message on some pages, I don't trust it when I see that message anymore, because it could have been written by the old glitch.