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

I've not seen them myself, but I gather that there are Consortium proposals which would perpetuate the infantalisation of Researchers by outlawing Sweary Words.

Now...insults are one thing. As are homophobic, racist and sexist words or other derogatory words directed against whole groups of the population.

But common or garden Sweary Words? Are you excrementing me?

Obligatory question:

Does anyone else regard Sweary Words as an essential part of adult speech whose outlawing would severely hamper communication and remove an essential element of nuance from the ing discourse?







End with a song:

Crass - 'So What' (you can find the YouTube link yourself ).

In my life and world, sweary-words are not common nor needed. They happen if something really stupid or painful happens, but I have found that (as I age, not necessarily mature) they really don't embellish a conversation. Anyone that thinks such language makes them big or cool, I think they need some further introspection.

Just my 3/4-pence.

Why? Is swearing necessary?

If a person is holding a conversation and it is littered with profanities then, imho, that person has a very poor grasp of the English language,

There are more than enough words in the English language to express oneself without resorting to swearing.

I haven't had to resort to swear words in over 30 years, that I'm aware of, except where they have been an important part of a joke.

So, no, I don't see a need to remove the profanity filter. Reduce it's strength, maybe, so that certain expressions can be used that are not deemed insulting, but the F and C words should continue to be proscribed. Definitely.

MMF

Well you know, like, s%@t, I thinks, you know, when you like use fowl
languige, well $*%)locks, its not rite and dats all I, you know,
want to say, innit.

I think there are times when a well placed can enhance the conversation - give an emphasis that a euphemism just doesn't convey.

OTOH: I think there are some words that are beyond the pale and the F and C words cover that for me.

Times, places and really in a context an f-duck does have a certain emphasis that isn't easily expressed elsewise. Rare, but there it is. Just about the only times I ever hear of a c-hunt word is when one bit of 'trash' is bad-mouthing another such. So really, it carries no weight or value in my opinion

And tarantoes, please do wash your mouth out with s-cleanser.

I think the discussion about swear words is still on, Ed.

Personally, I seem to use bad swear words all the time. Trouble is, I don't know I do until the filter either blocks my post straight away, or my post is removed for a while later on. Come on, people, get a grip. Context is everything. Ever since the filter was introduced I've learnt slang meanings of words I only ever knew a totally innocent meaning of before they were moderated. I'm not entirely suer the filters were meant to teach me, but that's the result of them.

The filter does need relaxing a little, I think. Some of the juvenile sweary words are just funny, and not offensive (like the excrement word that ryhmes with......word), and can keep the old place as amusing as it's always been.
Hardcore swearing should stay out, even though there is a place for it in everyday conversation. Sometimes the emphatic power of a well judged obsenity is needed, but not here. We can all euphemise and play games to say what we want.
In my professional life incidently, the profanity filter would explode in about 10 seconds. My workplace is littered with the most explicit sexual, racial,sexist, homophobic and hardcore language most would ever hear. In fact, it almost becomes it's own language, rather like Cockney or Polari, and is designed to be understood mainly by the group.
I'm not suggesting it is right to behave like that, but some predominantly male occupations ARE like that.
I doubt if the most PC soldier would say "Heavens to Betsy" as an RPG hit his vehicle, or bricklayer say "Dang it" upon catching his thumbs between two bricks.(That works for vets too)
So, I
it's nice to come here, and behave nicely. Even if sometimes, you accidently cross the line, and need to have your ankles slapped

>> I've not seen them myself, but I gather

Forgive me, but I find it really hard to be patient when people spread rumours rather than actually joining in the debate.

Ok, I guess the debate has moved over here, so I'm now subscribing to this conversation. But it just makes it harder for those of us who are trying to keep up to actually keep up.

We are struggling for volunteers at the moment to summarise discussions and draft or redraft relevant documentation. So if anyone in this thread would like to track down the different conversations and redraft the Ts and Cs and House Rules, taking into account what has already been posted on the topic, and bearing in mind the realistic constraints that will be applied by being led by a charitable foundation aimed at promoting literacty, then those of us actively working on this would be INCREDIBLY grateful.

That may sound sarcastic, but it's a sincere appeal for help.

Ben

PS - what I would want and what I think we should have are different things. I want a cream donught, I should have a piece of fruit. I want "like" and "dislike" buttons, unlimited licence to use sweary words and a zero tolerance for personal abuse. I think we should have a policy that enables us to be a safe resource for senior schools.

Please though - if you want to help don't hesitate. Step forward and help. We really do need someone to redraft those House Rules and Ts and Cs. Icy started some useful threads on the h2g2 future pages, and so has kea. Unfortunately, there's also the stuff about moderation and house rules in Magrathea's workshop. And the stuff in the thread called Stockholm Syndrome.

I would do it myself, but I'm working. Bloody Monday-to-Friday 9-5 jobs.

B

Here's a good starting place for another discussion on swearing:

F21551820?thread=8259033

Considering Ben wrote the H2G2 entry to swear-words which then had to be hosted off site I would hope it isn;t true.

There's nothign better than a well placed swear-word...even when asterixed...we *do* tend to behave ourselves where swear words are concerned.

It would be a big bag of (_!_) with no swear words.

The main issue is that the Foundation (who are in the process of buying the site and which is composed of Robbie, Aly and Brian, and the Consortium on behalf of the community) are likely to want the site on most school and workplace whitelists (meaning we're a trusted site, content wise, for those places). It's unclear what this means with regards to swearing - whether there is a tightening up of swearing and other content, or whether we have user-controlled filters and auto filters for places like schools. From what I can tell it's not something that will happen before we move, and any work around it will need to be done by the community. There's a thread happening on the Community Volunteers page if you want to join in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F21551820?thread=8259033

hmmm.

So the tone of the place will be aimed at schoolchildren?

If so, not interested.

What Ben said, really. *Nobody* in the Consortium has proposed a blanket ban on swear words, the prevailing attitude seems to be that common-sense is much better than censorship.

"I want "like" and "dislike" buttons, unlimited licence to use sweary words and a zero tolerance for personal abuse."

There are several separate entangled issues here.

One is to do with the House Rules and Ts and Cs which need some (pretty minor) re-writes so that when we sign up to the new site we know what we are signing up to.

One is that if anyone wants to volunteer do do that work, it would be INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

Another issue is the endless, circular debate abotu whether and when swearing is ok in general.

And finally there's the more relevant one of whether and when it's ok here on h2g2.

B

That's what I want. It's not what I think we should have Mr D.

>> So the tone of the place will be aimed at schoolchildren?

No. Not what I said.

The Guide is a potentially a resource for teachers and students alike.

There's a HUGE difference between "being a resource for" and "being aimed at".

Let me repeat that, because it is very important.

There's a HUGE difference between "being a resource for" and "being aimed at".

There's a HUGE difference between "being a resource for" and "being aimed at".

My guess is that we will always be aimed at anyone who wants to know stuff about stuff. I hope we will continue to attract the intelligent, bloody-minded, challenging, think-for-them-selves stroppy beggers so richly represented in this thread.

Again, that sounds sarcastic, and isn't meant to.

B

Well, you're still here aren't you?