A question about the profanity policy here
 

First, I want to preface by saying that profanity in any form doesn't bother me at all; this is more of a curiosity question than a complaint. Having said that, why is it that practically every swear word is censored here, yet we can still say "god damn" freely? Maybe it's just the southern baptist area I was raised in, but around here most people are more likely to be offended by that than f**k. I know there's got to be several members who find it offensive because of their religious beliefs.
I was just curious if there's any specific reason behind this or not.

Funny you should mention it. Just tonight I changed one of them in a thread's title to "Gosh Darn".

We've had complaints about the use of that phrase in the past and we have e-mailed people who have used it with the concern that some members take offense. The recipients of those e-mails have responded positively.

I suggest you use the report this post to a moderator function when you see it and we'll address the issue.

:thumbsup:
Thanks for the timely response.

Just one of those things ...

Censoring "profanity" is one of those things that is inherently hypocritical on just about every level. That's in NO way a criticism of Geoff, the mods, or the site. It's not their fault that society has evolved in this manner, and they have to play along.

Think about it ... couldn't the substantial atheist crowd around here argue that censoring "God damn" is religious favortism by officially recognizing the existence of God? And let's be real ... how is "gosh darn" any different? "Gosh darn" is gibberish that has no meaning whatsover except as a distortion of "God damn." The meaning is identical.

I can fully appreciate why the forum censors some words and why we try to keep thread titles cleaner than thread content, but I'd suggest we be careful not to go overboard on it. Someone is going to take offense over just about everything here. There comes a point where that person just needs to suck it up and move on. Too much of this kind of stuff borders on forcing one person's or small group's opinion on the rest of us, and that's not particularly fair.

I believe I may have had a point when I started typing this, but it appears to be gone now ... oops. ;)

das

I tend to treat what words or phrases should be censored as what would be censored on broadcast network TV.

The "God" in that phrase, or even the entire phrase, is always removed whenever I see it used, even on late night talk shows. I suppose we could just ****** it out too, but then nobody would have a clue what used to be there.

Gawd Damnit! Is that inappropriate?
. . .or better if I use Dammit?
I'm with Das. . .no ciriticism to anyone here, but censoring is quite the joke. The meaning is unchanged, and that's what should matter, no?

Certain words are censored to maintain a forum that is considered acceptable for viewing by a wide range of ages and sensibilities all over the world.

Are you suggesting that all "public friendly" variations of censored words such as "fudge" or "fricking" be disallowed if the words they replace are censored? That seems a little much to me.

As long as I can say poonani whenever I want, I'm A-OK.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth X •<HR SIZE=1>Certain words are censored to maintain a forum that is considered acceptable for viewing by a wide range of ages and sensibilities all over the world.<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely, which is why I don't have a problem with the policy around here.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth X •<HR SIZE=1>Are you suggesting that all "public friendly" variations of censored words such as "fudge" or "fricking" be disallowed if the words they replace are censored? That seems a little much to me. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, this is the inherent hypocrisy of the whole thing (he's not suggesting you censor the words ... he's making a point). If it's "a little much," then we're clearly not censoring the meaning of the words ... so what are we censoring? If the meaning is identical, how is one grouping of letters somehow more acceptable than another?

I'm not going to argue that this isn't the way society has evolved, and I'm certainly not going to argue that DVD Talk shouldn't play along to reach as large an audience as possible (so this is more a discussion for Otter than Feedback at this point) ... but the whole thing <I>is</I> really quite silly.

das

Well put, das.

It always amazes me when seemingly intelligent people insist on looking at this issue so one dimensionally.

:p

Just kidding das, Bush. :)

What I think you're both overlooking here is semantics. If I say that guy over there (derogatory word for sex) your mother, that's a fairly inflammatory statement. If I just say he's your dad, it's quite a different thing. Different words have different meanings, and f*** is certainly a much harsher word than "fizzlesticks!" And that's really all DVDTalk tries to do when applying the swearing rules.

The atmosphere of a conversation that has swear words and one that doesn't are often (admittedly, not always) very different, and that's the reason why DVDTalk has always tried to maintain a limit on the swearing in the forum...because we don't want to be "that" kind of forum.

At least, that was always my take on it when I was a mod. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Blade •<HR SIZE=1>What I think you're both overlooking here is semantics. If I say that guy over there (derogatory word for sex) your mother, that's a fairly inflammatory statement. If I just say he's your dad, it's quite a different thing. Different words have different meanings, <B>and f*** is certainly a much harsher word than "fizzlesticks!"</B> And that's really all DVDTalk tries to do when applying the swearing rules.<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overlooking the fact that the first half of this paragraph reads like you mixed two coherent thoughts to form a single incoherent one ;) (or I'm just repeatedly misreading it), I would ask one question about the bolded section ... why? What makes this so?

I would also note that I don't think your analogy holds. "F***" and "fizzlesticks" have a many-to-one relationship; i.e. "f***" can mean many things ranging from dissatisfaction to fornication. In some usages, there is overlap (like a simple outburst), but it is neither a mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive relationship. <I>If</I> "f***" is a more inflamatory word, it is more likely because of its numerous meanings and not it's exclamatory relationship to "fizzlesticks." On the main topic of this thread, however, "damn" has one meaning (or many similar meanings), and unless you're weaving yarn, "darn" carries with it a one-to-one exact replacement relationship with "damn." It carries no other usage, no other meaning, no other purpose than to distort the word "damn." The same can be said for the "God" and "gosh" relationship in the usage described. "God" means one thing and only one thing (assuming you subscribe to a monotheistic religion), especially in its pairing with "damn." While "gosh" <I>can</I> be a term of surprise, that bears no consequence to its replacement value of the word "God," and as such, there is aboslutely no difference between the phrase "God damn" and "gosh darn." The two are identical and completely interchangable.

It's not a case of looking at the issue one-dimensionally, rather cleaning away the dirt, brushing aside the clouds, and looking at the heart of the issue.

As I've already noted, you don't need to convince me that in our society (and as a result, DVD Talk), a conversation laden with swear words will often be very different and sometimes more negative than one with "fake" swear words -- which is why I've said I support DVD Talk's policy on this issue -- but you still have a <I>long</I> way to go in convincing me that the fact society reacts in this manner isn't completely and totally silly, and for those who use one but condemn the other, hypocritical.

:p

das

I may not have a good enough command of the language, but "gosh darn", or "gol-durn" just don't mean the same thing to me as "god damn" (should we really be capitalizing the "G" in that phrase?) Just like "for Pete's sake" just doesn't jump out at me and say "for God's sake". But then when Yosemite Sam curses out Bugs Bunny I don't try to figure out what the actual curses are either.

I see no exact correspondence there and never mentally substitute the more offensive one for one of the ones that some people seem to see as exact replacements. Maybe it's that I just don't understand mincing oaths. Maybe I just think too slowly, don't do the automatic translation, and therefore don't have the expletive response triggered when I hear them. Or maybe I take it as what people are really trying to say, not what they are trying to get away with saying.

The shock value just isn't there with those milder forms. And that's what I use as a differentiator for which form is acceptable at the time. It must be interesting to have the same shock reaction to whichever form is used, but I'm not sure I'd like that. And maybe I'm not so sorry that society has this silly distinction.

Don't worry. Aside from the green blood, I'm not a Vulcan. I too find myself reacting differently between swear words and their fabricated counterparts. And when in mixed company, you can be sure that I'll act as society dictates I should, with plenty of "gee-willikers" and "shoots" and "dagnabbits" ... but I still think it's silly. :) <I>(Note: the following comment is meant in complete jest and should be taken in the utmost lighthearted nature ...)</I> Fake swearing sounds like something Catholics thought up: doing something you believe to be wrong yet concocting a silly loophole so you can keep on doing it and not feel guilty about it. "If we change a letter around, we can still say what we want, and everyone will know exactly what we mean, but it won't be wrong." :D

Does this mean I can discuss bootlegging DVDs if I call it "snuggle-wuggling?" :D "I'm looking for a cute-cuddly poopsikins of <B>Star Wars</B> ... anyone have a URL?" :D

das

Hmmm... it seems to me that, short of the last line which seems inaccurate based on your previous comments, you've just summarized exactly why we censor one phrase and not the other. Damn and darn may have basically one meaning. God also has one basic meaning. OTOH, gosh doesn't have one meaning... it's more along the lines of "whoo hoo" and doesn't hardly have a meaning at all. Therefore, the phrases are not identical, even though they may be used interchangably.

"snuggle-wuggling"?

I don't think I can take anything das monkey says seriously ever again, guldarnit. ;)

<small></small>Perhaps along the lines of that old adage: it's not what you say it's the way that you say it?

[;)] Need more proof?

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>Hmmm... it seems to me that, short of the last line which seems inaccurate based on your previous comments, you've just summarized exactly why we censor one phrase and not the other. Damn and darn may have basically one meaning. God also has one basic meaning. OTOH, gosh doesn't have one meaning... it's more along the lines of "whoo hoo" and doesn't hardly have a meaning at all. Therefore, the phrases are not identical, even though they may be used interchangably. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh's alternate meaning is of no more relevance to its context in "gosh darn" than the word crank's alternate meanings. Is the phrase, "I'm going to shoot some crank and fizzlesticks a whore" somehow <I>less</I> objectionable simply because the word "crank" happens to have another and completely unrelated meaning? "Gosh" may have an alternate meaning, but it's not being used in this context, and it's disingenuous to say it's not a direct replacement for the word "God." It doesn't mean "whoo hoo" ... it means "God" ... otherwise, why the fizzlesticks would you say it? To move away from the mere coincidence and apparent distraction that "gosh" has another meaning, replace it with "gol," as in the phrase "gol-durn."

God damn ... gosh darn ... gol durn ... all the same thing. Except "gol" is complete and total gibberish; so is durn ... and as such the fact "gosh" happens to have another meaning isn't of consequence. Since you did not like my previous example, I will assert that "gol durn" is identical and completely interchangeable with "God damn," and in turn restate the rest of my case: we are censoring the spelling and/or sound of the phrase, not its meaning -- condemning one thing as offensive, yet accepting an identical gibberish counterpart -- and that ... is ... silly. :)

das

P.S. You don't need to keep defending DVD Talk's position on this issue. As I've already stated more than a few times, I understand and accept why DVD Talk has its policy. This is an issue with society being silly, silly, silly ... not DVD Talk.

P.P.S.

Possibly when you read them, they are. When I read them, they aren't as I do not automatically read "gosh" as being "God" when I see "gosh darn". Like you said, many words have different meanings. God is pretty limited and gosh is much less so and what I, or anyone else sees, when they read "gosh darn" isn't necessarily what you see. :)


P.S. I'm not actually defending the rules of DVD Talk as I am stating my opinion on the terms. Maybe it is silly that we treat certain words as "bad" and others as acceptable... but, that's exactly what we do. Using Blade'e example, I suspect that you would respond differently to someone saying "your dad" than you would to someone saying "that guy that ****** your mom".

P.P.S.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>Possibly when you read them, they are. When I read them, they aren't as I do not automatically read "gosh" as being "God" when I see "gosh darn". Like you said, many words have different meanings. God is pretty limited and gosh is much less so and what I, or anyone else sees, when they read "gosh darn" isn't necessarily what you see. :)<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you've skipped the "gol durn" example, because it refutes your argument. :) "Gol" and "durn" are fake words with no meaning other than replacements of their counterparts, yet society accepts them as "better." If you don't read "gosh darn" as meaning "God damn," then what do you think it means? And if it doesn't mean the same thing, why are the mods replacing occurrences of "God damn" with "gosh darn?" Can't have it both ways.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>Using Blade'e example, I suspect that you would respond differently to someone saying "your dad" than you would to someone saying "that guy that ****** your mom".<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but the two things are different: one is a person; the other is an attribute of that person. The two things are not directly interchangeable as one doesn't fully represent the other. The entity of "dad" is much more than "that guy that ****ed your mom." The appropriate analogy is whether I would respond differently to "that guy that ****ed your mom" or "that guy that fizzlesticked/frelled/banged/screwed/beeblebroxed your mom." And I would not.

das

A couple of reasons. 'Cause I didn't want to spend the time looking up how to spell dagnumbit, I had already used golly a while ago, and it was easy to change just a couple of letters.

If I thought it meant the same exact thing I wouldn't have just substituted gosh. Different people must have different perceptions about this. I can't claim that mine pertain to all of society.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth X •<HR SIZE=1>Different people must have different perceptions about this. I can't claim that mine pertain to all of society. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you're well ahead of me. I'd be pushing it to claim that <I>mine</I> pertain to anyone else period.

das

I have nothing to add. I'm just trying to lure das Monkey in here again. ;)

That's the fundamental issue, at least for me. If you're swapping one for the other, it is done to substitute the word, but not the meaning. But like both of you, I don't claim my perception is the one to be imposed on the rest of the world.

Oh fudge!

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth X •<HR SIZE=1>I have nothing to add. I'm just trying to lure das Monkey in here again. ;) <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://members.tripod.com/~edcobb/gifs/gd030999.gif

*chomp*

das

Actually, I skipped it because in all of my life I've never actually heard anyone say "gol" or "gol durn" except on tv or in the movies. If anyone can point me to someone who uses it here, I'm sure it would be you though! ;)

IMO, we would substitute "gosh darn" (or "gol durn", just for you) into a post because they *are* both used as mild expletives. That doesn't make them exactly equivalent to the original terms though.

Saying "I want a coke" is quite similar in thought to "I want a drink", while having enough difference to call them truely unique phrases. Maybe some people would substitute "coke" in for "drink" every time they read the phrase "I want a drink"... but many would simply accept the word "drink" and go on. :)

"Coke" is a subset of the entity "drink." Again, the analogy doesn't hold. It's a one-to-many relationship. "God damn" and "gol durn" have a one-to-one replacement relationship. "Gol durn" has no meaning in no context other than as a substituation of the phrase "God damn." It's two fabricated words with no lexical foundation of any kind other than a slurring of the words "God" and "damn."

You call it a "mild expletive." What makes this so? The derivation of the phrase is "God damn." It has no other meaning in no other context. How is one version more "mild" than the other?

das

And due to my lack of desire and ability to impose my perceptions on the rest of the world, I use the best example I can think of regarding generally acceptable norms -- what words and phrases are allowed to be said on U.S. network TV.

*sniffle*

You can't see my Red X?

Try this? http://members.tripod.com/~edcobb/gifs/gd030999.gif

das

A very nice picture saying "Image Hosted by tripod". :up:

But this is probably what you wanted it to look like...

http://www.theforumisdown.com/upload...3/gd030999.gif

I think I already explained why "gosh darn" wasn't a one-to-one, so I think you can figure out why I would say the same here. Of course, I am a bit disappointed that you haven't pointed out anywhere that phrase was ever used at DVD Talk other than in this thread. ;)


Simply put, because one involves a words that have definite meanings, and one contains words that has many or no real meanings. Remember, if *you* read one as the other, that in no way is a good measure of what *I* or anyone else reads them as. You may see one as meaning the same as the other, but not everyone does.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>I think I already explained why "gosh darn" wasn't a one-to-one, so I think you can figure out why I would say the same here. Of course, I am a bit disappointed that you haven't pointed out anywhere that phrase was ever used at DVD Talk other than in this thread. ;)<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your reason for "gosh darn" is a red herring, pointing out that "gosh" does in fact have another completely unrelated meaning. It's why you keep sidestepping the equivalent "gol durn," because "gol" does <I>not</I> have an alternate meaning, and it breaks your position. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>Simply put, because one involves a words that have definite meanings, and one contains words that has many or no real meanings. Remember, if *you* read one as the other, that in no way is a good measure of what *I* or anyone else reads them as. You may see one as meaning the same as the other, but not everyone does. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if this is true ... i.e. the intent is overshadowed by the words used to express that intent ... I should be able to discuss "pollywocking the President" or "snuggly-wuggling unreleased DVDs." Can I tell another forum member to "go to heck!!!" Afterall, "heck" isn't a real place, so there's nothing wrong that, right? "Go fizzlestick yourself!!!" Completely harmless. "Fizzlestick" isn't a real word, and what *you* interpret it to be is in no way a good measure of what *I* interpret it to be. Right?

Also, to say that "gosh darn" may not mean "God damn" and then replace occurrences of "God damn" with "gosh darn" is smoking both sides of the pipe. It's also disingenous as we all know gol-durn well what the fizzlesticks "gosh darn" means.

To me, it's silly that we (as a society) allow the words being used to trump the intent of those words, and even worse, attach moral superiority to one and condemn the other.

das

P.S. I was not the first person in this thread to use "gol durn" as an example. Blame <B>X</B> for that one. :)

Which is why I (and not to put words in das' mouth) and he both said we weren't arguing the policy, but we were commenting on the societal hypocrisy.

In the end it is all mental masturbation.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Bushdog •<HR SIZE=1>In the end it is all mental masturbation. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

:up:

Speaking of which, it appears this subject has slowed to a hault ... wanna switch sides and argue the reverse? ;)

das

Actually, unless you can point out where "gol durn" has been used besides this thread, I'd say that it's you playing with the red herring. :D

And, I'm not sidestepping anything. I'll just paste in what I said before so you can see that the same reasoning applies.

From my first post -> OTOH, gosh doesn't have one meaning... it's more along the lines of "whoo hoo" and doesn't hardly have a meaning at all.

From my second post -> ...I do not automatically read "gosh" as being "God" when I see "gosh darn". Like you said, many words have different meanings. God is pretty limited and gosh is much less so and what I, or anyone else sees, when they read "gosh darn" isn't necessarily what you see.

Lather, rinse, repeat. :)



All decisions on posts perceived to contain illegal content or personal attacks are made based on the opinion of the moderators. We decide what we feel about both the form and the intent. So, while you are absolutely correct that you and I may interpret the words and/or the intent differently, it only matters how I (or another mod/admin) interpret them. :D


Nope, replacing these is clearly not "smoking both sides of the pipe". I've stated before that "gosh darn" is used as a mild expletive, even though it really doesn't have a hard and fast meaning. You think it has a particular meaning, but many others do not. It's like cartoons replacing cursing with "#$*#*&!" so you have the implication of an expletive, without carrying the exact meanings of any of them. I guess you read in sometype of "curse" words for those too though. ;)


I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that it's never to my knowledge been used in the forums, so I see no good reason to even discuss it. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Dead •<HR SIZE=1>I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that it's never to my knowledge been used in the forums, so I see no good reason to even discuss it. :) <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on ... blame <B>X</B> ... you know you want to. Say it with me ... "it's <B>X</B>'s fault I'm in this completely meaningless argument with <B>das</B>." Doesn't that feel better? :)

das

Gol durn it! Blame me, will you?

http://store4.yimg.com/I/cupidshut_1733_175026576

... like lookin' in a mirror.

das

This thread fizzlestickin' sucks.

Hey, I've got your fizzlesticks right here buddy...


http://www.xenotropic.net/images/Mum...nes213_med.jpg