This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Llama wrote on 2013-04-05 03:21
[SIZE="5"]Edit: PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTING. Both sides have good things to say that you may not have considered![/SIZE]
I mean there are lots of worse slangs that aren't censored.
and f-a-g as well.
---
So here's the update:
I've made a poll for you guys to put your opinion on censorship anonymously. to the public at least.
Options are:
Yes for censorship - this means every possible offensive words are censored.
No for censorship - meaning all words are not censored
I like it this way - means only a couple of words are censored which has been discussed in this thread.
[S]I'd appreciate if this goes in announcement banner so we get like more voices heard.[/S]
-
Cannibal wrote on 2013-04-05 03:22
I don't remember exactly, but I believe it had something to do with TA?
-
Selithia wrote on 2013-04-05 03:30
"Please explain why an incredibly common slur against homosexuals is not allowed, i desperately need to talk about british/australian cigarettes and it's worth insulting the many gay members of this community for it."
-
Lie wrote on 2013-04-05 03:31
I can't exactly remember, but I think there were some voices about it and its connection to homosexuality. Then there was a period of time where the word was output more than usual to drive people's attention (especially the staff) to it.
In the end, I believe things got out of hand and it became censored as a method of putting down the foot where the line is.
-
Drizzit wrote on 2013-04-05 03:36
because it's offensive to OP
-
Eirys wrote on 2013-04-05 03:38
It's a hateful word that doesn't need to be used????????????????????
-
Xemnas wrote on 2013-04-05 03:39
Because certain people here will use it and another word in every other post regardless of who they're talking to.
-
Llama wrote on 2013-04-05 03:39
I mean i dont think anyone uses -the word- to refer to homosexual human beings.
It's what we all say in this generation. whether if they're not gay or well yea, they swing that way. It's in our gens.
Like we say the f, the s, the b ends with a h word. We just say it without any meanings at all.
-
Ashikoki wrote on 2013-04-05 03:44
Well, since you brought it up, I guess now is as good of a time as any to hold this discussion. I made a huge ass argument against this censorship a while ago.
Quote from Ashikoki;1053344:
Considered the casual form the diction has taken on internet culture, it really does make little sense.
It doesn't even mean what it used to mean anymore. It was quite an awkward moment when reddit, one of the world's biggest pro lgbt rights and treatment communities, were called out for homophobic behavior by internet illiterate visitors when it was noticed that everyone were calling each other f aggots at all given opportunities.
Words mean what they intend to mean, and how others perceive said words have very little importance due to the fact that it could and does happen with any other word. Its quite hypocritical to ban one word but not another, but without mentioned hypocrisy, we just keep going down an ever growing list of words we have to ban.
I can imagine at least a hundred different ways to use the words f ag and cunt in a non aggressive non flaming way used not to insult other members of the forum; all parties insulted by the use of language with no malicious intent can change their tampons out of their cunts*. Over the past month on this site I have seen the word gook thrown around a dozen times as casually as many other communities throw around the word f ag, and by nation's current skewed standards, one of completely okay and the other is not.
This level of inconsistency is what destroys all credibility in the argument that we need a ban on specific words. But if we want to be consistent while maintaining this unreasonable rule, we should start weeding out every word that have even the slightest chance of being offensive. Bitch, for example, would be a pretty good one. You could alternatively argue that the word could be excluded because it does not have a negative connotation to homosexuals and therefore is not "hate speech" or offensive. However we remember that the original meaning of bitch of course does mean females of the canine species, and that attaching a negative connotation to such creatures in reference to other beings could be offensive and sit in a similar place as f aggot.
The meaning of words change, not just through time but through perception. No one really thinks about bitch as female dogs anymore, and while I understand that the word f aggot does have a correlation to homosexuals, it takes origins from the meaning "bundle of anything", including iron or chopped meat, and the word f ag being an entirely different verb with no relation to f aggot. As no one really considers the word f aggot to mean what its original definition claims it to be anymore, many people have transitioned the word in the last few years to no longer have any connotation with homosexuals. It has, in the end, become another bitch.
There are many who don't believe this to be the case. BUT THIS IS OKAY. Perception of words are different for so many people for so many words. The same goes for senses, gestures, morals, limits, tastes, and so much more. In a tolerant, accepting online community where people of all different perceptions gather, it pains me to see that free form of speech is not only just limited, but selectively limited. And by shunning and scorning a word so vehemently, we provide it more weight and power when it truly is used to verbally assault someone.
If connotations and negativity were the true issue, then we should have been handing out infractions every time someone called something gay without inference to homosexuals but with intent to disdain a subject. Or perhaps each time someone says they were gypped, or something is jew. Or perhaps I should receive an infraction right now, because I believe the censorship rule we are discussing is lame**. We seem to have a lot of religious intolerance here as well, so openly trashing all spiritual beliefs in public. My heart goes out to every nationer who are devout but can only sit there taking that kind of abuse.
In the end, this kind of rule is purely cherry picking circlejerk. It would really be better to return to a much more clear policy of not allowing verbal assault, flaming, and trolling. Diction/Syntax should have no weight in the moderator's judgement on whether the post was made with malicious intent, as any damage that could be dealt with a selection of words could be equally derived from a set of any other.
[SIZE="1"]* This is meant as humorous and witty wordplay and is not in any way supposed to be a flame or insult.[/SIZE]
[SIZE="1"]** Lame is a noun for physically disabled but has evolved in social language to simply be express negativity, which some cripples may find offensive.[/SIZE]
tl;dr: don't respond to me if you didn't get the whole argument. I will, however, tackle any counter response once you have understood my complete stance on this.
To correctly enforce the ****** word censorship, we'll also have to censor a plethora of other words, until no one will ever be offended by anything we could possibly say ever.
I'm on OP's side.
[Image: http://i.minus.com/iPwX2wMkapuZP.gif]
Edit: If you are serious about debating this topic, I would strongly implore you to counterargue any of my points above. If you make an argument about anything I already counterargued, you didn't read my post, you're a douche, and your opinion is invalid.
-
Llama wrote on 2013-04-05 03:52
I'm not going to argue anything what you just said.
I'm just so interested to know why -the word- is censored and other words are not.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-04-05 03:54
Quote from Ashikoki;1063195:
To correctly enforce the ****** word censorship, we'll also have to censor a plethora of other words, until no one will ever be offended by anything we could possibly say ever.
Christian calls me a gook and chink all the time on skype and it hurts my feelings pls ban.
/joke
I remember getting a instant 10 infraction point ban last year because of this rule. I'm still a little bitter about that.
-
Eirys wrote on 2013-04-05 03:55
Quote from Cucurbita;1063202:
Christian calls me a gook and chink all the time on skype and it hurts my feelings pls ban.
/joke
I remember getting a instant 10 infraction point ban last year because of this rule. I'm still a little bitter about that.
i got a perma infraction for like typing stop.
-
Cynic wrote on 2013-04-05 03:59
Because there are only two types of people who use the word.
Group A: Bigot assholes who use it as a slur against LGBT people, or generally homosexuals in specific.
Group B: People who feel "special" and "edgy" for going out of their way to use the word. Most also seem to use the words "gay" and "retarded" in a negative sense but claim it's justified simply because it isn't directed at those people, even though they themselves went out of their way to use a blatantly hateful word instead of the various other alternatives.
So really, no matter what way you put it, I see no reason to use it. I'm usually the type who insists that intent does matter.. but again, there are literally dozens of alternative words that serve the purpose just as well. If you go out of your way to use a hateful word, people have every right to call you out for it. Laziness is not a valid excuse.
Think of it this way: Using the fa-word but claiming you're not a bigot for doing so is like me going around and calling people disgusting pieces of shit but then saying "ohhh no I'm totally not being offensive because I meant something else!" If you mean something else, then SAY SOMETHING ELSE. It's not rocket science.
-
Ashikoki wrote on 2013-04-05 04:12
Quote from Cynic;1063208:
Group B: People who feel "special" and "edgy" for going out of their way to use the word. Most also seem to use the words "gay" and "retarded" in a negative sense but claim it's justified simply because it isn't directed at those people, even though they themselves went out of their way to use a blatantly hateful word instead of the various other alternatives.
If I could be a member of this group, and constantly promote the usage of the word ****** in such a way that it keeps progressing towards a place where the word ****** no longer has a connotation with homosexuals, then we will have arrived in a world where the word ****** will never hurt another homosexual's feelings ever again.
Retarded has already come really close to this. ****** was on a fast track towards this as well.
And in very many online communities, ****** has really become a... wait no I'm just repeating my arguments from the other post.
Look, just read it, alright? I've addressed all this.
-
Llama wrote on 2013-04-05 04:12
Quote from Cynic;1063208:
Think of it this way: Using the fa-word but claiming you're not a bigot for doing so is like me going around and calling people disgusting pieces of shit but then saying "ohhh no I'm totally not being offensive because I meant something else!" If you mean something else, then SAY SOMETHING ELSE. It's not rocket science.
[SPOILER="Spoiler"]Like i said before, we just use the word anyway without any meaning to it at all
for example:
Me talking to a girl friend who is straight:
ME: Hey cunt
Her: Hey fa-word.
No meaning in this conversation at all because the word we used doesn't actually fall under the real definition's category.
A girl talking to a straight guy:
Her: Hey whore, can i borrow some money.
Guy: No bitch, go away.
Again, no meaning at all.
we use these words because:
1) we're used to it
2) people don't mind it because they're used to it
3) trying to be cool *
4) we follow the trend
* Quite irrelevant, but still.[/SPOILER]
I recon though, make it in the settings where people find certain words offensive to whether their culture, sexual orientation or any other reason, make a setting so the system automatically censor certain words or make a nation-dictionary to address meanings of certain words.