Wow (language filter split)

[Sonic#]

In the end, all of these judgements, even those based on intelligence, are elitist. Saying otherwise is hypocritical.

Oh boy. *cracks fingers*

All of these judgments are elitist? Are we, by demanding a more clear, more concise use of language, promoting an elite? I would insist first that elitism is misleading due to its negative connotations; what we are expressing are standards of communication, not ideals that we demand you fulfill. I don't care how perfect your grammar is, but if your message isn't clear, I think that you're an ineffective communicator.

It is fine to have standards, and if you mean elitism as the holding and use of standards. If you mean elitism as the tendency to judge ineffective communicators as unintelligent, uninteresting, or uninspired people, then I lamentably recognize that you're right. But I hope that you aren't mixing the two, as I believe that they are distinct (after some thought and several deleted paragraphs).

I interpret elitism as closer to my latter definition (a more maligned judgment that conflates undesirable elements in someone, judging them based on an incomplete picture). In that sense, I can judge you without being a hypocrite. Which is why your saying, "All of these judgments" puzzles me. And I hope I was clear. I have a problem communicating too. And I'm an English major.

Oh, I missed that last sentence at first. Yes, I criticize what I see to be a kneejerk reaction rather than an actual thoughtful response, and I think some types of responses and reactions are typical of youth. Making sweeping equivalencies like "not swearing is the same as not using any colloquialisms" or "people just say that to manipulate other people" (or, more generally, "you're just telling me thing X is bad because you want to control me", which really strikes me as a teenage-rebellion attitude). Mind, not all young people are like this, and obviously not all those who are outgrow it.

Yes, those responses tend to be used by younger people. The concern here for me is not the person saying such a thing, but my response to it. If they are trying to outgrow it, am I grown? What does that mean in my conduct? How much better am I for not using sweeping reactionary generalizations? Whether it is applicable or not in this situation, it's easy to fall in the trap of being, not a concerned equal, or simply someone whose experience is readily applicable, but a snooty elder. Then the elitism is true, even if it is still somewhat just.

I guess I resist "outgrow" though because of its use in Freudian psychology, which is another issue entirely (the implication that over half of the population cannot reach a fully developed state and must embrace being stunted and second-class, among other things).

How would typing the filter be changing the rules at all? The rules say nothing about Fatal Hopper mentions being disallowed, among whatever other filter results are in place.

*admin hat*

What context are you mentioning Fatal Hopper? If you mean the monster from the game, that's fine. Otherwise, why would you use it, except to evade or elude or find a way around a rule that will not be changed.

[Werefrog]

The filters are more a temporary failsafe if you happen to forget (we all do sometimes). It's more that you're cursing, rather than what the curse word is displayed as, that goes against the rules.

See, I don't particularly understand this. Is anyone particularly offended by seeing the word -Fatal Hopper- on the screen? If not, I don't really see why he couldn't just type the filter words (or if he's a Farscape fan he can use frell). Network television even allows bleeped words, so I don't understand why the equivalent is not allowed on L-Net.

Of course, if someone is truly offended by this, it's only courtesy to not swear at all even if the swear is obscured by a filter. However, no one has really expressed any feelings of offense towards the filtered word. Feeling that someone is not expressing themselves intelligently is not the same as feeling offended. This seems like something you may just have to play by ear. In some occasions the filter may be just as offensive (for instance, in a heated argument). In this case I could see it being modded. However, for something this casual, I can't really understand why it would be wrong to use the filtered words.

[Ozone]

I think that if people put this much thought into who we elected as president that we'd all be much better off right about now.

[phyco126]

Screw the President, I think this much thought should be put into how to get rid of the world's dependence on horrid oil and other horrible fuels.

[Werefrog]

When I run for President, I'll promise a Lavos-powered Mammon Machine in every garage. That should end our dependence on foreign oil. And what could possibly go wrong?

[Alunissage]

See, I don't particularly understand this. Is anyone particularly offended by seeing the word -Fatal Hopper- on the screen? If not, I don't really see why he couldn't just type the filter words (or if he's a Farscape fan he can use frell). Network television even allows bleeped words, so I don't understand why the equivalent is not allowed on L-Net.

Ah, I'd wondered where "frell" came from.

I don't like bleeped words either. The beeps totally break up the flow and call attention to the fragmented nature of the communication. Granted, they also CAUSE the fragmentation of the communication, which the dashes around the censor words do as well. So esthetically, for lack of a better word, I think it far superior to simply be more selective in speech style. And yes, if it has to be said, that's an opinion which I don't really intend to connect specifically with the matter of board policy and practice and all. It's more like how typing in all caps or without competent punctuation is jarring.

Of course, if someone is truly offended by this, it's only courtesy to not swear at all even if the swear is obscured by a filter. However, no one has really expressed any feelings of offense towards the filtered word.

You mean, the word which is being censored (as opposed to the censor itself)? I figured it was so obvious that the words being censored are offensive that it was unnecessary to say. Yes, of course I'm offended by it. Would you assume that racial epithets are inoffensive simply because no one said specifically that they were offended?

Feeling that someone is not expressing themselves intelligently is not the same as feeling offended. This seems like something you may just have to play by ear. In some occasions the filter may be just as offensive (for instance, in a heated argument). In this case I could see it being modded. However, for something this casual, I can't really understand why it would be wrong to use the filtered words.

The two may be closer than you think. It's rather insulting to have a carefully crafted comment (yay alliteration!) be met by an unreadable response. It's one of the annoying things about the "I'm not in school so I don't have to put any effort into my writing" -- the person indicates that the audience doesn't deserve any effort, and also demotes his/her own ideas as not worthy of being communicated clearly.

The first forum I joined which had an active filter substituted a word which I thought was really rather delightful as a censor, and the main thing which prevented me from using it was the thought that people would think I'd typed the word being censored, which I would not. People usually did just type the censor, conjugated appropriately and all. Sadly, that forum has recently abolished the censor, which I do not think bodes well for the content. (Anyone remember when RPGFan got rid of theirs? Suddenly every other post was OMG swear++!!! and it became unreadable. At least, to me. Loosening the language stricture seemed to also loosen inhibitions against being bloody stupid in general.)

Ozone, the people who put thought into stuff like this probably already put thought into presidential elections. After all, you don't see over half the voting public discussing language use.

Sonic, I really thought about adding another sentence or two about the growing up part but I couldn't get it to come out right and left it out. I should probably emphasize that I'm talking about intellectual and emotional maturation, not necessarily how much time has elapsed since one's birth. And of course this can be wildly variable.

I still defend coming to a conclusion -- or forming an impression, which isn't always the same thing -- regarding someone's intelligence based on what they say and how they say it. Because what other data is there? I've (obviously!) put off a lot of people by what I say and how I say it, and sometimes I'm sad because this is of course a far from complete picture of me, but that's also the way it is and I don't expect people to perceive my inner warmth and affectionate humor (ha) based on my rather harsh written comments. But I accept that that's what happens and try to at least sound articulate and intelligent, because those are positive, if cold, attributes that I at least can have some control over. It honestly boggles me that people don't care enough to present themselves as best they can, in this medium where written words are all we have.

[Werefrog]

So esthetically, for lack of a better word, I think it far superior to simply be more selective in speech style.

Personally, I don't mind it that much if the show (or movie) was designed to be that way in the first place. I don't know if you've ever seen Arrested Development, but I feel that's a good example of when bleeped words worked well. I can fill in the bleeps really well though, so maybe that's why I don't mind it. On the other hand, when I watch a movie that's been censored after the fact, I really dislike it.

You mean, the word which is being censored (as opposed to the censor itself)? I figured it was so obvious that the words being censored are offensive that it was unnecessary to say. Yes, of course I'm offended by it. Would you assume that racial epithets are inoffensive simply because no one said specifically that they were offended?

I actually meant the latter. I phrased it poorly (incorrectly).

The two may be closer than you think. It's rather insulting to have a carefully crafted comment (yay alliteration!) be met by an unreadable response. It's one of the annoying things about the "I'm not in school so I don't have to put any effort into my writing" -- the person indicates that the audience doesn't deserve any effort, and also demotes his/her own ideas as not worthy of being communicated clearly.

I can definitely see how that would be annoying and definitely bordering on offensive. I've been playing through my head how this situation is different from situations where people use horrible grammar. I'm not seeing much of a difference, personally, so I'm going to concede to your argument. However, I'll still say that's it's mostly about context. People talk to their friends in a different way than they do the person interviewing them for a job.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

the point of my "logical arguments" statement was simply me pointing out that it doesn't matter how valid the points are, this'll end with G1 basically saying "my house, my rules." so what's the purpose at all?

[Werefrog]

The point isn't to change the rules. It's to look at something from a different point of view. Of course, the rules aren't going to change. After all, this isn't a democracy. However, I believe that there is a value in discussing a different idea. It is not essential for every discussion to create a change.

[Ozone]

Ozone, the people who put thought into stuff like this probably already put thought into presidential elections. After all, you don't see over half the voting public discussing language use.

xD I just find it amusing how much discussion is going into a rule regarding a word censor setting that is clearly not going to change. That and I always find it funny when people try to reason with each other and seem to be on completely different wavelengths (unless I'm the one trying to do the reasoning, then it's just frustrating) (B_G has it right, the internet is immune to logical arguments). You all have much more patience regarding this matter than I do. My general point of view is that Pluvius is being pointless and bordering on ridiculous, okay, done, let's move on. Next thing you know, we'll be discussing the implications of the waste known as bellybutton lint or something. While I believe that censorship is a real issue, this board doesn't happen to be a democracy, it's a dictatorship, G1 ultimately decides what goes, and, frankly, asking you not to curse on a board shouldn't noticeably stunt your self expression, there are other words that can be used to relay similar sentiments to the forum. So, what's the big deal all about again? This makes no sense to me.

[Alunissage]

As Werefrog said, more or less, sometimes a discussion is just a discussion. I never thought of this as being about changing rules -- I see no problem with the rules as they are, after all -- but of discussing the thought hat goes into both forming the rules and dissenting with them, and an aspect of the nature of communication. It's a topic that's inherently interesting to me (and to Sonic and Werefrog as well, I think), and it's largely incidental that the presence of a specific rule and the response to it is what started it. I'd agree that it's fruitless and unproductive if the sole goal were to either revise the rules or change the mind of the initial poster, but, as threads tend to, its scope has grown past that and it's not all about him.

[Kizyr]

xD I just find it amusing how much discussion is going into a rule regarding a word censor setting that is clearly not going to change. That and I always find it funny when people try to reason with each other and seem to be on completely different wavelengths (unless I'm the one trying to do the reasoning, then it's just frustrating) (B_G has it right, the internet is immune to logical arguments).

It's still enjoyable to discuss things like politics or society, even though you can't necessarily change one thing or the other. Saying that no one should bother discussing the use or validity of swearing because the rules don't change is like saying that there's no point discussing the news if you can't change or do something about it.

While I believe that censorship is a real issue, this board doesn't happen to be a democracy, it's a dictatorship, G1 ultimately decides what goes, and, frankly, asking you not to curse on a board shouldn't noticeably stunt your self expression, there are other words that can be used to relay similar sentiments to the forum. So, what's the big deal all about again? This makes no sense to me.

G1 is the dictator? G1?!?

There's room for only one dictator on these boards!

...I try so hard, too... KF

[Werefrog]

Maybe, you and G1 can trade off who rules the kingdom every few years like Oedipus' sons. Seemed to work well for them.

[Ozone]

xD I just find it amusing how much discussion is going into a rule regarding a word censor setting that is clearly not going to change. That and I always find it funny when people try to reason with each other and seem to be on completely different wavelengths (unless I'm the one trying to do the reasoning, then it's just frustrating) (B_G has it right, the internet is immune to logical arguments).

It's still enjoyable to discuss things like politics or society, even though you can't necessarily change one thing or the other. Saying that no one should bother discussing the use or validity of swearing because the rules don't change is like saying that there's no point discussing the news if you can't change or do something about it.

While I believe that censorship is a real issue, this board doesn't happen to be a democracy, it's a dictatorship, G1 ultimately decides what goes, and, frankly, asking you not to curse on a board shouldn't noticeably stunt your self expression, there are other words that can be used to relay similar sentiments to the forum. So, what's the big deal all about again? This makes no sense to me.

G1 is the dictator? G1?!?

There's room for only one dictator on these boards!

...I try so hard, too... KF

I did not say that people should stop discussing it (though it was implied a bit more than I intended it to be), by all means, whatever floats your boat, but I still think it's kind of silly.

I think it's the fact that you have to try so hard, Kiz =/