# Swear Filter?



## w00hoo_kent (21 Aug 2015)

Who would I talk to about having a word added to the swear filter?

Could I please suggest 'bollocks' is added in? I suggest 'bollards' as a potential substitute.

Ta.


----------



## ayceejay (21 Aug 2015)

The last time my bollocks were almost substituted for bollards there were tears in my eyes for 
a blinking blooming weak.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Aug 2015)

Is there a section on Babelfish that can convert the coy substitutions into something a bit more robust? Why tinker with perfectly good Ango-Saxon verbs and nouns?

Have a nice day.


----------



## MartinQ (22 Aug 2015)

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/never-mind-the-bollocks-here’s-my-email-0


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (22 Aug 2015)

“Great! Bollocks is legal. _Bollocks! Bollocks! Bollocks!_” - John Lydon, Nottingham 1978


----------



## broadway (22 Aug 2015)

Somebody's taking the micturate


----------



## raleighnut (22 Aug 2015)

Or talking cobblers.


----------



## Slioch (22 Aug 2015)

What's wrong with bollocks? I'm very attached to mine.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (22 Aug 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Or talking cobblers.


I'm sure shoe repairers across the land would take exception


----------



## Dayvo (22 Aug 2015)

Piggy's got the conch...


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Aug 2015)

What's with this substituting swear words for something that sounds similar? Surely if we all know what you mean, the damage is done. Like saying FFS instead of what it stands for? It is one and the same.
But why not have a look (and think) at the inimitable George Carlin on the topic? Here it is: Seven Dirty Words.


----------



## Drago (22 Aug 2015)

B**locks has been held in Court not to be a swear word.

Edit, I really ought to read the whole thread!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Aug 2015)

I must admit I don't get the substitution filtering of swear words, if I see daffodil now on here or not, my mind does not think yellow spring flower, it thinks a***hole or worse.

All such substitution really does a drag other perfectly innocent words down by association, it is unfair on those words to bw tarnished in that manner.

I understand the need for filtration on a family friendly site (albeit not getting the prudishness aspect) but why not asterisk to c*** s*** w***** etc, keeps the context and intent the poster was aiming at but leaves the daffodils alone.


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> I'm sure shoe repairers across the land would take exception


Awl of 'em.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Aug 2015)

User said:


> Why leave anything identifiable then? Better to have all unacceptable words replaced identically.


Totally agree but that isn't an option, as said, on a family friendly site.

I'm not a fan of the prudishness that sees words filtered out by any means, but I understand that it has to happen on places like CC, so would rather it be done with asterisking than substitution of innocent words.


----------



## mickle (22 Aug 2015)

******


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Aug 2015)

User said:


> Why leave anything identifiable then? Better to have all unacceptable words replaced identically.


I like your suggestion. It reminds me of those "expletive deleted" reports one reads. It also reminds me of Ernest Hemmingway books where he actually wrote "expletive" instead of shoot* or whatever the context required.

Edit: I didn't really write "shoot".


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Aug 2015)

mickle said:


> ******


I agree, **** all of this ****shoot.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2015)

There is no need for asterisks or substitution.

If you are unable to express yourself without swearing, you should not be using the written word on here or anywhere else.

If you want to report others swearing as part of the narrative, simply writing: 'he swore at me' is sufficient.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> There is no need for asterisks or substitution.
> 
> If you are unable to express yourself without swearing, you should not be using the written word on here or anywhere else.
> 
> If you want to report others swearing as part of the narrative, simply writing: 'he swore at me' is sufficient.


At first glance, this looks like a solution but it isn't all that clearcut. Swearing is swearing by who's definition?
Is "bloody" a swearword?
It is a rhetoric question but I want to point out that for religions people, bloody refer to Christ's blood, which is apparently a swearword. Therefore, if I'm an atheist and you a Catholic, should I refrain from swearing in your presence? How should I identify Catholics if I don't know them and can't see them?
I can cite many examples but I'm sure you get the point of definition.
Then, sometimes I want to swear, for whatever reason. I want to say the real word, not "shoot."
Further, how do we judge swearing? It is easy to cite extreme contexts where it would be inappropriate but the borders become vague when we resort to everyday conversation.
I'm against censorship and think people should use it as they see fit in the situation.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Aug 2015)

Orchids (The genus name comes from the Ancient Greekὄρχις (_órkhis_), literally meaning "testicle", because of the shape of the twin tubers in some species of _Orchis_.[5][6] The term "orchid" was introduced in 1845 by John Lindley in_School Botany_,[7] as a shortened form of _Orchidaceae_.[8]) would go perfectly with daffodils.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

User said:


> I thought it was a contraction of "by our Lady", and thus taking the venerated Virgin Mary's name in vain.


Apparently neither, according to the oxford dictionary 


> Mid 17th century: from bloody1. The use of _bloody_ to add emphasis to an expression is of uncertain origin, but is thought to have a connection with the ‘bloods’ (aristocratic rowdies) of the late 17th and early 18th centuries; hence the phrase _bloody drunk_ (= as drunk as a blood) meant ‘very drunk indeed’. After the mid 18th century until quite recently _bloody_ used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, or that the word was an alteration of ‘by Our Lady’; hence a widespread caution in using the term even in phrases, such as _bloody battle_, merely referring to bloodshed.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> At first glance, this looks like a solution but it isn't all that clearcut. Swearing is swearing by who's definition?
> Is "bloody" a swearword?
> It is a rhetoric question but I want to point out that for religions people, bloody refer to Christ's blood, which is apparently a swearword. Therefore, if I'm an atheist and you a Catholic, should I refrain from swearing in your presence? How should I identify Catholics if I don't know them and can't see them?
> I can cite many examples but I'm sure you get the point of definition.
> ...



If you annoyed me sufficiently, I might give you a bloody nose, so no, bloody is not a swear word.

It is easy enough to avoid the handful of words which can cause genuine offence.

But I suppose that solution is too simple for an internet forum on which everything has to be picked over to the nth degree.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Could I please suggest 'bollocks' is added in? I suggest 'bollards' as a potential substitute.


Um, why? You are clearly not personally offended by the word, or you wouldn't have typed this. Why would you want the language here further garbled than is necessary?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Apparently neither, according to the oxford dictionary


I stand corrected and bloody educated by all that. Thanks.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> If you annoyed me sufficiently, I might give you a bloody nose, so no, bloody is not a swear word.
> 
> It is easy enough to avoid the handful of words which can cause genuine offence.
> 
> But I suppose that solution is too simple for an internet forum on which everything has to be picked over to the nth degree.


Bloody hell! It seems is if "taking offence" has become a national sport. Why should I feel offended if someone else swears and it is not intended to disparage me?


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It is easy enough to avoid the handful of words which can cause genuine offence.


Causes whom genuine offence? Who is the arbiter? I know someone who is genuinely offended by "bloody". Lots of Americans think _hell _is a swear word (I've seen it spelled out as "Aitch eee double hockey sticks"). 

Or should we just consult Pale Rider, who will let us know what words we shouldn't use.

Personally, I am offended by swear filters. Anyone old enough to read these forums knows all the words anyway, and if you don't like them, you can always "ignore" people that use them. I feel infantilised when a perfectly good, old English word for vagina becomes "daffodil". If the word happens to be used descriptively, it makes the sentence nonsense. And if it was being quoted in abuse, it makes the quote nonsense, and removes the expressive power that was in the original sentence. 

That being said, these are not my forums and I don't pay the hosting fees, so if I don't like the swear filter I can take myself elsewhere.


----------



## Drago (24 Aug 2015)

Some people must get a real shock when they switch on the telly after 9pm, or listen to a play on Radio 4 with John Hurt at 2pm on a week day afternoon. If I don't like that I can switch it off or change channels.

Similarly, no one forces me to visit this forum, I had to confirm I was older than 14 in order to register, and I can block users who's language offends me.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Or should we just consult Pale Rider, who will let us know what words we shouldn't use.



You could, but I can't be bothered to tell you what you already know.

Try asking @Shaun - he runs the place, I don't.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

Here's one: I am deeply offended by the word _pikey_. It is racist, and I can't believe that it is in common parlance in the UK. It carries the same level of deep hatred as n*gger. OMG. I just tested that with the Preview button. Neither word is censored here. They are both much much worse than bollocks. Or (and I say this as a white, anglo-celtic woman) daffodil.

So, there is no general consensus on what is offensive @Pale Rider, despite what your instinct tells you.


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2015)

The argument "you ought to be able to express yourself without swearing if you are competent with the English language" doesn't work. We could all express ourselves, in plain, factual, boring, unadorned language, with no swearing, but also no poetry, and the language would be vastly the poorer for it. The skill of using language is partly to evoke an emotion, a reaction, in your hearer. Use of anything from a Rowan-Atkinson-esque "pah!" to a "daffodil" is one of the tools in the armoury of language, to be judged by its effectiveness in the context in which you are communicating.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Here's one: I am deeply offended by the word _pikey_. It is racist, and I can't believe that it is in common parlance in the UK. It carries the same level of deep hatred as n*gger. OMG. I just tested that with the Preview button. Neither word is censored here. They are both much much worse than bollocks. Or (and I say this as a white, anglo-celtic woman) daffodil.
> 
> So, there is no general consensus on what is offensive @Pale Rider, despite what your instinct tells you.



Yes there is.

All you have discovered is that not every offensive word is blocked by this forum's filter.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes there is.


No, there isn't. I find that word offensive. You apparently do too. I have reported posts that contain that word - at least once. That post is still up.

Viz -> there isn't a consensus. Shaun, and possible one other moderator do not agree with me.

and 17 pages of quotes mean several others don't agree.

https://www.cyclechat.net/search/6209002/?q=pikey&o=relevance


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Um, why? You are clearly not personally offended by the word, or you wouldn't have typed this. Why would you want the language here further garbled than is necessary?



No, I'm happy without swear filters and belong to one forum where they are optional, so switch it off. However I was surprised that as this site has a swear filter it didn't include bollocks in it and it felt like an omission considering what is in there, so I pondered if it should be added.

To be honest, quite naively for CC, I didn't realise it would turn in to an etymological and ecumenical slagging match and kind of regret asking what was a genuine if a bit frivolous question. More fool me I guess, I'll learn eventually.

Oh, and to completely answer the question, I felt bollards a suitable replacement as it has a bit of use as a call by the Fridays.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> No, there isn't. I find that word offensive. You apparently do too. I have reported posts that contain that word - at least once. That post is still up.
> 
> Viz -> there isn't a consensus. Shaun, and possible one other moderator do not agree with me.
> 
> ...



You said there is no 'general consensus' about what is offensive.

The word consensus means 'general agreement'.

That is precisely what there is, general agreement on what is offensive.

What there isn't is full or complete agreement by everyone on what is offensive.


----------



## ayceejay (24 Aug 2015)

_Oh, and to completely answer the question, I felt bollards a suitable replacement as it has a bit of use as a call by the Fridays._
When someone uses the word bollocks as in "that sentence is a load of bollocks" they are obviously not talking about testicles because, Hitler not withstanding, bollocks come as a pair not a bunch or a load. If someone said "that sentence is a pair of bollocks" they would indeed be talking bollocks just like w00hoo. And if anyone thinks I am talking bollocks - well bollocks to you.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> That is precisely what there is, general agreement on what is offensive.


I don't think there is. For instance, I very much doubt I'd find any word CC censors offensive, except in certain contexts. And in certain contexts, almost any word could be found offensive.

If you think there is a consensus, then you are living in an echo chamber, surrounded by people who agree with you.

I know there are the words you can't say on tv, or print in a paper. But I haven't read a printed paper or watched broadcast tv in years, so I'm losing track of those. And my friends come from all over the world, so there would be no consensus even amongst those whose first language is English.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Aug 2015)

do we even need a swear filter? On the other place I got (mildly) told off for using the word "arse" - which got substituted for a fill-in word which made it seem I'd said something considerably ruder. Even in the context of a post on saddle comfort ii got changed rather confusing the site of discomfort in question. Invoking the Almighty is considered more offensive by some of a religeous persuasion than mere reference to a body part.

OK, there's probably no legitimate need to use a couple of traditional swear words, nor certain racial epiphets, but if used as insults then it just makes the mod's job easier as can then go straight to a ban without much thought - no bad thing.

As an aside, in another group I subscribe to, there's an area called "the shoot heap" for threads that fail to even reach the low standards of the "idle chat" area The mods occasionally announce "this thread has been closed and moved to the shoot heap..... because it is shoot". As it's invariably and unarguably true it's a lot more satisfactory than claiming transgression of this or that policy. Outright bannage is rare but does happen too.

And for the OP, I wouldn't see "bollocks" to be a swear word unless being ludicrously prudish - could be saddle discomfort or a cross-bar incident, quite appart from being a description of something not of high quality


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Aug 2015)

daffodil just checking which old English word for vagina was, and to know if someone on here is calling me a daffodil so I can be suitably offended...


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Aug 2015)

Also what happens if a poster circumvents the filter on here, like they do on more or less every other forum I frequent?


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Aug 2015)

Lastly! I do not ever recall seeing the real word for daffodil on here before but since is has been replaced with a flower it seems to a very popular swear word.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Also what happens if a poster circumvents the filter on here, like they do on more or less every other forum I frequent?


Daffodils...or is it bulrushes, like that should be suspended. They offend me deeply....not.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Lastly! I do not ever recall seeing the real word for daffodil on here before but since is has been replaced with a flower it seems to a very popular swear word.


True, but only in the spring.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Also what happens if a poster circumvents the filter on here, like they do on more or less every other forum I frequent?


I don't normally do this. "when in rome..." etc. Did in the above thread as anything else would have been too confusing. Elsewhere I have just said "anglo-saxon" or old english for this word. Though google tells me I'm wrong, and it's in fact middle english with germanic roots.


----------



## Dayvo (24 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> daffodil just checking which old English word for vagina was, and to know if someone on here is calling me a daffodil so I can be suitably offended...



Ah, that's why the Welsh wear them on their lapels on March 1st!


----------



## jefmcg (24 Aug 2015)

The word is stored in the database in uncensored form. So if you want to find out who is a rude bugger, search for _daffodil _not _daffodil_ if you see what I mean.


----------



## Shaun (24 Aug 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Who would I talk to about having a word added to the swear filter?



Me - via PM - the same goes for any and all suggestions in relation to CC. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

