# Using bad language--curbed?



## Rosi I. S. Parker

This is a question/suggestion:

Is it possible to request that those who post questions or answers in this excellent and helpful forum refrain from using the full spelling of "bad" words so as to keep it clean? 

I mean, even if they have to write them to explain their situation so they can get the answer they need. For example: "someone call my friend a mother f___r and told him to eat sh_t, etc.,

I just saw a post that spelled these words right out... Is this possible to curb this?

blessings,
Rosita


----------



## vicky1027

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> This is a question/suggestion:
> 
> Is it possible to request that those who post questions or answers in this excellent and helpful forum refrain from using the full spelling of "bad" words so as to keep it clean?
> 
> I mean, even if they have to write them to explain their situation so they can get the answer they need. For example: "someone call my friend a mother f___r and told him to eat sh_t, etc.,
> 
> I just saw a post that spelled these words right out... Is this possible to curb this?
> 
> blessings,
> Rosita


From what I understand you are supposed to use  to indicate it may be offensive to some people. I've also seen the moderator insert this to warn people, if not done by the poster.

I find this a fair system. Although leaving letters out, to you and I might make sense, for people learning a new language (or trying to understand what the question/answer is), they may have no idea what is being said.


----------



## johndot

I honestly don’t see the point in writing sh-t or f-ck. If the word shit offends you, and you know what sh-t stands for, then you will be offended by the ‘abbreviation’, too. And if you _don’t_ know what it means, there’s no point in reading the thread. Asterisked words are just laughable, and they’re no help to foreigners, as vicky has said.
 
On the other hand, I feel strongly that all threads containing filthy or blasphemous language should, _de rigueur_, have a warning on the New Posts page—perhaps alongside the thread starter title.


----------



## karoshi

Rosita estamos en el siglo XXI te aseguro que ves este tipo de lenguaje por doquier y sin ningun propósito en este caso créeme que lo tiene, muchos de los que utlizamos los foros estamos en constante aprendizaje y al momento de aprender un nuevo idioma ello también implicará el uso de expresiones, argot incluso las malas palabras ya que es parte de la cultura de la lengua que se esta aprendiendo, estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Johndot, la forma en que aparezca sea abreviada o completa si te va a ofender te ofenderá en cualquiera de sus formas, y al igual que John opino que los threads que contengan este tipo de lenguaje vengan con una advertencia para que aquellos que se sentirán ofendidos no los lean. I guess you just need to be a little open minded about this.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> [...] so as to keep it clean?


"Clean", according to which group within which community having which culture?...
Please, let us keep fundamentalism out of this forum. This forum is about all words, not only about "clean" words and "clean" ideas in a Disney world.


----------



## londonmasri

Consider that major broadsheet newspapers (e.g. The Guardian) spell out these words... 

This board seems to have gone P.C. mad.


----------



## cubaMania

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> ... Is this possible to curb this?...
> 
> Rosita


 
I personally do not like to hear words such as "fuck", "nigger", and others used in conversation or writing, and I have a low opinion of those who use them.
However, I would strongly object to censoring their discussion in the forums. I have not seen any abuse of the present system, and think we should continue discussing any and all words, fully spelled out. Words themselves are not "bad" or "dirty". A word may be "bad" in use, but in an honest discussion of the meaning of a word, the word is not "bad".


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> This is a question/suggestion:
> 
> Is it possible to request that those who post questions or answers in this excellent and helpful forum refrain from using the full spelling of "bad" words so as to keep it clean?
> 
> I mean, even if they have to write them to explain their situation so they can get the answer they need. For example: "someone call my friend a mother f___r and told him to eat sh_t, etc.,
> 
> I just saw a post that spelled these words right out... Is this possible to curb this?
> 
> blessings,
> Rosita



The spelling you suggest would make the search function useless since someone who is looking for "shit" would never imagine they should actually spell it like "sh_t".


----------



## Kelly B

I think it is important for language learners to clearly understand the words used by native speakers of that language. The nuances of bad words are often hard to guess from the contexts in which they are usually found, and dictionaries don't always tell the whole story (if they include the words at all.) I think this is an appropriate place to learn the details, provided that the discussion is consistent with _an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative._


----------



## Wordsmyth

JeanDeSponde said:


> "Clean", according to which group within which community having which culture?...
> Please, let us keep fundamentalism out of this forum. This forum is about all words, not only about "clean" words and "clean" ideas in a Disney world.





cubaMania said:


> Words themselves are not "bad" or "dirty". A word may be "bad" in use, but in an honest discussion of the meaning of a word, the word is not "bad".


 
I echo JDS's and cubaMania's sentiments entirely, and would add two further points in the same vein:

- As well as varying hugely between groups/communities/cultures, 'social acceptability' of words also changes with *time* (sometimes quite rapidly), thus complicating even further any attempt to define words as "bad". 

- If a 'Disney-clean' policy were to be (unwisely) adopted, there would have to be a 'curbing' of words such as _murder, rape, discrimination, torture, oppression, littering ..._ which represent far more 'unclean' ideas than mere cusswords. I guess we could still have stimulating discussions about teacakes and lace napkins — until someone discovers they're slang words referring to skimpy underwear!

W


----------



## Rosi I. S. Parker

Hello, newly found friends!

Wow, I didn't mean to start such a discussion, but I'm glad we are dialoguing about this. 

I understand all of you and you are quite right about words being written fully when needed. 

What provoked me to request this was the following situation: The “Title” of a thread was about how to better say a phrase to console a wounded friend. I entered the thread in the hope of helping the requester. Somehow he/she felt the need to later explain the situation by quoting the foul language used on his/her wounded friend—which was unnecessary, in my opinion—but so it was. In such cases, I would suggest that posts remain clear of _unnecessarily "ugly"_ words. And, please, open your hearts to know what I mean, by these.

When you try to keep your soul clean, avoiding what enters your eyes and ears which may contaminate it, is key… and NO, seeing _f___ck_ or _sh_t _doesn’t not do the damage that a fully spelled word would. 

I hope you all understand and thank you in advance for ears that hear.

Blessings,
Rosita
PS: PaulfromItaly's point is quite valid... Mhmmm...!


----------



## JamesM

I am speaking merely as another participant, not a moderator here.



londonmasri said:


> Consider that major broadsheet newspapers (e.g. The Guardian) spell out these words...
> 
> This board seems to have gone P.C. mad.


 
This is a bit of an overreaction, in my opinion.  To discuss one request does not make the board "P.C. mad."  What action by the board's moderators or owner leads you to this conclusion?



			
				Rosi I.S. Parker said:
			
		

> When you try to keep your soul clean, avoiding what enters your eyes and ears which may contaminate it, is key… and NO, seeing _f___ck_ or _sh_t _doesn’t not do the damage that a fully spelled word would.


 
This is your belief.  You are welcome to believe that and welcome to make the request.  There is no obligation, however, for others to share this belief or to honor the request.

There is no filter feature on this board for potentially offensive language.  If that poses a danger to you, in your belief, I think you will have to weigh the potential benefit of participating here with the potential danger that you believe such exposure might pose to your soul.  It is not a decision anyone can make for you, nor one that you can make for anyone else.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> What provoked me to request this was the following situation: The “Title” of a thread was about how to better say a phrase to console a wounded friend. I entered the thread in the hope of helping the requester. Somehow he/she felt the need to later explain the situation by quoting the foul language used on his/her wounded friend—which was unnecessary, in my opinion—but so it was.


I would recommend reporting the specific post as having off-topic content. I haven't seen it, but it sounds as though the original poster shared TMI (Too Much Information) that wasn't relevant to the request. Use the RaP feature (the red triangle in the upper *right* corner of the post).

Cheers,
Elizabeth


----------



## Wordsmyth

TrentinaNE said:


> Use the RaP feature (the red triangle in the upper left corner of the post).
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth


 
That's upper right on my computer 

W


----------



## Rosi I. S. Parker

Thank you, everybody... I hope whatever discomfort my post caused in any of you would be dissipated by the fact that I was _only asking _if something could be done. All I expected from anybody was that it could or not, or direct me where I should be expressing this concern.

I'm new to this forum which I find and excellent way of keeping up w/my language skills (English & Spanish)... and it's been a true blessing.

So, thanks especially to the kind and helpful replies from, vicky1027, johndot, karoshi, Paulfromitaly, Kelly B, JamesM, and TrentinaNE. If I next see anything _out of place_, I shall try the RaP button. Though a "warning" symbol  is a *better idea!*  

Enjoy the forum all,
-Rosita



Paulfromitaly said:


> The spelling you suggest would make the search function useless since someone who is looking for "shit" would never imagine they should actually spell it like "sh_t".



 for the search function to work well, the subject matter _should be,_ "@#?#" (the word in question), or at least be part of it. But if "@#?#" is _not_ what's being discussed, it would be wrong for a person looking for it, to find it in that thread, wouldn't it?


----------



## londonmasri

On second thoughts, there are enough resources on the net regarding foul language; it is probably best to leave it out of the forum.

You wouldn't ask about such things in a university...


----------



## Nunty

londonmasri said:


> On second thoughts, there are enough resources on the net regarding foul language; it is probably best to leave it out of the forum.
> 
> You wouldn't ask about such things in a university...



Of course you would. Or maybe _you _wouldn't, but very many people do.

Serious academic discourse touches on all kinds of topics. As a serious, academic forum, WordReference does too. There is a difference between speaking or writing in a low, vulgar register, and discussing the words that are used in such a register. And, of course, the question of what is "low" and "vulgar" is highly culture-and sub-culture dependent.

Speaking for myself, I don't normally use such words in my daily life. On the other hand, I have no objection to them being discussed here. Quite the contrary: I think it's very important for learners to be able to see and discuss these words in order to know which ones may be used in which circumstances and if they're going to use them, to use them correctly.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nun-Translator said:


> I think it's very important for learners to be able to see and discuss these words in order to know which ones may be used in which circumstances and if they're going to use them, to use them correctly.


Exactly.
If we want to help language learners we can't refuse or avoid helping them know when they can use a certain term and when they can't.
Explaining in which context can be fine to say "shit" doesn't mean encouraging someone to use that word.
If we masked "shit" in any of the ways someone has suggested (sh*t, sh_t, sh#t...) the only unwanted effect we would obtain would be a lot of new threads about the word "shit" since the posters wouldn't be able to find the previous discussions.


----------



## fenixpollo

londonmasri said:


> Consider that major broadsheet newspapers (e.g. The Guardian) spell out these words...
> 
> This board seems to have gone P.C. mad.


 This is not a "board" -- it is a dictionary forum. And the policy of the forum is to not censor vulgar language for any reasons of "Political Correctness". If we censor language, it is only in cases where members are inappropriately using such language in conversation or to insult others (and personally, I have never had to delete any foul language from anybody's posts). 





londonmasri said:


> On second thoughts, there are enough resources on the net regarding foul language; it is probably best to leave it out of the forum.
> 
> You wouldn't ask about such things in a university...


 But you would look up such things in the dictionary. In fact, most of the vulgar words in the English language appear in every dictionary, and they appear in the wordreference dictionary. For the same reason, they appear in the forum -- uncensored and whole -- as well they should.

Remember, we *discuss* vulgar words, but we do not *use* them.


----------



## danielfranco

I enjoy using profanity. In two languages. Even so, the ground rules here make it a no-no, and do not allow idiosyncrasy as an excuse for the usage of "cuss words, profanity, bad language, epithets, insults, or whatever the &%$# you call 'em" as a normal means of conveying either agreement nor dissent.

But I would like to review the forum's policy in the usage of such terms:


In the thread title, the four-letter word (or however-many-lettered ones) should have its vowels substituted by asterisks.
In the thread posts, a warning  sign should be used to signify that foul language will be included (but not aimed at anyone in particular).
Usage of foul language to describe anyone is not allowed at all.


Am I correct?

BTW, fenixpollo, welcome to the Resistance. Your call sign is Red Five! May the Force be with you, always.
(Yes, I'm a nerd, okay?)

D


----------



## fenixpollo

So does that make you Wedge?  Or are you Porker? 

The rules say that asterisks must appear in thread titles, but as a whole, the moderators have agreed that this is not good practice. Thread titles should contain unadulterated words (with no asterisks, blanks or underscores) so that the thread titles can be found by searching the dictionary.

The rules say that warning signs must be used, but this is not followed religiously in all forums. For example, the Italian forums use these signs, but the Spanish ones do not.

The rules are correct in saying that usage of foul language is not permitted. Anywhere. Any time.


----------



## JamesM

danielfranco said:


> But I would like to review the forum's policy in the usage of such terms:
> 
> 
> In the thread title, the four-letter word (or however-many-lettered ones) should have its vowels substituted by asterisks.


I am not aware of such a rule or guideline, at least not in English Only.  In fact, as far as I know this is _not _recommended because of its effect on searches.


----------



## danielfranco

Cut the chatter, Red Five.
Biggs out.

Wait… AAARGH!

I mean, thank you for your answer. I'll keep it in mind.
D


----------



## Moon Palace

Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> When you try to keep your soul clean, avoiding what enters your eyes and ears which may contaminate it.



The forum does not have this purpose from my viewpoint, and I would say that rather than keep anything, the forum allows us all to enhance our language skills. I feel this is a new Babel Tower, where at long last people can understand each other, precisely by learning from other cultures.
So I am glad I have been contaminated by the forum and all the viruses it could contain. 



Rosi I. S. Parker said:


> But if "@#?#"


Sorry, but I can't resist: this sounds like Captain Haddock's favourite words , and I have always wondered as a child what lay behind all these small drawings. Now at long last I have been able to decipher these hyerogliphics, let's not spoil it all by creating new ones. 




Nun-Translator said:


> Serious academic discourse touches on all kinds of topics. As a serious, academic forum, WordReference does too.



I wholly agree, NunTranslator. And I do hope it will keep this way. 



fenixpollo said:


> religiously



Strangely enough, I have had this word on my mind since the beginning of this thread, along with another one: censorship. 
Let's just not bow to any dogma other than that of academic research, and so please let us free to deal with any word that is a tool of communication, whichever communication it may involve. 

It reminds me of a wonderful documentary I have seen on TV recently, about the history of the word (now, how shall I put it? !!==##@ wonder whether it is clear?), and this quote by Lenny Bruce that sent him to jail. 
Is this what we want to do here? Get back to a world where there are _politically (_and I will add _religiously_) _correct _phrases, and _evil _ones? 
This is plain b-l--h-t. (forgive me, but talking about forbidden words for so long has awakened in me the desire to use some  It must be this _désir de transgression_ that is so often linked to forbidden things ).


----------



## Rosi I. S. Parker

Thank you, "D"


danielfranco said:


> In the thread title, the four-letter word (or however-many-lettered ones) should have its vowels substituted by asterisks.
> In the thread posts, a warning  sign should be used to signify that foul language will be included (but not aimed at anyone in particular).
> Usage of foul language to describe anyone is not allowed at all.



I agree w/this request! Bring it on! 
-Rosita


----------



## Nunty

Rosita, I understand that some words make you feel uncomfortable. However, the state of affairs as fenixpollo described in post #21:



> The rules say that asterisks must appear in thread titles, but as a whole, the moderators have agreed that this is not good practice. Thread titles should contain unadulterated words (with no asterisks, blanks or underscores) so that the thread titles can be found by searching the dictionary.
> 
> The rules say that warning signs must be used, but this is not followed religiously in all forums. For example, the Italian forums use these signs, but the Spanish ones do not.
> 
> The rules are correct in saying that usage of foul language is not permitted. Anywhere. Any time.


...are about as far as the forums can go in accomodating you, at least as far as I can see.

* Having blanks or meaningless signs replace some letters in some words in the titles would render the search engine useless.

* The warning triangle is in use with different conventions in different forums. In English Only, where I am one of the moderators, it is used sometimes but not all the time, and frankly, the issue doesn't come up very often.

* The rules require a serious, academic and collegial tone. That already rules out calling people names and writing in a low register (except when giving examples in a discussion of low register).

As I said, I understand your discomfort. I think it comes down to a personal decision. If someone feels that the benefit they get from the forum outweighs the discomfort, they will make accomodations. My suggestions:

1. If someone finds a thread topic uncomfortable, they don't need to read it.

2. If a post is offensive, report it using the red triangle and the moderators will deal with it.

I am not adding a suggestion about not using four-letter words gratuitiously because, frankly, I don't think anyone does.

There is always going to be something that offends someone. From time to time there will be something that offends me. It is up to me to decide how to react. Sometimes that will mean ignoring it; at other times it may mean removing myself from the offensive presence.

I am not suggesting that you leave, Rosita. Not at all. I am suggesting that the forum rules adequately deal with the issue, if it even is an issue.


----------



## Rosi I. S. Parker

Nun-Translator said:


> Thank you, very much Nun... my replies below:
> 
> * Having blanks or meaningless signs replace some letters in some words in the titles would render the search engine useless.
> I understand this completely... I will abide graciously : -)
> 
> * The warning triangle is in use with different conventions in different forums. In English Only, where I am one of the moderators, it is used sometimes but not all the time, and frankly, the issue doesn't come up very often.
> _I plead _to the moderators that *this one should be implemented as much as possible. *I always find it nonsensical to say that because something is not the *full remedy *or *not used thoroughly*, that it should not be implemented, even if you don't think it comes up often or not. Capisci?
> 
> * The rules require a serious, academic and collegial tone. That already rules out calling people names and writing in a low register (except when giving examples in a discussion of low register).
> I agree completely... and will abide graciously : -)
> 
> ...My suggestions:
> 
> 1. If someone finds a thread topic uncomfortable, they don't need to read it.
> Once you read it, avoiding discomfort is a forgone conclusion, no? This sign  would be much better, I think.
> 
> 2. If a post is offensive, report it using the red triangle and the moderators will deal with it.
> I'm glad we can do this, thank you much : -)
> 
> I am not suggesting that you leave, Rosita. Not at all. I am suggesting that the forum rules adequately deal with the issue, if it even is an issue.
> Thank you : -)



I hope I haven't been so much a pain as much a refreshing reminder that we are a diverse world in which we all need to learn to live together, even if it discomforts us to hear other points of view which are contrary to ours.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to address my concerns. I feel welcome and I will continue to use this forum and recommend it to others who may benefit from it. It is a blessing for sure!

-Rosita


----------



## JeanDeSponde

The real issue, to me, is still _what is *offensive *?_...
For some, the f* word is the eviliest thing in the world.
For others, hinting that God could be but an hypothesis is an insult. 
And I could mention revisionism, gender issues, Armenian genocide, doubting the existence of MDWs, etc - many topics may be felt very sensitive by some readers.
(And I am _not_ referring to _cultural discussions_. I'm talking about things that need to be translated.)
So what now? Shall we safely tag every post with  unless it is about butterflies and flowers in the field?

P.S. I checked in my many dictionaries - I couldn't find any entry iron-branded with ""...


----------



## Wordsmyth

JeanDeSponde said:


> [...]
> P.S. I checked in my many dictionaries - I couldn't find any entry iron-branded with ""...


 
No, they just put (vulg.) or (fam.) ... not even (offnsv.)!! Which reminds me of school library dictionaries. The best way to avoid being offended was to *not* read the well-thumbed pages at which they always fell open! 

So my advice to 'sensitive' readers is to *not* read threads with really high view ratings — like this one : 854 views so far!! rolleyes: again)

Ws


----------

