It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is WTF realy any different than dropping the "F" Bomb?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Why do we censor that F word when Preachers can get away with calling us fornicators? And when they use that term it comes across pretty dirty...

And if your gonna kill WTF you need to get rid of the SHTF too...

If all else fails... ***tosses Blaine a bar of soap***




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Why do people always say that? Its absolutely not true. One..........people dont HAVE to say it. They choose to. Secondly, peppering a perfectly logical argument with expletives does not render the perfectly logical argument any less logical. It just makes it a perfectly logical argument with some spice.

What I have noticed is that the people who tend to like the argument that swearing renders entire arguments void, tend to be the sort of people whose own bad arguments could make Mother Theresa curse like a sailor, and thats their "win" card.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Essentially I'm saying this is one case where "de-sensitizing" people to the issue will actually do us good.


Roosevelt said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Well with offensive language, the only thing we have to be offended about, is being offended itself.


Perhaps I could have stated my case more eloquently also. I will leave the de-sensitizing to the likes of the late and great Lenny Bruce. He was a hero to me in many ways, mainly because he was taking on the battle of word-power. His goal was to de-sensitize them, keep repeating words until they had no shock value left.

My motives are somewhat different. I now run a discussion board for expats in Mexico. I don't censor any posts, not yet, not unless they are really foul and would upset my webhosts. I have about four or five forums that are members-only, and one called "Back Behind the Barn" that I will move those posts to. No search bots go there and the public that visits the site don't see them. Unfortunately I really don't have anything shocking there, not yet.

ATS is not my first discussion board, not by a longshot, but it perhaps holds us to the highest standards of any I know of its type. ATS has been my training grounds. They are rather lenient in many ways though.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

People with nasty attitudes can use any number of words to promote their nasty attitudes. It doesn't require them to have a special list of extra-bad words that exist solely for the purpose of offending. Essentially I'm saying this is one case where "de-sensitizing" people to the issue will actually do us good.



Indeed. Its not that hard to tell someone to blankety blank off with total politeness. Cutting out curse words or their analogs simply skews the fight in favor of the more educated or eloquent. It does nothing to prevent "nasty attitude" from coming across.

Although I always wonder at the fascination with curse words as being so abhorrent, when we dont find war mongering so abhorrent that we ban or censor it. With a curse word, someone gets their little feelers hurt. Warmongering gets real live humans dead or mangled. Which is the "nastier" attitude? The one that hurts someones pride or the one thats ends up getting people killed?

Clearly, its cursing.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
What I find so stunningly ironic in all of this is that, in response to an OP calling for tighter T&C restrictions (which I'm on record as being against), we have a constant clamor for loosening of those very same T&C's.

When I first joined ATS, I read those T&C's and thought it sounded very good. No personal attacks, no profanity, no spamming, flooding or any of the BS we can find on a thousand other websites is allowed here. That's what brought me and why I stay.

We seem to go on for years talking about civil discourse and, yet, here we have a group that wants to be able to say whatever the hell is on their mind in whatever way they want to say it. Best of all, they're not the first, nor will they be the last. Sticks and stones? Really?

Sorry... not going to fly.

The OP made some good points and presented a sound argument. It was debatable. But this direction the thread is going in now is unacceptable to me and I believe that all the staff would back me on this. ATS is NOT going to back off on this T&C:

15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.

If you read it, you'd be able to say that what the OP is suggesting is completely within that rule. WTF, SHTF and the rest could be actioned AND if it happened enough times, you could get banned for it. Be glad staff isn't that harsh.

Also, if you've a mind to use profanity online, then go for it. There's those thousand other websites it's OK on. Get it out of your system there and then come back here for some 'family friendly' discussions.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
'Frack off' is about the worst thing you can say to a sentient being. It's the new F bomb, because sex is, after all, beautiful, and the F word should be kept, more or less, sacrosanct.

As tptb work to censor 'frack you', and it's derivatives, then the term will become inexorably associated with the method by which obama is destroying the very precious source of life we call 'water'. It's a win win for us because it's use instills rebellion, while highlighting the criminal acts of domestic terrorists who are elected, apparently, to destroy our water. Since the radioactive ingredient has been added, courtesy of the authorities, they are free, apparently, to start assigning internet ID's....since so much of their work has just been done by tepco. I'm guessing since cannabis and other natural herbs work to prevent cancer, they'll try to push to have control and restrictions, just watch. Now is the time too sow cancer, since the cat's out of the bag. Frack 'em. They are no longer in control. They couldn't handle drilling, they couldn't even manage to leave the precious water tables undisturbed.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

If you read it, you'd be able to say that what the OP is suggesting is completely within that rule. WTF, SHTF and the rest could be actioned AND if it happened enough times, you could get banned for it. Be glad staff isn't that harsh.



Actually, Im not glad the staff doesnt action it. And here is why.

Allowing some circumventions of the profanity rules some of the time leads to confusion regarding exactly what profanity consists of. If the goal is to keep the profane words off the screen, so that ATS can reach the widest possible audience, I dont think any one would object to that. And that would make the "dont circumvent the filters" rule make logical sense. You type in the word you intend to use, and ATS has an automatic filter in place to screen those words so that everyone is on the exact same page as to which words, (for instance YOU used "hell" and that used to be swearing in MY family and justify chili in the mouth) and no one had to worry.

Unless people started typing in clever work arounds in which one word was replaced, or the words were spaced out, and CIRCUMVENTED the filter. Which there is a rule against.

By allowing WT_, or _HTF, you are sending a completely contradictory message. And, when the rules DO get enforced, it makes it SEEM like the person who is using one of those sometimes acceptable derivations is being picked on unfairly.

In employment law, if a rule is not enforced consistently, it is not really a rule. In essence, if you let 5 out of 10 employees do something, you cannot punish 5 out of 10 employees for doing the exact same thing.

Now I am well aware that ATS is not a job. And it is not bound to those sorts of laws, and it can behave as erratically and unpredictably as it would like, as a privately owned website. However I personally find it exasperating that there is such surprise and outrage on the part of some here that erratically enforced rules lead to confusion and feelings of persecution among the membership.

That should surprise no reasonable person. Even dog trainers understand consistency.

If WT_ et al are against the TnC, no one is doing anyone any favors by "allowing" it to be used sporadically. In fact, you are contributing to the very problem you seem to be complaining about. Just make the rule, make it clear, make the bottom line of the rule clear, and make it apply to everyone, all the time.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
"The F Bomb"

omg words! how shall we ever get past it in our politically correct society?!

morons.


Yes, exactly.

Those who instigated this 'pc' society are due payback. They were trying to protect themselves with one hand while the other one destroyed life on the planet, all to their own gain. They know who they are.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
If we were frank about it, the reason it's against the T&C to use profanity is all about image and traffic, and the quality of traffic.

I can see why the administrators would find it profitable to not allow offensive language, but at the same time no one here is even trying to make an argument as to why it would ever make sense to take offense at words.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You can count on the fact that this topic is being followed. That's a certainty.

Maybe you'll have the effect you're looking for in that the snippage that goes on will get hot and heavy, warns will be issued for repeat offenders and the staff, in their avid determination to rid the site of wtf's and shtf's will begin banning those who, even after repeated warnings, dozens of U2U's and a general frustration, start a War on OMG's.

What would the reaction from the membership be if your idea was initiated? Any idea? I have one... they'd be pissed. The staff would be close to burn-out. Half the posts on any page would likely need editing and myself (?)... I'd likely not be too happy swamped with minor stuff like that.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Because we all know it is about traffic, and not about words being innately offensive. They arent, at least not universally. Different people get offended by different things, and you really cant make a cohesive policy based on "not offending" someone else.

ATS is not a democracy, its a private enterprise, and free speech isnt really an issue here. There are numerous rules about what can and cannot be said, and we all know that, the problem is, mixed messages. I dont think that the majority of people on this board want to run all over terrorizing ATS. Many of us like ATS a lot, and we want it to succeed.

But.....................there are a lot of mixed signals, and the fact that one message is "clearly stated, and oh so simple" doesnt mean a contradictory message doesnt undermine the clarity of that oh so clear rule. And the fact that if people see mods posting in a thread and ignoring "wt_" or even using "wt_" that also sends a signal.

Profanity is not cut and dried. We all know the F word is a no no, but there are tons of mildly profane words like the one Masqua used that ATS does not filter, and are they off limits too? You would either need a comprehensive list, or you would need to create a filter and instruct your members to type in the words they choose as they were normally spelled, and let ATS' filter keep you on the straight and narrow by transforming the offending words into non offensive symbols. Which would be the easiest thing to do. And then ANY misspelled or abbreviated curse word of any type would be actionable as a circumvention of the filters, and no one would need a list.

But thats not how it works. Apparently.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Its hypocrisy for ATS to allow WTF but not "What the F---".

And no, WTF can not mean just anything. Since the Wisconsin Tourism Federation changed in 2009 to the Federation of Tourism in Wisconsin (www.npr.org...) now WTF can only mean "What the F---".

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with using any derogatory terms so long as they are not used an insulting way. Its the thought that counts. The concept that F--- can hurt someone is ridiculous and if it hurts someone its because they've been programmed by authoritarians to be hurt by it, and need some deprogramming done to them!

I remember seeing studies that people are happier in a workplace where derogatory terms are regularly used by everyone. In other words swearing is f---ing fun and makes us feel better. ATS admins should encourage users to use swears when it feels right and it isn't offensive.

Time to deprogram the sheep... "naughty" words cannot hurt you.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Time to deprogram the sheep... "naughty" words cannot hurt you.
What about the kids on ATS?

Do we want to desensitize them to foul language and raise them to have gutter mouths?

Ultimately when they turn 18 they're free to speak however they want. But people are judged by their demeanor and the way they speak, and that is influenced by what they're exposed to.

I never swore that much before I started working with a bunch of roughnecks who spoke every other word as a swear word. I can't say it hurt me by offending me, I'm not easily offended, but it rubbed off on me and I picked up the language. By the time I went to visit my family I was so used to using foul language I had to bite my tongue a few times as some of the bad habits I'd picked up almost slipped out. And it took me some time and effort to stop using foul language once I had picked it up.

So I can't agree that "naughty words cannot hurt you", they caused problems for me and I'm glad ATS discourages them, especially for the sake of the children on ATS, since they are the most impressionable and therefore it probably hurts them the most.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by civilchallengerWhat about the kids on ATS?

Do we want to desensitize them to foul language and raise them to have gutter mouths?


Your kids are going to hear the word # a few times in there life, it is the parents job to explain to them that these words are not always acceptable.

And who in the # would let there child surf ATS ? A F bomb here and there would be the last of my concerns.

edit on 16-4-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
And who in the # would let there child surf ATS ? A F bomb here and there would be the last of my concerns.
What are you so concerned about kids seeing on ATS aside from profanity? It's supposed to be a family friendly site. I'm not trying to shield kids from controversial topics. And sure they'll be exposed to profanity but I don't want to encourage it or see them exposed to even more of it.

Regarding what sites parents let their kids surf, some parents install parental control internet filtering software like this:
www.netnanny.com...
It blocks porn sites, hate sites, etc, but I'm not aware that it blocks ATS, I don't see why it should, unless they change the T&C to start allowing foul language which I don't think they'll do.

I recently found myself tempted to say WTF and I actually posted "What the...?" instead. The reader can fill in the blank with "heck" or whatever they want to. It's not that hard to control yourself and it basically communicates the same thing.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It blocks porn sites, hate sites, etc, but I'm not aware that it blocks ATS, I don't see why it should, unless they change the T&C to start allowing foul language which I don't think they'll do


I don't think ATS should be blocked but I do think threads which are prejudice against a certain community, or communities, would sanction that type of action.

Too many anti-X threads for the sake of controversy.

If a trans-gendered paraplegic pregnant Jedi wants to wear their robes whilst on jury duty for a man being charged with the crime of being a Afro-American Jew who hates Obama because he thinks he's Muslim then there shouldn't be so many knee-jerk threads created which blame the communities these people belong to for their actions as oppose to the people themselves.

-m0r



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Doesn't this address that concern:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Consider this post as FAIR WARNING that the staff and owners of AboveTopSecret.com will be following the T.A.C. to the letter and we are implementing a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on ALL hate speech.


Hate speech is one of the things parental control software filters out (or tries to) and ATS is trying to keep it off the site (or tries to).



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not against you Arbitrageur, but I think we can all say with some certainty that it does occur and last longer than it should.

As an amusing anecdote, last year (or the year before) I posted an April fools of a "Genuine UFO, up close footage, in focus" or something to that affect. It was moved to BTS within 10 mins - which is fair enough.

Threads about why the X are the cause of all things wrong with the world (and which don't state anything more than my foolish prank) have been going for weeks before finally being pulled.

I'm not saying that through these heated conflict threads some resolution isn't found - often many people do a double take on their perceptions. It is not family friendly though and brings a lot of bias hate speech into a conversation which would be better suited to a board about that particular type of outlook.

It's not an easy balance on ATS to keep people interested, allowing topics which are close to the bone for many people and keeping emotions under control - but ATS does do a decent job of it. There are though those who take their outlooks and whether before ATS, through ATS or after ATS go and kill people in real life. These people are fed hate and prejudice here and I can't tolerate that permeating beyond the fictional, fantasy or hypothetical realm into the real.

Now I generally keep to the UFO and Aliens forum but the fantasy that is allowed to go on there whilst a critical mind is scolded publicly, and within seconds, shows disparity about topic management and how it is handled.

This might seem far from WTF etc. But the term UFO, believer and sceptic are also bandied about as if they hold more weight than they actually do and unless policy is brought up upon it the community will mold these terms to suit their own needs (no bad thing in my book).

But lies are lies and those who help hide them are just as accountable as those who perpetrated them.

Goodness I've gone all over the place in this post - Sorry Arb.

-m0r



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Maybe you'll have the effect you're looking for in that the snippage that goes on will get hot and heavy, warns will be issued for repeat offenders and the staff, in their avid determination to rid the site of wtf's and shtf's will begin banning those who, even after repeated warnings, dozens of U2U's and a general frustration, start a War on OMG's.


I think you mistake my motive. I dont care about the WT_'s. Its not my thread. Im just posting in it because I too have had an issue with words, which ones are ok, and their permissibility, and what the filter is supposed to be for. What I am telling you is just pure analysis. IF you want people to behave a certain way, consistently, the rule has to be enforced consistently, and you cannot send mixed messages. Its not a controversial idea. Parenting courses stress that, animal trainers stress that, employment law dictates that, etc. Good boundaries make for better behavior, and less resentment on the part of the people "busted." It really IS unfair to get in trouble for something that other people are getting away with.

The optimal solution depends on what the real motive in the "no cursing" rule is.

IF its to make sure ATS doesnt get screened out by other peoples filters, (to ensure it has wide view-ability) then a comprehensive filter would work. You just cannot punish people for using said filter if you want it to do its job. You punish people for using the filter, you are actually training them to avoid using the filter, which, as a by product, tends to provoke the creative spelling issue. You can even filter the WT_'s if so desired. Then all you have to do is punish filter circumventers, and no actual swear words hit your screen, ever, only #'s or whatever you choose. Since #'s have the same net effect as a *snip* (in both cases, people can speculate as to the word) you really lose nothing.

IF the motive is to make sure no one sees #'s on the screen and in their mind converts said # into a curse word, so as to make ATS more friendly to those who like to speculate on #'s and offend themselves, you have a more difficult and labor intensive task. But you could probably automate much of that too, if you created a filter that not only filtered the word but issued an automatic warning every time it did. At least then you would have consistency, and that would go a long way towards prevention. Perhaps you could offer a grace period of a month or so when the warnings were issued but not counted towards bannings or point deductions to get people used to the new system, or whatever.

Anyway, my goal is not to create more work for the mods. Its not my rule, Im not the one concerned about the language on the screen, and I dont personally have anything against "mods" in general, at all. I also dont have any problem with following rules, at all. All I want is to understand them, and for them to be applied fairly.

Pointing out that there is a reason a system that doesnt really work too well doesnt really work too well is not a personal attack. There is a LOT of creative swearing on this board and both mods and members alike partake.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What about the kids on ATS?

Do we want to desensitize them to foul language and raise them to have gutter mouths?


Do these children not have cable TV or go to movies? If their parents are so strict that they dont, I really dont see their parents letting them surf the net unsupervised.

What kids see and do not see should be the parents responsibility. If the parents had shielded their little angels appropriately, they would not have a clue what an # meant. You yourself have to have a vocabulary of swear words to fill in that blank. And if they already do.............................ATS isnt corrupting them. The deed is already done.




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join