What is the impact of randomly censored words on TV?

[TheStatutoryApe]

On this planet where people haven't heard of Farrah Fawcett or Princess Bride, can we count on them knowing who George Carlin was? :tongue:

Well where I come from Carlin was an great and influencial philosopher who pioneered Frisbeetarianism (may his soul rest snuggly upon the roof!).

 

[skeptic2]

Well the short answer is that not all persons on this forum are "highly educated" adults. We have members as young as 13 or 14 (I do not remember the actual age limit). I believe even Greg Bernhardt, our humble host, was in high school when he started this forum as a project for school.

My point is that when these words are being discussed in an appropriate manner as opposed to using them to offend, why should they be censored? I trust that even 13 or 14 year olds are capable of participating in such a discussion.

 

[JaredJames]

My point is that when these words are being discussed in an appropriate manner as opposed to using them to offend, why should they be censored? I trust that even 13 or 14 year olds are capable of participating in such a discussion.

Firstly, you assume people give their real age when signing up so you can never be sure of the actual audience you have.

The amount of people who use these words, although the meaning is known to them, they will use them in silly phrases like shouting "F*** You". It is meaningless in the context they use it in. If you do not moderate on things like these forums you end up with arguments turning into slanging matches with people throwing in random and meaningless swears. To expose anyone to this isn't nice. I don't want to see language like that in what should be a civilised debate. Yes it should be allowed in a discussion such as this, but who would regulate it? How would you run a system for doing it?

 

[skeptic2]

Firstly, you assume people give their real age when signing up so you can never be sure of the actual audience you have.

Not so.

The amount of people who use these words, although the meaning is known to them, they will use them in silly phrases like shouting "F*** You". It is meaningless in the context they use it in. If you do not moderate on things like these forums you end up with arguments turning into slanging matches with people throwing in random and meaningless swears. To expose anyone to this isn't nice. I don't want to see language like that in what should be a civilised debate.

Is there any difference between offending someone by using a prohibited word and offending someone without using a prohibited word? I assume either would get you banned. Why make the word the issue rather than the message?

Yes it should be allowed in a discussion such as this, but who would regulate it?

The Mentors of course, who else?

How would you run a system for doing it?

If someone makes an offensive comment you ban him, easy.

 

[JaredJames]

So you want to increase their workload by making them read every post? (Don't say just the reported ones because what if someone doesn't report a 'dodgy' post?) Secondly, the odds of a discussion like this coming up are slim, so they would end up censoring loads as most uses would be as profanity.

 

[protonchain]

Balance is always tough for parents and I guess censorship helps ease the pain of raising their child on good foundations. However I have noted that friends and I (and even other people my age-ish) will tend to blurt out swears at the wrong time in public and a lot of it has accidentally occurred when parents are with their young kids.

So no matter what they are not completely safe. They may say "TV is rotting your brain and putting bad images into your head, so go outside" and then face this aforementioned dilemma.

Do you guys think that parents have no excuse though, now that TV show ratings clearly indicate the level of liberal content on the program?

 

[Pupil]

I used mainstream media because I find it's always better be specious rather than general. The principle applies to society as a whole. These are topics that society feels should be left to the parents to introduce to their children.

I would like to know why these topics are something society wants to leave to the parents to introduce. Rather than shelter a child or young adult from these things for their parents to awkwardly explain (or, most likely, never explain), wouldn't it be a better society to live in where there really aren't any dirty words? Where the s word is looked upon as simply another way to say fecal matter, no more or less offensive than the word fecal matter itself? Where copulation is just a biological procedure for reproducing? Where killing is the morally impermissible act of taking another conscious being's life? At least, so far as I've reasoned about it, this seems like a better way to live than drawing imaginary lines between the hundreds of thousands of words and a select seven, etc.

Yes. Big issue. Lots of concern there, no question. A really tough balance.

But look at what you're implying: "since we can't stop chidlrfen from seeing murder and violence, let's not bother trying to control it".

If that's what I'm implying, I'll take the time to explain that such a solution isn't my intention. Instead I would say, if we can't stop children from seeing murder and violence, why don't we educate them about the subject rather than keep them ignorant? I'm not saying since censorship isn't working we should give up. I'm saying instead of censor, we educate.

 

[Hurkyl]

skeptic2: The convenience of having an automated tool that censors the typical usage outweighs¹ the inconvenience of the rare circumstances where the automated tool causes a problem.

(You give me the impression that you are willfully missing that point -- an impression that reflects poorly upon you)

I've not really known anyone to get in trouble for side stepping the filter.

I (generally) have zero tolerance for it in the math subforums (my domain); however, it rarely comes up there.



1: or so it has been judged

 

[JaredJames]

skeptic2: The convenience of having an automated tool that censors the typical usage outweighs¹ the inconvenience of the rare circumstances where the automated tool causes a problem.

(You give me the impression that you are willfully missing that point -- an impression that reflects poorly upon you)


I (generally) have zero tolerance for it in the math subforums (my domain); however, it rarely comes up there.



1: or so it has been judged

A beautiful post there.

 

[ideasrule]

I've seen quite a few heated debates on this forum, but none of them have degenerated into ruthless name-calling. It's hard to imagine a person saying "F you" because another person does not agree with string theory or with Bell's inequalities; using a swear word like that has no benefits in an intellectual debate. Some people say that this forum would become chaotic without the filter, but where's the evidence?

 

[junglebeast]

In what movie made for children do they force another person to eat their brains while they are still alive, or chop them into pieces with a chain saw, rip their teeth out while still alive, stab them in the esophagus and then take pleasure out of watching them choke to death on their own blood?

Brain eating from the Hannibal lecter series. The Saw, chainsaw massacre...I'm forgetting the name of the most recent one I saw which featured the pulling out of teeth and esophageal thing, but that's not really an uncommon theme, although taking painkillers in order to cut open your own chest with a bone saw after chaining your brother to the ceiling to watch you commit suicide was new. I would have to say that The Devil's Rejects was the most disturbing movie I've ever seen.

I don't like this kind of scene, but I don't like to walk out on a movie halfway into it either. These aren't movies targeted at little kids, but I do think they are mostly designed to appeal to the 16-19 age range, which is still very impressionable.

 

[ideasrule]

"Uh yeah, I'm going to smoke me a joint because it's illegal, not because it gets me high as a kite!"
Seriously, are you really telling me it's the illegality of it that makes people want to take drugs, not the fact it does something to them like get them high or give them a rush? If that's your reasoning, nobody would be drinking alcohol.

Ever heard of the forbidden fruit effect? That's perfectly applicable here. In addition, prohibiting a drug means its users must contact criminals to get it, and those criminals often introduce other, much more harmful drugs.

I'll grant that the hard data supporting this is not as strong as I previously thought, and it's possible that drug laws increase crime but not consumption rates. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_United_States), usage of cocaine and 2 of the most currently popular drugs increased manyfold after Nixon declared his war on drugs, but marijuana consumption may have decreased. During Prohibition, alcohol usage didn't go down and might have even gone up (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol ). I'll revise my claim that teenagers use drugs primarily because of their illegality to "a ban on drugs will certainly increase crime rate and may even increase consumption of the banned drugs."

WRT censorship, if a child hears a word on tv, say the F word, and then runs around a shop shouting it, because they don't know they shouldn't and don't have any understanding of it (although neither do many teens), it's embarassing for the parent and puts a bad light on them as a parent. Imagine your child running up to your boss and shout "f*** you", because they don't realize what they are saying.

Under which scenario do you think that behavior would be more likely:
(1) The child is introduced to the word by friends as some sort of exotic forbidden fruit, and has no idea what it means
(2) The child is introduced to the word by television and knows it is an insult, just like "stupid" or "dumb", except much worse

I'm not saying that (1) is the obvious answer, but (2) certainly isn't either.

Yes, I think a child should learn the words (and many other things) sooner rather than later (preferably not from inapropriate sources), but until they are able to comprehend exactly what they are saying and understand when they can and cannot use it, they shouldn't be exposed to them all the time. I think censorship of many things simply continues because of peoples views of the words or acts and they don't want their children exposed to them at all, leaving them to learn them from movies, friends and tv, which leads to a lot of inapropriate use.

I completely agree with you there. If parents want to keep children from hearing the F word until age 13 or something, it isn't happening. I'd be surprised if they can even make it to age 5.

 

[cristo]

Some people say that this forum would become chaotic without the filter, but where's the evidence?

I take it you're talking about censorship as a whole, and not just censorship here. Don't get the wrong idea that the PF rules on profanity are up for negotiation if someone provides evidence for or against your claim.

 

[DaveC426913]

I trust that even 13 or 14 year olds are capable of participating in such a discussion.

That is not your call to make. See the point?

 

[ideasrule]

I take it you're talking about censorship as a whole, and not just censorship here. Don't get the wrong idea that the PF rules on profanity are up for negotiation if someone provides evidence for or against your claim.

Did you mean to say that the rules could be up for negotiation, or that they're non-negotiable even if overwhelming evidence is presented against them?

Anyhow, I'm a Wikipedia editor, and Wikipedia has a strict no-censorship policy. We have plenty of heated debates, edit warring, and personal attacks, but swear words have never been a problem. Almost every editor considers them childish and ineffective. The only people who use them are vandals, and vandals who put "F you" on articles are the least of our worries; those who introduce false info in a subtle way are much more harmful. This is despite the fact that Wikipedia is in every way a more inclusive community than physicsforums; registration isn't even required to edit its articles.

If the swear word filter is disabled, it wouldn't make much of a difference. If it's kept on, it wouldn't make much of a difference either. My point is that censorship in this form is useless, not that the rules should be changed, but if you intended to say that the rules are absolutely non-negotiable, I'd strongly recommend you to reconsider this close-mindedness.

 

[Moonbear]

Of course I was talking about people who use the words appropriately, not inappropriately. Nevertheless this does answer one of my questions. It IS the arrangement of the letters that is important not the meaning associated with that arrangement...

Affirming that it is the arrangement of letters that is important and answering my question about what is accomplished by censoring the word but not the meaning - nothing.

If someone already knows the meaning, they can figure out what is meant with one or two letters. If they are still naive, hearing something called the "B word" isn't going to give them much of a clue. I think we can agree that the value of the site content is NOT in learning profanity, but in learning science. There's no reason to risk having a child denied access to the site or have a filter block the site on their computer because of a few words their parents would like them to learn later rather than sooner.

I used mainstream media because I find it's always better be specious rather than general. The principle applies to society as a whole. These are topics that society feels should be left to the parents to introduce to their children.

When talking about mainstream media, I'm less convinced about the role of censoring, simply because words will be censored even when very violent scenes are not. Why is it perceived to be worse to hear a few choice words than to watch violence enacted? Given a choice between the two, I'd prefer the violence be limited and the words permitted.

Is there any difference between offending someone by using a prohibited word and offending someone without using a prohibited word? I assume either would get you banned. Why make the word the issue rather than the message?

Indeed, that's the case here.

 

[cristo]

Did you mean to say that the rules could be up for negotiation, or that they're non-negotiable even if overwhelming evidence is presented against them?

I meant what I said; namely that the existence of the PF profanity filter isn't up for negotiation. The filter is not only to stop the forum getting chaotic (whether or not there is evidence for or against this), but is to allow everyone access to the website. As Moonbear mentions below, the profanity filter prevents the site being blocked by either parental filters, or filters that schools put on their internet connection. We want PF to be available to everyone; the advantages of allowing people to swear are greatly outweighed by the disadvantages.

Anyhow, I'm a Wikipedia editor, and Wikipedia has a strict no-censorship policy.

Fortunately, wikipedia is not something we are trying to emulate here!