Autocracy gone offensively bad

mattylad said:
Ah, this just goes to prove the rumors that BAS has mod privileges and his membership is outside the filter.
Click to expand...

That's a plausible explanation but I'll apply the old journalist's rule: never believe anything until it's been officially denied. :wink:

From my observations of old posts, it's apparent that the auto-censor doesn't actually replace the offending word; it only blocks the display. This would explain how a previously blocked word, namely "penis", is now visible. What's less obvious is why two other words, namely "pussy" and "fanny" are visible in BAS's post but not in mine, even though I've quoted his text word for word. :?
 
Moderator 8 said:
We accept that occasionally there will be words used in context which shouldn't be edited out, but unfortunately the auto censor doesn't understand context. It's the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
No, no, NO!

It is so far from the lesser of two evils that your post beggars belief.

It is more evil than any "unacceptable" use of a word can possibly be.

It is pernicious, it is dumbing down, it is an attack on the English language, and it is destructive.

That some words can be used in ways you would rather not is unfortunate, but it's something you must live with, and deal with appropriately, or leave alone.

Destroying the meanings of words which you do approve of is not, and can never be, the way to prevent the use of them to mean things which you disapprove of.

Telling people that they cannot use a long-established saying like "There's nowt so queer as folk", for example, is telling them that there is only one meaning of the word queer and that it is an unacceptable one.

i.e. you are trying to tell people that the dictionaries are wrong, and that the majority of what they say about that word should be ignored.

It's you who are wrong, and egregiously so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top