this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
92 points (60.1% liked)
Fediverse memes
1728 readers
54 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
Specific
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I suppose i don't see the point.
The reader knows what you censored either way, so by using the words and then censoring them you don't achieve your implied preference for reducing vulgarity in communication (so it might be more impactful and irregular when applied) at all.
Anyone who reads "forking shut" knows what you are writing there in reality. Kinda feels to me like putting on censored porn to make it family friendly, that's not working. Either watch a family movie, or some actual porn in private.
The only reasonable course of action would be to avoid vulgarity and those stand-ins for it completely in your communication.
I brought this up recently. Talking around a topic is still talking about it. If you want to have an adult conversation, use adult words. No one is requiring you to curse at all, but if you’re going to, treat the audience as the age you’re targeting.
Fonk yes! Hey, why can't I say "fonk"? What the hell is going on here? Oh, hey, there's one!
The proper term is "forking shirt" and you should be ashamed for writing anything different.
You're missing the point. The fact you're inferring that the writer is trying to "sneak a meaning past", or "reduce vulgarity", or "make it family friendly" is all assumptions.
They want to. That's it. Stop word-policing people...
See my response down below. I dont police, I'm just saying there is a logical inconsistency here. You want to swear, then do. You dont like it, then don't. Using censored swears accomplishes neither.
It's. Not. Censorship. I really can't be any clearer than that. Censorship is when your intended words or ideas are suppressed. No matter how many downvotes OP receives, it changes nothing. All words are made up, and if you think they should use different made-up words, then yes you fucking are word-policing.
Why are you putting words into my mouth? I never said or even suggested there is a government or so at play here suppressing ideas.
There is just a logical inconsistency in the whole concept, and also in OPs reasoning, which for arguments sake i take offense with. In truth i, again, dont don't really give a shit how he writes, or you for that matter.
The reasoning is irrelevant. Those are the words the person is choosing to use, and no one is in any way negatively affected by it.
I mean, I'm not policing your words here, write how you want what do I care.
But you brought up the reasoning yourself, and when I find it flawed your response is "I don't need a reason".
Where? Their whole post is just "let people say what they want to say". You're the one trying to force them to justify it or fit your weird rubric.
They did say they're in favour of not "carpet bombing f-bombs" which does sound like they'd prefer less vulgarity and they ~~censor any curse word in order to achieve that.~~ see censoring curse words as a way to achieve that.
Edit: clarity
Stating their personal preference isn't a "reasoning". Do you also think someone that wears a blue shirt is "reasoning" that everyone should wear blue shirts forever?
They mentioned their preference in context of their thesis ("it's perfectly fine to censor curse words") so I can't help but understand it as meant to support that thesis.
I think it was more of an example of why someone would want to use censored curses without it having any wierd reasoning like religion or something. Just an illustration that censored curses are not necessarily evil. That's an important context. But it's just context, not the basis of the point. The point was: don't tell people what words they should use, it's not your business.
And the reaction to that was "it doesn't work like how you think it works".
Look man, you can say potato means underwear all you want, but if you start saying you're wearing potato under your pants people are going to look at you weird. You are not the only party involved in communication, and thus your preferences are only part of the equation, and people will interpret and process your words based on conventions, not just your personal thoughts on the matter.