agreed
If I was to call anyone on Macrumors an actual whore.... I’ll get banned so what’s the point
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Censor "Whore"
- Thread starter faust
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
agreed
If I was to call anyone on Macrumors an actual whore.... I’ll get banned so what’s the point
This is an excellent point, although I think we should be questioning the censorship of those words you mentioned, not using the existence of current censorship as an justification to censor more words.
And then we have this:
Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists
The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.
www.sciencealert.com
Smarter people are more likely to use curse words
People who curse are smart as f—k! Intelligent people are more likely to swear than dumb folks, a new study claims. University of Rochester researchers asked 1,000 people about 400 everyday habits …
nypost.com
And then we have this:
Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists
The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.www.sciencealert.com
Smarter people are more likely to use curse words
People who curse are smart as f—k! Intelligent people are more likely to swear than dumb folks, a new study claims. University of Rochester researchers asked 1,000 people about 400 everyday habits …nypost.com
All I can say is **** *** **** **** and **** *****.
The reason for having mods is to moderate the conversation. Attacks by users against fellow users just turn a site into a toxic dump (e.g. World of Warcraft General Forums) and take away from actual conversation. I'd expect community managers, mods, et al to make sure the conversations stay civil. It's also their job to keep criminal activities off their site. No one would be "offended" if mods took down the instructions on how to cook Meth.
Auto censoring words is harmless as long as the list is short and specific.
Auto censoring words is harmless as long as the list is short and specific.
Unless forum member A is personally attacking / insulting member B by calling forum member A a whore, I see no reason for anyone else to be personally offended, much less censor the word at all times, because some people look to be offended.
In my opinion, one should take umbrage with the lack of substantive retort by some on the forum, who are choosing to be intellectually lazy, versus looking for a word to attach to a cross that one can lay upon.
Overall, the mods do a fine job of keeping the wheels turning. I see no reason to go looking to solve a problem that does not exist.
In my opinion, one should take umbrage with the lack of substantive retort by some on the forum, who are choosing to be intellectually lazy, versus looking for a word to attach to a cross that one can lay upon.
Overall, the mods do a fine job of keeping the wheels turning. I see no reason to go looking to solve a problem that does not exist.
I've called myself a tech whore several times on here.
We appreciate hearing from forum members about our decisions and choices, even when it's unlikely that everyone will agree. Here is some information that may clarify where we stand and how we make word-censorship decisions.
MacRumors applies censorship only to maintain a minimum level of decorum in forum threads and to prevent discussions from getting derailed by overly coarse language or language likely to upset forum readers or is intended merely to shock others. However, we don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and we know that censoring words can interfere with the way that some users might choose to express themselves. Luckily, we keep the automatically disallowed words to a minimum, and we expect that users can find alternative words to make their point.
As you know, users can report any post that they think breaks the rules, including for inappropriate language or personal insults, and the moderators will evaluate the post. Censoring specific words in advance (automatically) is a time-saver for the moderators when the outcome is known in advance. In other words, the automatic censoring system is appropriate when a word would always be removed by the moderators. The forum software keeps the word from appearing in the first place.
If the moderation outcome wouldn't always be the same, then the word doesn't belong on the censored-word list, and the moderators have to look at each reported case individually. Words that can be used, or have been used, both in acceptable ways and in unacceptable ways aren't suitable for automatically filtering. For example, the phrase "media whore" is accepted when talking about public figures, but calling another forum member a whore of any kind violates the rules. We don't censor the word "whore" because we don't think the word, or phrases that use it, are necessarily upsetting to a typical forum member, likely to ruin discussions, or always in violation of forum rules.
MacRumors applies censorship only to maintain a minimum level of decorum in forum threads and to prevent discussions from getting derailed by overly coarse language or language likely to upset forum readers or is intended merely to shock others. However, we don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and we know that censoring words can interfere with the way that some users might choose to express themselves. Luckily, we keep the automatically disallowed words to a minimum, and we expect that users can find alternative words to make their point.
As you know, users can report any post that they think breaks the rules, including for inappropriate language or personal insults, and the moderators will evaluate the post. Censoring specific words in advance (automatically) is a time-saver for the moderators when the outcome is known in advance. In other words, the automatic censoring system is appropriate when a word would always be removed by the moderators. The forum software keeps the word from appearing in the first place.
If the moderation outcome wouldn't always be the same, then the word doesn't belong on the censored-word list, and the moderators have to look at each reported case individually. Words that can be used, or have been used, both in acceptable ways and in unacceptable ways aren't suitable for automatically filtering. For example, the phrase "media whore" is accepted when talking about public figures, but calling another forum member a whore of any kind violates the rules. We don't censor the word "whore" because we don't think the word, or phrases that use it, are necessarily upsetting to a typical forum member, likely to ruin discussions, or always in violation of forum rules.
And some others have done the same about themselves.
If the mods censor the word, they are essentially stating that intent doesn't matter, much less textual context. And if that were to happen, that would go against their current modus operandi when handling complaints etc. They would be setting themselves up for further problems down the forum road, in my opinion.
Intent matters and it matters a lot.
The mods can't possibly get every intent right of posts that are made. There are subtle nuances that often times don't always translate properly to text. That is why it is so important to handle admonishment on a case by case basis, where the powers that be can assess intent based on the post(s) involved (noting proper context), along with posting history of the forum(s) members involved etc.
If any forum member is using the word whore to attack another forum member, the post involved should be reported so that the mods can address the situation. Problem solved.
For all intent and purposes, this forum is a place to communicate in an anonymous manner. Most of us don't personally know each forum member we respond to. As such, it can be easy (at times) to misunderstand one another. That is why I do my best to take in to consideration the posting history of the member involved. Is he or she purposefully trying to insult me, (directly or passive aggressively) or is the forum member not fully understanding what I am trying to convey?
If an anonymous forum member seeks to attack me, that isn't going to truly bother me, outside of reporting the post(s), so that the forum can keep operating as it should.
Life is too short to give a rude anonymous stranger (on the forum) power over me, by allowing their words to cause me grief or angst in some way, thus affecting my forum life and personal life. If that were to ever happen, that would be a sign for me to take a step back from the internet for a while, and get proper balance back in my life.
Last edited:
Yeah the current culture of sex-negative, self-declared moral authority utopianists waste their lives trying to sanitize everyone else in the world until their perception of reality resembles a padded room. Again. As if it's a new idea. Oh but this time it's cloaked in psych 101 flimflam. It was in the 80s too, and millions of people paid with their lives for the best intentions of the anti-sex crusaders. Not a fan. Sex is one of the few truly positive and healthy and beautiful things you can spend your time doing with another person in this world. Whores provide it for those in dire need and are the closest things to actual living saints we have. OP, quit slutshaming, get out of the latent 80s moral panic culture and enlighten yourself.
I could not care less if the word gets censored. I can see where people might not like reading that someone they admire is considered by others to be "a media whore" for instance. Sorry to use the word "snowflake" but... seriously? Anyway bumping into "media *****" in context doesn't smooth out the opinion very much, does it.
However I do find your proffered reason not to censor the word "whore" fairly laughable, mostly because I keep running into the expression "media whore" with respect to a certain highly placed US public servant, but the object of the slur --and it is a slur, I grant you that-- is not a woman.
Yes, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck"... But hey, it's not always a chick... So, and further to your rather offputting remark about "certain woman" (sic), bring that whole 2nd paragraph of your post into PRSI and at least a few members will probably leap to discuss it with you, whether or not the word "whore" gets filtered.
I will just reiterate that in these forums I've most often seen the word "whore" used in the sense of prostituting one's core principles to something or to some group --e.g. a corporation, the media-- in return for what is self-perceived as valuable enough: fame or fortune or preferably both. Since that seems to fit fairly within the traditional literary meaning of the word "whore" anyway, regardless of gender, I don't really see a reason to filter it from the forums.
If the word is used as an insult to another member, then the person who uses it could likely experience moderation over the insult, no matter if the word was filtered or not. I mean one can't just call another member a "filtered word"... the intent to insult would be obvious.
Oh, you've met my wife then?
I generally agree, but there are a select few words where I think it’s fine to essentially take offense on others’ behalf and censor on a forum, specifically certain epithets targeting inborn traits like race and sexuality. Whore’s certainly not included in that.