Since it has been repeatedly adjudicated that calling one side of the political spectrum both losers and lunatics, it would seem that this statement is more wishful thinking than actual policy.
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.
Excessive & Vulgar Language
- Thread starter Bryan Bowler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A thing I have often seen in this thread - What's with the fixation on civil debate? Debating is one of the ugliest thing a human can do, imo one of the reasons that normal people hate politicians...
Normal people shouldn't "hate" politicians, as they are the public face of a representative democracy - and a reflection what the public have chosen. The alternatives, as we know from history, are far worse.
The fixation with "civil debate" is that it connotes a public space where differences in opinion are not silenced by rudeness, threats, online bullying, or outright violence.
The very concept of "civil debate" also suggests that respect can be - and ought to be - extended to those who disagree with you, and that the public space in question is large enough to allow for that, and to encourage it.
Try the fresh air of Appleinsider better quality articles and a minimum of boorish or troll posts as opposed to MR which is maximally skewed toward the most childish and pointless comments.
If you are online you need these userscripts too bad they don't work on a iPhone without stupid jailbreak and even Android is a mess. They work on Safari with OSX.
https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23624-profanity-filter
https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/19364-profanity-filter-static
Yes you need both as the one that does not say non static works on those comment and social media pages that update in real time. It works about 90% of the time except when some idiot spells a curse word with another misspelled word then it won't filter it but many just put the curse word and that's it.
It works here as the vulgar language here is nothing compared to other sites.
https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23624-profanity-filter
https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/19364-profanity-filter-static
Yes you need both as the one that does not say non static works on those comment and social media pages that update in real time. It works about 90% of the time except when some idiot spells a curse word with another misspelled word then it won't filter it but many just put the curse word and that's it.
It works here as the vulgar language here is nothing compared to other sites.
Wau, people installing profanity filters? The first thing I do everywhere is deactivating such junk x_X
I personally find "curse words" far less offensive than personal hate-filled attacks towards others.
This right here. You can be very insulting, degrading, demoralizing, condescending, and outright rude without having to utter a single profanity.
Indeed, can't agree more. I also agree with willmtaylor's Twain quote. Could have been me saying it!
Disable what. There is not a signal program, app or browser that lets me disable it. Also if you think Safe Search works then cursing does not bother me. About 90% of profanity I find online without trying comes from Google useless Safe search.
What's so wrong with the language of the common people anyway? The language of people seeing themselves above the common man is often just elitism.
vulgar = connected with or characteristic of the ordinary people in society, usually people who are not educated
vulgar = connected with or characteristic of the ordinary people in society, usually people who are not educated
Sounds like we are circling back to various things that have come up earlier in the thread, like at https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/excessive-vulgar-language.2016056/page-3#post-24213212 and various subsequent replies/posts (as well as some preceding ones).
Well perhaps this is the center of dissent between users of vulgar language and people against it...
"What is so wrong" is when it is used to make clear that the speaker, or writer, has no respect whatsoever for the person he or she is communicating with, and chooses to flag that by the deliberate use of foul, abusive and vulgar language, then, that is wrong.
When it (vulgar, or offensive, or coarse language) is used as a tool of abusive and deliberately offensive power, to silence, insult and intimidate, then, then, the use vulgar language is wrong.
And, when someone uses an abusive term to insult what their interlocutor is - insults based on ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, gender, - rather than what they stand for, debate and discussion become reduced to hostile insult.
Besides, why celebrate the vulgar? Why not try to be a bit better than that?
Last edited:
Totally that people should be able to use "their words" to make their case but resorting to profanity or vulgarity shows their lack of communication abilities and quite honestly, their intelligence level.
And there the called Elitism shows it's ugly head already
Oh please. The point is valid.
When one cannot effectively bring facts to support one's argument and must therefore deflect by leaning upon personal attacks and gratuitous, debased vocabulary, that is the epitome of ignorance.
The purpose of language is communication. When one cannot use said language for said purpose, an information void obviously exists.
It's not elitist; it's deductive reasoning based on the evidence presented. It's calling a spade a spade.
Perhaps they have (though I'm not sure that a self-fulfilling prophecy counts), but I have a question:
It's not elitist to call a poor driver a poor driver. It's not elitist to call a poor cook a poor cook. It's not elitist to call ME a bad dancer or a bad singer.
If the above are true (and they are), why would be labeled an elitist for calling someone a poor communicator?
"Elitist" inherently carries the implication of superiority, and while I've admittedly only had the stomach for a small portion of this thread, I haven't seen that.
One can choose to improve or be satisfied at lesser quality. As for me, I'm happy being an awful singer and dancer, but I wouldn't castigate those who call me as much if I choose to put it on display for all to see.
It's not elitist to call a poor driver a poor driver. It's not elitist to call a poor cook a poor cook. It's not elitist to call ME a bad dancer or a bad singer.
If the above are true (and they are), why would be labeled an elitist for calling someone a poor communicator?
"Elitist" inherently carries the implication of superiority, and while I've admittedly only had the stomach for a small portion of this thread, I haven't seen that.
One can choose to improve or be satisfied at lesser quality. As for me, I'm happy being an awful singer and dancer, but I wouldn't castigate those who call me as much if I choose to put it on display for all to see.
Perhaps they have, but I have a question:
It's not elitist to call a poor driver a poor driver. It's not elitist to call a poor cook a poor cook. It's not elitist to call ME a bad dancer or a bad singer.
If the above are true (and they are), why would be labeled an elitist for calling someone a poor communicator?
"Elitist" inherently carries the implication of superiority, and while I've admittedly only had the stomach for a small portion of this thread, I haven't seen that.
One can choose to improve or be satisfied at lesser quality. As for me, I'm happy being an awful singer and dancer, but I wouldn't castigate those who call me as much if I choose to put it on display for all to see.
Well said. It is always easy to place a label or name on someone or something when there is not a logical response. Instead of forming legitimate thoughts and arguments for a position, it is easier to call a name and move on. It is lazy and reflects poorly on those who engage in simplistic responses.
Take the time and form your thoughts. It adds to the dialog and may cause someone else to consider a viewpoint they may not have in the past.
Additionally, this has very little to do with the vulgar language itself. (Really, who gives a rat's ass.)
The issue at hand, rather, is when vulgarity is used solely or excessively and in the absence of sound, objective facts and dialogue.