Gratuitous use of curse / swear / vulgar words.

[abefroman329]

I personally am offended when someone categorizes someone for being overly religious because they don't want to hear profanity, watch movies with excessive violence, want men and women to dress decently and all around have people behave themselves in public.  It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and everything to do with I went to the store, I don't want to be bombarded with a drunk couple half-dressed yelling profanity at each other.

There are some situations where that behavior is tolerable.  Take a night club for example, but at the grocery store is not one of them.

If I describe someone as "Puritanical," I'm not implying any sort of religious devotion.  It's not like there's any shortage of atheists who love the patriarchy, for example.

And declaring yourself arbiter of who gets to wear what to an establishment and how they get to conduct themselves is pretty, well, Puritanical.

[ethanhopkin14]

That's chiefly because the Republican Party has tied itself to conservative Christianity since the 1980s.  Since that time, it has billed itself as the party that stands for conservative Christian values, therefore the line between politics and religion have gotten blurry in this country.  Elsewhere in the world, people are surprised to find out, politics and religion don't line up in the same way they do here.  I know some elderly Christians who have wondered out loud why the Democratic Party used to be the one conservative Christians were supposed to vote for, and now they're not;  part of the reason is that the Democratic Party has shifted quite far leftward during the intervening time, but the unspoken other reason is that the Republican Party wasn't quite the bed-buddy with conservative Christianity back then that it is now.

That is a good point to bring up.  There was a recent study about how many Democratic voters that were African-American decent.  The other thing they pointed out in this study is how very religious, as a whole, the African-American population is.  Of course it came with the inevitable, if Republicans (conservatives) are viewed as being the religious party, them why are there so many devote Christian voters voting Democratic (liberal)?

I also want to pivot from this.  I, like you, wanted to talk about it in code to intentionally not go down that rabbit hole!   

[vdeane]

The issues with YouTube are so numerous, that they really deserve a thread of their own.

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the inner workings of day-to-day YouTube, but as for me, I've been a pretty active user for almost ten years now. I watch videos, but I post videos as well. One of the worse things they have done lately was how they handled YouTube Kids and "Made for Kids" content. The changes that they made as a result of COPPA enforcement were terrible for certain communities (legitimate communities like animators, not talking about creeps going after children, they can get lost). If videos were deemed as "Made for Kids", you can't leave comments, you can't add them to playlists, you lose app background play on them, and monetization and recommendations are affected. In other words, YouTube becomes a glorified Google Drive page with little interaction.

I bring this up to  say that YouTube have no idea how to handle kids content and profanity. They have YouTube Kids as it's own app, but then subject everyone to these restrictions on random videos. It's an incredibly dumb system. Not to mention, their automatic detection is terrible. It even will mark videos WITH profanity or gore in them as for kids. Throw that on top of what we've already mentioned, and you end up with a very small window for certain creators to monetize their content.

If Google really cared, they'd apply the restrictions to kids accounts, not to videos marked as or deemed to be "for children".  Of course, this is really an act of malicious compliance specifically designed to punish the content creators in the hope that they'd lobby the government to repeal COPPA.

There shouldn't be these age restrictions at all for something like youtube to begin with. Google should drop the stone age censorship guidelines entirely. When I was a young teen I knew to set my birthday to 10 years older in my gmail account anyway.

COPPA has nothing to do with censorship.  It has to do with tracking.  Google tracks every user of YouTube (and all its other services) to sell advertising, but this tracking is illegal to do to children.  Rather than not track the profiles of the people they're not allowed to, they instead decided to disable it on the video side for everyone, specifically because they knew their content creators would get mad and lobby Congress for the repeal of the law (which failed).

[ethanhopkin14]

I personally am offended when someone categorizes someone for being overly religious because they don't want to hear profanity, watch movies with excessive violence, want men and women to dress decently and all around have people behave themselves in public.  It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and everything to do with I went to the store, I don't want to be bombarded with a drunk couple half-dressed yelling profanity at each other.

There are some situations where that behavior is tolerable.  Take a night club for example, but at the grocery store is not one of them.

If I describe someone as "Puritanical," I'm not implying any sort of religious devotion.  It's not like there's any shortage of atheists who love the patriarchy, for example.

And declaring yourself arbiter of who gets to wear what to an establishment and how they get to conduct themselves is pretty, well, Puritanical.

I never said they couldn't, I said I am offended and don't want to see it.  I can't stop anyone from doing anything.....

[abefroman329]

Is someone denying that?

In this thread?  Not that I'm aware of.  But this whole thread makes me think of a meme I once saw about people saying it's rude to put your elbows on the table while berating the server for making a mistake, and I don't want anyone to miss the forest for the trees.

And, of course, there's a certain irony in people insisting that you shouldn't use profanity because it might offend someone, while simultaneously thinking political correctness has gone too far and they should be able to use any slur they want to and if anyone is offended, well, fornicate their feelings.

[abefroman329]

I am offended and don't want to see it

Well, then it's up to you to decide if you want to go to the grocery store, when there's an X% chance you'll see something you don't want to see.

[kphoger]

well, fornicate their feelings.

Oh man, that's a gem!  I'm going to have to start using that one...

[abefroman329]

well, fornicate their feelings.

Oh man, that's a gem!  I'm going to have to start using that one...

If you need another one, I once heard "commit a physical impossibility" as a euphemism for, you know, telling someone to GFY.

[kphoger]

And declaring yourself arbiter of who gets to wear what to an establishment and how they get to conduct themselves is pretty, well, Puritanical.

I personally have nothing wrong with people going around completely naked if they want.  But I don't consider people who disagree with me about that to be 'puritanical'.

And, for what it's worth, I fully support the right of a private business to set its own dress code.

[ethanhopkin14]

I am offended and don't want to see it

Well, then it's up to you to decide if you want to go to the grocery store, when there's an X% chance you'll see something you don't want to see.

No, I wish as a society we were as evolved as we were 40 years ago and everyone realized there are things you shouldn't say or do in mixed company. 

[mgk920]

At the very least, Christians should not be taking the name of the Lord in vain. It's more of specific use cases though, since obviously "God" isn't inherently a profane word to use.

Jews, too, that section is in the Torah.

Mike

[Scott5114]

I'm far more concerned by the gratuitous use of the words Jade and Sault Sainte John Madden among today's youth than I am swear words.

[abefroman329]

And declaring yourself arbiter of who gets to wear what to an establishment and how they get to conduct themselves is pretty, well, Puritanical.

I personally have nothing wrong with people going around completely naked if they want.  But I don't consider people who disagree with me about that to be 'puritanical'.

That's fair.

And, for what it's worth, I fully support the right of a private business to set its own dress code.

Provided it doesn't have a disparate impact on a particular class (school dress codes tend to be much more restrictive for female students than male students, and dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities), I do too.  "No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes perfect sense from a hygiene standpoint.

[abefroman329]

I am offended and don't want to see it

Well, then it's up to you to decide if you want to go to the grocery store, when there's an X% chance you'll see something you don't want to see.

No, I wish as a society we were as evolved as we were 40 years ago and everyone realized there are things you shouldn't say or do in mixed company.

I know a lot of women who would think it's hilarious that they need men to protect them from profanity.

And let's not lose sight of what it was completely legal to do to women, back in those halcyon days when men stood up when a woman entered the room.

[kphoger]

I'm far more concerned by the gratuitous use of the words Jade and John Madden among today's youth than I am swear words.

Allow me to point out, as I don't believe anyone has yet, that Jade is a four-letter word.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes perfect sense from a hygiene standpoint.

Not to me, it doesn't.  The bottoms of my shoes are not hygienic in the slightest.  In fact, requiring people to remove their shoes before entering the store would make more sense to me from a hygiene standpoint.  The real reason such policies were introduced is that it kept the hippies out.  The real reason such policies persist is that it prevents lawsuit-likely injuries from occurring.

As for shirts...  I can't think of any good reason for a store to require that its customers wear a shirt.

[ethanhopkin14]

I am offended and don't want to see it

Well, then it's up to you to decide if you want to go to the grocery store, when there's an X% chance you'll see something you don't want to see.

No, I wish as a society we were as evolved as we were 40 years ago and everyone realized there are things you shouldn't say or do in mixed company.

I know a lot of women who would think it's hilarious that they need men to protect them from profanity.

To that point, I have often pointed out that I grew up in an age when I would hear the older generations tell people being vulgar, "Clean it up, there are women and children present" and would think of the girls I went to school and say, "those girls are way more vulgar than the boys."  I'll one up you, my wife would be one of the women that would laugh at you if you said that someone needs to clean up their language around her.  She also doesn't like people to be profane in mixed company.  Again, "offended" doesn't mean I am on the verge of dying from the shock, but just means I am disappointed how people don't seem to care anymore about watching their mouths.

And let's not lose sight of what it was completely legal to do to women, back in those halcyon days when men stood up when a woman entered the room.

So, there was something ghastly legal to do to women in 1983 that you can't do now?  I also don't recall that being a time that people stood up when a woman entered the room; the older generation maybe.

I'll even push it to the early 90's.  Gansta rap was new and it was a big deal that the albums were sold with as much foul language as there was and the Parental Advisory label on them.  It was obvious then that people were thinking even as recent as then, "people will buy these foul CDs and play them in the car in public so everyone can hear them"?  The very overt cursing just wasn't as socially acceptable then. 

[Scott5114]

When I was working OTB there was a sweet old man that was one of our regulars named James. If I was the only one working, he'd come up to the counter and tell me dirty jokes. But he never would if my female coworkers were around. I told them about this, so sometimes when James came to the counter they would try to get him to tell them the dirty jokes, but he was scandalized by the thought. The female coworkers were just bummed out they didn't get to hear the dirty jokes straight from James and had to get a readback from me.

[abefroman329]

Not to me, it doesn't.  The bottoms of my shoes are not hygienic in the slightest.

I'm sure you have; in fact, I'm so sure you have, I hesitate to even ask the question, but...Have you ever seen the soles of someone who never wears shoes, ever?

In fact, requiring people to remove their shoes before entering the store would make more sense to me from a hygiene standpoint.

Could be - my dentist has a new COVID policy where you have to remove your shoes and put on a sanitized pair of Crocs when you enter, but I'm not sure if that's related to the fact that the staff spend a significant amount of time at eye level with patients' shoes.  The real reason such policies were introduced is that it kept the hippies out.  The real reason such policies persist is that it prevents lawsuit-likely injuries from occurring.

As for shirts...  I can't think of any good reason for a store to require that its customers wear a shirt.

Fair.

[hbelkins]

I'm surprised that this hasn't yet been noted in this thread -- this forum used to have a rule against the gratuitous use of profanity. The rule was quietly withdrawn at some point, without explanation that I can remember. Some discussion of the rule's absence came up later when another rule change was discussed.

[abefroman329]

When I was working OTB there was a sweet old man that was one of our regulars named James. If I was the only one working, he'd come up to the counter and tell me dirty jokes. But he never would if my female coworkers were around. I told them about this, so sometimes when James came to the counter they would try to get him to tell them the dirty jokes, but he was scandalized by the thought. The female coworkers were just bummed out they didn't get to hear the dirty jokes straight from James and had to get a readback from me.

Kinda reminds me of when I was driving for Uber and more than one "bro" would enter the car, and one would have to brag to the other about his sexual conquests/how young his girlfriend was/what have you.  My wife also drove for Uber and didn't really encounter conversations like that (she did have one experience where 3-4 bros were trying to work out how women put on/take off rompers, and whether there are snaps at the bottom like there are on onesies for babies, but the bro who ordered the ride apologized profusely and gave her five stars), but I sure as shit didn't want to hear their stories, either.

And one of my last passengers, I told her all that, and she responded "whenever I run into someone like that, I just respond 'well, I know I'm impressed!'" and that's good advice.

[Scott5114]

I'm surprised that this hasn't yet been noted in this thread -- this forum used to have a rule against the gratuitous use of profanity. The rule was quietly withdrawn at some point, without explanation that I can remember. Some discussion of the rule's absence came up later when another rule change was discussed.

As has been mentioned before when this was brought up, that's because the original forum ruleset was copied wholesale from another forum. That rule was never enforced here (it was on the books while Jake was head admin, in case you needed proof of that) so it was deleted to make de facto and de jure one and the same in this particular case.

[abefroman329]

Again, "offended" doesn't mean I am on the verge of dying from the shock, but just means I am disappointed how people don't seem to care anymore about watching their mouths.

I think that just comes with the territory when you have a population that is much freer than it was decades ago.  I hear a lot of people reminisce about the days when people dressed up to go to the grocery store, for example, and I don't know how you get back to that without all of the coercion that was in place.

So, there was something ghastly legal to do to women in 1983 that you can't do now?

Quite a few things, yes.

[ethanhopkin14]

Again, "offended" doesn't mean I am on the verge of dying from the shock, but just means I am disappointed how people don't seem to care anymore about watching their mouths.

I think that just comes with the territory when you have a population that is much freer than it was decades ago.  I hear a lot of people reminisce about the days when people dressed up to go to the grocery store, for example, and I don't know how you get back to that without all of the coercion that was in place.

Or get in a suit or dress to go to the airport.  Now people fly in their pajamas. 

So, there was something ghastly legal to do to women in 1983 that you can't do now?

Quite a few things, yes.

Like?  I don't want to hear about antiquated laws that stayed on the books because some scrivener never got around to striking that law from the books. 

[webny99]

I actually don't feel as comfortable with other people if they don't swear. People who don't swear are people who put on airs, and judge against others for baseless reasons- or they simply fear becoming the victim of this judgment. But I prefer to surround myself with people who don't need to make up reasons to feel superior to other people.

And it's rather bold of you to speak for "the rest of us." That kind of indicates that you've only ever met one type of person.

I would like to point out the juxtaposition here: in the earlier quote, you're speaking for others and indicating that you've only ever met one type of person (while also making a demonstrably false blanket statement, but that's besides the point).

I never did speak for "the rest of us" as if everyone else was rallying against the other person's point, though. That was a weird thing to do, especially when others have been agreeing with me.

When I said you're speaking for others, what I meant was you're making a lot of assumptions about others:

Not swearing = putting on airs - rarely to never true
Not swearing = judging against others - rarely to never true
Not swearing = fearing becoming the victim of judgment - not always true
Not swearing = making up reasons to feel superior to others - rarely to never true

People who condemn another for the words they use could be looking for more important red flags.

I guess I'm not really sure what this means. I didn't mention anything about condemning anyone for using foul language, only that I don't agree with using it myself and would prefer if others didn't in a public setting -- but at some point pretty much everyone does something I don't like or don't agree with. That's just life, and that doesn't mean it's up to me to condemn or pass judgment.

Please provide examples of how else to express anger without offending people.  The anger itself is the thing people don't want to see; the varying means of expressing it are only offensive because they indicate the unsightly anger.  Using words is relatively innocuous, compared to abject insults, denigration, or physical demonstrations. Our society has an unfortunate grudge against any displays of emotion.

Actions are always more impactful than words. We ought to pay more attention to the actions of people, rather than words, when evaluating their character.  If I can get away with blowing off steam through words before I start acting on my anger or frustration in other ways, that's what I'm going to do every time I possibly can, to avoid impacting other people significantly!  If bad language is the worst behavior you've encountered from another person, let me tell you it can get way, way worse.

I certainly agree that actions are more impactful than words. And absolutely it's better to express anger with words and yell and shout rather than doing any physical harm - but all I'm saying is you don't have to use profanity to do so. There are plenty of interesting language alternatives that you could use that are a lot more original and fun to say and less overused - and are guaranteed not to offend anyone. And of course I'm talking mostly in public here, I don't think anyone cares what you say if it's not for all to hear.

[JayhawkCO]

So, there was something ghastly legal to do to women in 1983 that you can't do now?

Quite a few things, yes.

Like?  I don't want to hear about antiquated laws that stayed on the books because some scrivener never got around to striking that law from the books.

In a good amount of states, no-fault divorce wasn't a thing in 1983, meaning that a woman would have to prove abuse to leave an abusive marriage.