Gratuitous use of curse / swear / vulgar words.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Youtube already has a Kids-only area (though the content there is probably worse for their development than a bit of profanity, but that's another topic). Trying to make the entire platform into a kids zone is bullshit.

No, It has an area for preschoolers. There is clearly a place that is between YouTubeKids and what we see in YouTube

There is literally no excuse for the censorship crap YouTube pulls. Disabling dislikes, ghosting replies, making you sign in to watch certain videos, arbitrary age restrictions, banning users by the thousands for commenting against government policies, allowing toxic comments but deleting politically incorrect ones, and asking people to submit credit card info to verify age (no way I was going to do that so just created a fake account) the list goes on and on. Most of the content is fine for any age group. Personally, the thing that annoys me most is when music videos are the only type of videos that can't play picture-in-picture, like, those are the only type of videos you would want to play in the small window, so you can listen while doing other things on your device.

[US 89]

Would you say it in front of your grandma? Would you say it in front of your grandchild? Would you say it to the CEO  or Executive Director of your work organization / company? Would you say it over a microphone in a corporate setting? Would you say it amongst a group of strangers in your hometown?

People need to read the room. I was in a meeting a few years ago when a presenter dropped the f-bomb as casually as one might say "asphalt" or "bridge" or any other road-related word. In the meeting -- a small group of probably around 20 people -- there was a pastor, the wife of a pastor, and several devout Christians. A number of people expressed their shock at him for using that word without knowing the audience.

I purposely skipped Religious leaders and persons who practice their faith devoutly because that in itself evokes religion which in itself is very contentious.  While the religious will vocally respond, they are far from the only ones who are uncomfortable with the casual use of profanity.

And on the other hand, I know several religious people who swear like sailors on their own time or with friends. That includes the 70-year-old pastor at the Presbyterian church I grew up going to.

[JoePCool14]

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.

[US 89]

YouTube's mechanism for copyright claims is also horrendous.

My brother is a classical pianist and often uploads videos of his work, which almost always is public domain music because it was written 100-200+ years ago. Almost everything he posts gets instantly demonetized because a bot files a copyright claim on it, usually to another channel where someone else (usually with a Russian name) played the same piece.

You can challenge a copyright claim, but if they deem your challenge invalid, you get a strike. After three strikes, your entire channel gets deleted. Those stakes are way too high, especially when you don't even know if it's even a real human (much less someone actually familiar with copyright law) making those decisions.

[kphoger]

And on the other hand, I know several religious people who swear like sailors on their own time or with friends. That includes the 70-year-old pastor at the Presbyterian church I grew up going to.

I'm not even sure what swearing has to do with Christianity anyway, other than that the Bible exhorts Christians to not use 'unwholesome' speech, which likely means subject matter more than it means word choice.

I think it's just that there's enough overlap between 'devout Christian' and 'doesn't use bad language', that we just assume the latter comes from the former.

[Scott5114]

Meanwhile, the rest of us prefer to surround ourselves with people who use respectful language.

Isn't respect conveyed through the message and not the word choice, though?

I feel more respected when my current boss says my work is "fucking incredible" than I did when my last one used paragraphs upon paragraphs of business language with no swear words to say that I can't be trusted to know how often to use the cash machine by myself.

[Bruce]

I wonder how many of the "profanity is unacceptable" types love themselves some football. Because boy do they use a lot of profanity.

An example: Kirby Smart's locker room speech during the College Football Playoffs Championship.

https://twitter.com/blakejmorgan/status/1612654820858494976

[kphoger]

Isn't respect conveyed through the message and not the word choice, though?

It's conveyed by both.  There are several aspects to language, and word choice is one of them.  The words you choose to convey your message affects how your message is received.

I feel more respected when my current boss says my work is "fucking incredible" than I did when my last one used paragraphs upon paragraphs of business language with no swear words to say that I can't be trusted to know how often to use the cash machine by myself.

It sounds to me like your boss's word choice affected how well respect was conveyed.  I'm pretty sure that those two options are not the only ones available to a boss.

When my own boss says something like 'fucking incredible', I agree that it can convey respect–at least to me.  But not necessarily to everyone within earshot:  there may be others in the room who would hear that and think that she doesn't even consider them worth watching her language for.

Pretending or insisting that the use of offensive language should not negatively affect the people who hear it is a gross misunderstanding of how language functions in society.

[kphoger]

After further reflection, it occurred to me...

Do you know what shows me even more respect than my boss saying 'You guys have been doing fucking amazing'?  My boss apologizing afterward, and then striving to avoid swearing around us in the future–which my current actual boss has done and does.

And do you know what shows me more respect as a father than someone telling me I'm 'a fucking awesome dad'?  That same person catching himself right before dropping the f-bomb in front of my kids, then saying something else instead.

Respect is shown by making a noticeable, concerted effort to be considerate to the other person–more so than by attempting to treat the other person as merely your equal.

[thspfc]

To me the worst use of the F word - and one of the most common on the internet - is when someone thinks it makes their argument punctual, stronger, and/or more edgy. The word has been watered down to mean basically nothing, so it's silly to think that using it will improve your side of an argument.

[Scott5114]

To me the worst use of the F word - and one of the most common on the internet - is when someone thinks it makes their argument punctual, stronger, and/or more edgy.

Maybe that's why I instinctively say "fuck" a lot when I'm running late.

[kphoger]

For what it's worth, I've found that 'freaking' conveys the exact same amount of force/emphasis as the real f-bomb, yet it's much more socially acceptable.  Maybe your experience is different than mine, but they're functionally equivalent to me.

Just a small step down from that, and even more kid-friendly, is 'stinking'.

[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.

[MultiMillionMiler]

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.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, but the thing is, Google controls the service and you don't, so why should they care what you want? The only way to enact meaningful change in such a company is to Silver Slipper it.

[paulthemapguy]

But I prefer to surround myself with people who don't need to make up reasons to feel superior to other people.

Meanwhile, the rest of us prefer to surround ourselves with people who use respectful language.

The urge to punch back against my original comment speaks for itself.
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. What one person considers "respectful" is subjective. If it hinges more upon what words someone chooses than a choice to support their peers and an avoidance of insults, violence, and abuse, that's a pretty poor idea of what is/isn't respectful, in my opinion. If someone is deemed irredeemable to you just because they said a word, you are the problem. Not the one who cussed.

[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).


To the original point, I think the concept of "needing" to use bad language to release anger or frustration is a false premise. There are other ways - including other ways to use language - that aren't offensive and achieve the same purpose.

[JayhawkCO]

To the original point, I think the concept of "needing" to use bad language to release anger or frustration is a false premise. There are other ways - including other ways to use language - that aren't offensive and achieve the same purpose.

I think the point many of us are making is that the "offense" taken is misguided.

[webny99]

To the original point, I think the concept of "needing" to use bad language to release anger or frustration is a false premise. There are other ways - including other ways to use language - that aren't offensive and achieve the same purpose.

I think the point many of us are making is that the "offense" taken is misguided.

And I'm really not going to get into that, as I've already said. But whether or not it's misguided is ultimately an matter of personal belief and/or choice. I see behaviors and choices every day that I think are misguided -- often badly so, sometimes even veritably so -- but in most cases wouldn't dare call them out. That's just an inevitable aspect of 21st century society.

[JoePCool14]

I wonder how many of the "profanity is unacceptable" types love themselves some football. Because boy do they use a lot of profanity.

An example: Kirby Smart's locker room speech during the College Football Playoffs Championship.

I love watching F1, but I don't like how often the driver's use profanity over the team radio. When they say it as often as they do, it loses its meaning and just comes off rude to their engineers and anyone who's also listening in live. The TV broadcast censors it, but we all usually end up hearing the raw version online later on.

I can still enjoy something even if there's a part of it that I don't.

But I prefer to surround myself with people who don't need to make up reasons to feel superior to other people.

Meanwhile, the rest of us prefer to surround ourselves with people who use respectful language.

The urge to punch back against my original comment speaks for itself.
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. What one person considers "respectful" is subjective. If it hinges more upon what words someone chooses than a choice to support their peers and an avoidance of insults, violence, and abuse, that's a pretty poor idea of what is/isn't respectful, in my opinion. If someone is deemed irredeemable to you just because they said a word, you are the problem. Not the one who cussed.

I agree. I feel the same way when society cancels someone for using a slur once a bunch of years ago, sometimes even as a quote from someone else in context.

And on the other hand, I know several religious people who swear like sailors on their own time or with friends. That includes the 70-year-old pastor at the Presbyterian church I grew up going to.

I'm not even sure what swearing has to do with Christianity anyway, other than that the Bible exhorts Christians to not use 'unwholesome' speech, which likely means subject matter more than it means word choice.

I think it's just that there's enough overlap between 'devout Christian' and 'doesn't use bad language', that we just assume the latter comes from the former.

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.

[abefroman329]

What one person considers "respectful" is subjective.

Exactly.

If I go to dinner with someone, and they don't use profanity in front of the server, but they do, for example, do that thing where they place X number of dollar bills on the table and remove one every time the server makes a mistake, then I'm not walking away from this interaction thinking how "respectful" you are.

[paulthemapguy]

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.

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

To the original point, I think the concept of "needing" to use bad language to release anger or frustration is a false premise. There are other ways - including other ways to use language - that aren't offensive and achieve the same purpose.

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.

[kphoger]

But I prefer to surround myself with people who don't need to make up reasons to feel superior to other people.

Meanwhile, the rest of us prefer to surround ourselves with people who use respectful language.

The urge to punch back against my original comment speaks for itself.

Well, at least you get to feel superior to me.  So I guess it worked out for you.

What one person considers "respectful" is subjective.

Very much so.  Nobody is denying that.  In other words, what I haven't seen at all in this discussion is anybody denying the clear fact that a large segment of our society is offended by certain words.  Why, if that is so obviously true, do so many people nevertheless believe adamantly that it's totally appropriate to use those words in mixed company?  Why, if you are fully aware that a lot of people don't want to hear certain language, would you insist on using that language in a video you upload to YouTube for everyone and their grandma to watch, or whatever?

If I go to dinner with someone, and they don't use profanity in front of the server, but they do, for example, do that thing where they place X number of dollar bills on the table and remove one every time the server makes a mistake, then I'm not walking away from this interaction thinking how "respectful" you are.

Totally.  Is someone denying that?  No, what I'm saying is that a message without profanity is more respectful than the same message with profanity.

People who don't swear are people who put on airs, and judge against others for baseless reasons

So... my friend Phillip, who used to have a foul mouth, then realized that his foul language was offensive to other people, and therefore made a concerted effort to clean up his language, to the point that he never swears anymore...  Because of that, he's judgmental against others?

[ethanhopkin14]

And on the other hand, I know several religious people who swear like sailors on their own time or with friends. That includes the 70-year-old pastor at the Presbyterian church I grew up going to.

I'm not even sure what swearing has to do with Christianity anyway, other than that the Bible exhorts Christians to not use 'unwholesome' speech, which likely means subject matter more than it means word choice.

I think it's just that there's enough overlap between 'devout Christian' and 'doesn't use bad language', that we just assume the latter comes from the former.

The same can be said about a lot of things.  There seems to be a connection to being devout and being a perceived "goody two shoes." There is a particular hot button topic that is related to the repeal of a certain Supreme Court ruling.  Those that are opposed to the topic are looked at by those pro that topic as Christians or religious nuts, when the subject has very little or in some cases, nothing to do with religion. 

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. 

[kphoger]

There is a particular hot button topic that is related to the repeal of a certain Supreme Court ruling.  Those that are opposed to the topic are looked at by those pro that topic as Christians or religious nuts, when the subject has very little or in some cases, nothing to do with religion.

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.

And that's all I'm going to say about that, because that's probably the hottest topic possible to have been brought up.  I'm not about to debate the issue itself on here, because that would be like setting off a grenade.

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. 

The coworker who sits next to me has fairly conservative opinions about how women should dress in public–more conservative than my own–yet she's one of the least religious people I know.  I shouldn't be surprised if she's never even set foot in a church.