On Site Censorship

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16.

Bunny said:

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16

16 is adult.

You are old enough to get married (up until 2022 that is), have sex and have kids so I if this is allowed by law then I believe they can be exposed to a few swear words.

The law in the UK prevents you from purchasing alcohol, watching an 18 rated film or driving a car, but lets you create sentient life and go through the bloodbath of childbirth.

Swearing seems kind of trivial by comparison.

Iain said:

16 is adult.

Good grief! It demonstrably isn't. 

The age of majority in the UK is 18.

I'm not suggesting that most 16 year olds aren't familiar with words that may be censored here. I was simply reminding folks that members of this forum do include children.  

Just in case you're minded to continue arguing:

"Definitions of a child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

England

In England, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2023)."

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law#skip-to-content

Protection of children is also why Ofcom prohibits swearing (among other things) on TV before the 9pm watershed. 

BZZZZT!!

It's *** Off!!

What do I win? (At least I'll win teh knowledge of if it censors the second word, or if the exclamation marks protect it). 

Anyone who has ever been in a school playground will have heard even infant school kids use words that would not be permitted on TV before the 9pm watershed.  I was visiting a school when a teacher was kicked in the shins and told to go away and copulate by a seven-year-old. (The actual phrase had two words and seven letters, of which the first and last two were f)

Bunny nothing you said is triggering to me, but the whole thing about not being able to use certain words in case someone is offended is, like my example above, 'stop male chicken', honestly does that not bug you too? Being unable to describe something that every house has and that you need to know where it is so as you can turn your water off in an emergency or for repairs is ridiculous!

Whilst online fora are quite happy to mess about with things like this they seem quite happy to allow online grooming for sexual exploitation and terrorism etc, but stopping some one from using an object or a persons proper name makes them able to say they take safe guarding seriously. It just as bad out there in the offline world too, should we stop young people from learning proper words or life skills because someone somewhere might get offended? That's where I think people need to get real and get a grip.

Iain said:

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

Iain said:

I will not try to change your mind

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent my opinion. As I have tried very hard to explain clearly, my "viewpoint" is that I do not have one on the subject.

I do not feel that - if this is actually what is happening - censoring certain words on this forum in order to protect 16 and 17 years olds would be appropriate / good. Nor do I feel that doing so would be unnecessary / bad / amount to infantilising them. I literally have no opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure when or how you found the time and resources to canvas "the rest of the country" in order to be able to state that my non-existent viewpoint is different to theirs.

If I had to bet, then I'd guess that most of the rest of the country also don't care either way on the hypothetical subject. But that would be a total guess.

Iain said:

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

As I flagged previously, you are also assuming that the presence here of some children is the NAS's reason for censoring certain words. That may not be the case at all. To repeat from my earlier post: 

Bunny said:

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.

Bunny said:

I didn’t join this forum in order to add this kind of unwanted, additional stress to my considerable existing struggles.

HEAR, HEAR! 

I've been working this problem hard for my own selfish benefit primarily, and I'm happily aware that what helps me in this case, will also help others. 

It's a two part problem, my friends (And adversaries, we are ALL suffering together in this) comprising of YOUR attitude and THEIR attitude. 

We all need to work towards a similar goal that of being able to tolerate each other!! 

I've been lightly exploring Marcus Aurelieus's writings about "Stoicism" and note that some of my most effective "coping strategies" are laid out in there. 

I once worked in a working environment chock full of "happy autists" so I know it is possible for us to actually get along, but the one thing about that environment was that none of them were poorly paid at work, so they were highly motivated to get along because that co-operation made the rest of thier lives vastly more comfortable than they would other wise be!

When escalating an argument about politics can make you lose a nice comfortable life, people suddenly seem to lose that pugilistic instict and start CO-OPERATING for the common good. 

Because people are in the main primarily these days motivated by MONEY (If they were not, why else would monetary "fines" be the primary societal sanction for smaller transgressions against the social order?) and there is no gain or real sanction here of that kind, they tend to fall back on pursuing their own individual ideological motivations, whereas I'd suggest we'd all actually better off working towards the common goal of being able to find more effectve ways to deal with people we find "offensive", without becoming "disabled" by the situation.  

Bunny said:

Consequently, if you / anyone else want(s) to debate with someone in order to argue the case for the censorship being relaxed, then I'm afraid I am the least suitable candidate for that discussion. I simply don’t care

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

I will not try to change your mind, but for the rest of the forum I propose we look at how we treat those on the 16-17 age group:

1 - they can work in full time employment with all the stresses and responsibilities this involves

2 - until 2 years ago they could marry

3 - they can have consexual sex (of whatever flavour), get pregnant and have a child

4 - they can drive a moped at 16 and car at 17 - effectively a deadly weapon in the wrong hands

5 - they can consume alcohol with a meal (with an adult present)

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

Is this not infantalising them? It certainly seems so to me.

Bunny said:

Consequently, if you / anyone else want(s) to debate with someone in order to argue the case for the censorship being relaxed, then I'm afraid I am the least suitable candidate for that discussion. I simply don’t care

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

I will not try to change your mind, but for the rest of the forum I propose we look at how we treat those on the 16-17 age group:

1 - they can work in full time employment with all the stresses and responsibilities this involves

2 - until 2 years ago they could marry

3 - they can have consexual sex (of whatever flavour), get pregnant and have a child

4 - they can drive a moped at 16 and car at 17 - effectively a deadly weapon in the wrong hands

5 - they can consume alcohol with a meal (with an adult present)

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

Is this not infantalising them? It certainly seems so to me.

Iain said:

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

Iain said:

I will not try to change your mind

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent my opinion. As I have tried very hard to explain clearly, my "viewpoint" is that I do not have one on the subject.

I do not feel that - if this is actually what is happening - censoring certain words on this forum in order to protect 16 and 17 years olds would be appropriate / good. Nor do I feel that doing so would be unnecessary / bad / amount to infantilising them. I literally have no opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure when or how you found the time and resources to canvas "the rest of the country" in order to be able to state that my non-existent viewpoint is different to theirs.

If I had to bet, then I'd guess that most of the rest of the country also don't care either way on the hypothetical subject. But that would be a total guess.

Iain said:

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

As I flagged previously, you are also assuming that the presence here of some children is the NAS's reason for censoring certain words. That may not be the case at all. To repeat from my earlier post: 

Bunny said:

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.