swear filter

[shivfan]

Actually, Naumaan, who claims to be Pakistani, also found the use of the word 'pakis' offensive as well....

So, yes, if we could have it automatically substituted with 'pakistani', that would be better.

Also, the person who used the word 'pakis' recently claims to reside in the UK, so he/she would be familiar with the negative connotations associated with the word....

 

[Smith]

Replacement is better imo because otherwise we might get ****stan or *****tan instead of pakistan.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Put it this way - doesn't do any harm to anyone anywhere to have an unoffensive word filtered; does do plenty of harm to have an offensive one unfiltered. I guarantee you, anyone familiar with UK culture will prefer not to see the term used; anyone not familiar will be a little perplexed, briefly, have the matter explained, and move on.

Yes, in agreement with this.

 

[Jakester1288]

What's wrong with the short form of Pakistani? I don't see how that is offensive at all.

 

[99*]

What's wrong with the short form of Pakistani? I don't see how that is offensive at all.

It's used as a slur toward Pakistani people in England.

 

[shivfan]

What's wrong with the short form of Pakistani? I don't see how that is offensive at all.

Because, like the n-word, it's used in a derogatory and insulting way in the UK....

 

[BoyBrumby]

What's wrong with the short form of Pakistani? I don't see how that is offensive at all.

Without wanting to be a ****, in the UK it's offensive because it's offensive. No word is intrinsically offensive, they become so through useage and intent. Up here it's used by bone-headed dullards as an ethnic slur to abuse anyone from the sub-continent and even Arabs, Greeks and Turks.

As I said, up here the first three letters of "aboriginal" isn't considered a slur, but is down under, apparently. The "why" isn't really the issue, more the fact that it is, surely?

 

[99*]

I don't see why people shouldn't just type, Pakistan or Pakistani.

I mean if Australians can be trained to use a phone then we can train them to use more than five letters in a word surely?

 

[GIMH]

I can see both sides of the coin. Richard is right is that in general it does not harm anyone to have a word they don't find offensive filtered. But then again, I'd be a bit miffed if 'Brit' was filtered.

What I would say is that if someone was to use with offensive intent, then it would probably be clear what they were saying whether it was filtered or not, and as such perhaps it being unfiltered but carefully moderated is the best approach?

 

[Adamc]

doesn't do any harm to anyone anywhere to have an unoffensive word filtered

Disagree with this strongly. Overzealous censorship diminishes my enjoyment of the forum, as it did a few years ago when anything the mod team thought remotely offensive was added to the word filter. Fortunately it has been reviewed since then, but if CW ever went back to banning dozens of perfectly legitimate words I probably wouldn't hang around for long.

The above isn't a comment on the word in question here, just an argument that Richard's statement doesn't hold true. At the least I think there should be a clear and consistent rationale for adding new words to the filter (such as the word having little or no legitimate non-pejorative use, which might be the case here).

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

kunt - I want to see this added to the filter tbh.

man_spitting_tea.bmp

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

YouTube - Play her off, keyboard cat!!

 

[PhoenixFire]

Disagree with this strongly. Overzealous censorship diminishes my enjoyment of the forum, as it did a few years ago when anything the mod team thought remotely offensive was added to the word filter. Fortunately it has been reviewed since then, but if CW ever went back to banning dozens of perfectly legitimate words I probably wouldn't hang around for long.

The above isn't a comment on the word in question here, just an argument that Richard's statement doesn't hold true. At the least I think there should be a clear and consistent rationale for adding new words to the filter (such as the word having little or no legitimate non-pejorative use, which might be the case here).

It doesn't really harm anyone in the way that calling someone an offensive word does though. I think it might be irritating to some, but I think that is price that is OK to pay, as long as it is within reason.

 

[NUFAN]

Abo is the first 3 letters of my dads name Abowen.

Nah it's not on the filter list.

 

[Fusion]

Up until joining CW, I actually had no idea that the shortened version of Pakistani is considered to be offensive in the UK. Since then, however; I have talked with friends/relatives based in UK who educated me how deeply insulting that word is to them. It definitely is a strange anomaly to have a particular word so offensive in one country while used normally (and proudly!) in others. I can see both sides of the argument. Personally, I’m ok with the current rule of not filtering it. The mods can take a look at individual instances and if there was malicious intent, they will certainly take appropriate actions I’m sure. If it its filtered, no big deal either IMO. It shouldn’t cause too much problems to type out the whole word.

 

[Richard]

I can see both sides of the coin. Richard is right is that in general it does not harm anyone to have a word they don't find offensive filtered. But then again, I'd be a bit miffed if 'Brit' was filtered.

Really? Can't say I'd give a damn TBH, if there was good reason. I'd just use something else. Like, well... Britlander... or anything that fits.

Same way any fool can use "Pakistani" rather than "pa-ki". Costs them absolutely nothing whatsoever and if they CBA making the effort to type 5 extra letters in order to accommodate people whose land of residence is different to theirs then frankly they can get stuffed.

 

[Richard]

Disagree with this strongly. Overzealous censorship diminishes my enjoyment of the forum, as it did a few years ago when anything the mod team thought remotely offensive was added to the word filter. Fortunately it has been reviewed since then, but if CW ever went back to banning dozens of perfectly legitimate words I probably wouldn't hang around for long.

The above isn't a comment on the word in question here, just an argument that Richard's statement doesn't hold true. At the least I think there should be a clear and consistent rationale for adding new words to the filter (such as the word having little or no legitimate non-pejorative use, which might be the case here).

I find it difficult to understand, frankly, the POV of overzealous censorship diminshing anyone's enjoyment of the forum. Obviously, if that's the way you are then that's the way you are, but I personally couldn't give a damn what's filtered and what isn't.

Obviously it looks a bit foolish if things go OTT - and from what I've heard they did back in mid-2006 - but it doesn't remotely bother me.

In my view people who even particularly notice overzealous censorship, never mind take the time to comment on it or allow it to affect them, tend to be people who enjoy pushing the taboo boundaries. An attitude I've never hid my distaste for.

No, I make no apology for holding the attitude that OTT censorship >>>> lackadaisical non-censorship. There isn't a wrong or right way to go about these things, obviously - birds of a feather merely need to stick together. Else there's trouble-a-brewing. And I'd venture to suggest that the birds of a "I hate overzealous censorship" feather are fewer on CW than other such birds, though I may be wrong.

 

[superkingdave]

I'd like to see Yorks***e added to the filter, currently i self censor it so as not offend anyone, but obviously its a bit of a chore.

 

[Richard]

I'd find it hilarious to see any form of Yorkshire with asterisks anywhere modified to ********* or similar, so as no-one knew what the dodos were on about.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think British members should be added to the filter. This would remove the problem with the word in question.