Acronyms

ballysmate

I have just read the thread 'Moving House SNAFU'. I fully understand the acronym as I am sure as does everyone else. I am not offended and neither seems is anyone else.
If the phrase had been posted in full, there would be people up in arms, racing each other to complain. Why is that?
As people read an acronym such as that they realise what is being said, but their morals are not compromised because they haven't seen the written word.
Likewise expletives with letters asterisked out. You can clearly identify the word, but it is ok because you can't see it?
It is not just here that this seemingly double standard appears to exist. National newspapers do the same, the word is clearly identifiable but not printed in full. The exception, if I recall, is The Times (and perhaps The Telegraph?). I seem to recall The Times printing quotes in full. Yes, the most conservative (small c) of newspapers treating their readers like mature people.
I don't understand the double standards at play.
WTF?

daddy0

Heres an acronym, NSFW:
http://www.kuntandthegang.co.uk/

Similarly this spelling of the naughty c word is OK to print. Indeed, Wayne (his real name), regularly gets reviews in the big papers.

dhope

I think most broadsheets will print a quote in full, but tabloids tend to asterisk things out. Which seems about right to me, as I tend to associate broadsheets with news (so why not report what was said) and tabloids with sniggering in the back at the naughty words.

Re: Snafu, it's almost become a word now as it so well describes what it's trying to describe

ballysmate

Daddy0 wrote:

Heres an acronym, NSFW:
http://www.kuntandthegang.co.uk/

Similarly this spelling of the naughty c word is OK to print. Indeed, Wayne (his real name), regularly gets reviews in the big papers.

Ah yes, the naughty C word? Everyone knows it, but why does it cause such offence. Mention it and people go into shock. Why? People who are offended obviously know the word and it is rattling around their brain somewhere. So why be offended by a word, especially only in print.

veronese68

I think it is because of the obsession with protecting the young and innocent. You see my kids never ever hear any bad language at school. No, of course they don't. Nor do they learn that it may be inappropriate to use such language whilst out with their grandparents.
So it's up to the great and the good (self appointed moral guardians) to protect the children from the big bad world out there. But showing extreme violence would seem to be ok.
Or, that was all a load of bollox and it makes no sense to me either.

wakou

The Guardian also treats its readers as grown-ups, the asterisk business used by The Sun etc is just w**ky.

ballysmate

Another word that it seems to be forbidden to print is what is known as the N word. Yes it may be offensive to people because of its racist connotations, but it is still a word. Everyone who reads 'The N word' knows exactly what is being referred to, but because they haven't seen the word written in full, their moral indignation is assuaged.

ballysmate

wakou wrote:

The Guardian also treats its readers as grown-ups, the asterisk business used by The Sun etc is just w**ky.

So it would seem that the broadsheet readers are more mature and able to be treated like adults whereas the tabloid readers need help with their moral compass.
Or it could be that the tabloid readers are unable to fill in the missing letters and think * and ! are the 27th and 28th letters of the alphabet.

Agent57

I was surprised to see the BBC News Web site using "fcuk" a couple of days ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785 No asterisks there.

ballysmate

Agent57 wrote:

I was surprised to see the BBC News Web site using "fcuk" a couple of days ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785 No asterisks there.

Well if it's good enough for the BBC, surely it should be good enough for Bikeradar?

dhope

Ballysmate wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I was surprised to see the BBC News Web site using "fcuk" a couple of days ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785 No asterisks there.

Well if it's good enough for the BBC, surely it should be good enough for Bikeradar?

fuckin ay

(Hmm, didn't think that'd pass the filter)

simonhead

I blame the people growing up with Harry Potter "he who wont be named" ffs hes got a name its Voldemort.

Seriously, the reason the tabloids asterisk it out is to sensationlise it, that is all, by changing the word to make it less rude it actually makes it more rude as readers are more likely to notice it.

ballysmate

simonhead wrote:

I blame the people growing up with Harry Potter "he who wont be named" ffs hes got a name its Voldemort.

Seriously, the reason the tabloids asterisk it out is to sensationlise it, that is all, by changing the word to make it less rude it actually makes it more rude as readers are more likely to notice it.

So in effect, the Mods would be doing us a service by removing any swearword filters. They would be making words less sensationalised and we could join the grown ups?

simonhead

Ballysmate wrote:

simonhead wrote:

I blame the people growing up with Harry Potter "he who wont be named" ffs hes got a name its Voldemort.

Seriously, the reason the tabloids asterisk it out is to sensationlise it, that is all, by changing the word to make it less rude it actually makes it more rude as readers are more likely to notice it.

So in effect, the Mods would be doing us a service by removing any swearword filters. They would be making words less sensationalised and we could join the grown ups?

Yup

rolf_f

simonhead wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

simonhead wrote:

I blame the people growing up with Harry Potter "he who wont be named" ffs hes got a name its Voldemort.

Seriously, the reason the tabloids asterisk it out is to sensationlise it, that is all, by changing the word to make it less rude it actually makes it more rude as readers are more likely to notice it.

So in effect, the Mods would be doing us a service by removing any swearword filters. They would be making words less sensationalised and we could join the grown ups?

Yup

Yup 2. Some are ridiculous. Whilst I can understand some getting offended by "F LI C K", how about sh1t? (I have to cheat this one because what the BR filter does to sh1t is so childish it just irritates me beyond logic!) - already pointed this out yesterday; if Geoffrey Chaucer was OK about the term in the Canterbury Tales as written in the 14th Century maybe by now it has lost its edge enough for us to be able to use it on here.

PS - S H 1 T, F LI C K, S H 1 T, F LI C K, S H 1 T, F LI C K....... Lucky we have censorship of mucky words or the kiddies would have been corrupted by this!

itboffin

my eyes my eyes :shock:

Cleat Eastwood

Ballysmate wrote:

Another word that it seems to be forbidden to print is what is known as the N word. Yes it may be offensive to people because of its racist connotations, but it is still a word. Everyone who reads 'The N word' knows exactly what is being referred to, but because they haven't seen the word written in full, their moral indignation is assuaged.

A few years ago a local radio station received a complaint after it played Elvis Costellos 'Oliver's Army' - with the lyrics

"There was a checkpoint charlie
He didn't crack a smile
But it's no laughing party
When you've been on the murder mile
Only takes one itchy trigger
One more widow, one less white nigger"

The BBC was asked why it was being racist - and, genuinely, the station manager came on air and said 'we played a song that contained a word that rhymed with digger that some people may have found offensive" You'd have thought in the 30 years that the song was released the white middle class would have got over the shock.