?
I really don't wish to upset anybody or single any one out, but is there any chance folks going over the PG-13 threshold can spoilerize the naughty bits? I'm no prude, but I hate to see Listology become an unfriendly place for younger folks. Many of our finest members started visiting the site at a young age, and I like to encourage all ages into our fine community. I am afraid some content here might make that an iffy proposition.
I am not asking for censorship, but I wouldn't cry if folks would take some effort to voluntarily , on their own, put tags around, say, material that might not make it onto prime time television. We're talking 'F' bombs and sexually explicit material here, not what Rhett said to Scarlett, the place where the devil lives, or the animal that carries your loads.
Suggestive stuff that would fly over younger folks' heads is fine.
And if this makes me a doofus, just forgive me and type on! I have young relatives I would love to invite on the site in a few years, but I'm afraid their parents would beat me if the children ran across some of the material here.
It seems to me that there's two separate processes in your request. One is explicit, the call for blocking PG-13 material, and the second is implicit, that is, the identification of what material is PG-13.
I believe the first process amounts to censorship, plain and simple, and I personally would prefer that listology.com not go that route, as exposure to PG-13 material is a necessary part of an ongoing dialogue as to what constitutes that material and why it isn't deemed appropriate for various ages.
The second process is much more troublesome. Who will decide what is and isn't appropriate to include in plaintext rather than spoiler tags.
Take for instance, my book quotes page (this is where Firefox tabs come in real handy, IE people). For the most part, I read PG mystery novels where people are strangled with 19th century bellpulls, or travelogs. On the other hand, is the quote I chose for A Wok and a Hard Place PG-13? I chose it because I find it funny and it's a recurring theme in the book. Is it PG-13 when Audrey Sutherland describes taking off her clothes and lying around naked in rock pools in Paddling My Own Canoe? That's a classic of travel literature that may or may not qualify as PG-13.
It's a slippery slope.
I don't think anybody is calling for blocking PG-13 material. I'm sticking with the loose etiquette guidelines. It believe it's more the R-rated stuff that brought this to the fore.
//# rosannarosannadanna//
Neevermind!
//rosannarosannadanna//
One idea being tossed around in my kitchen was to have a toggle setting for Full Listology (G, PG, PG-13, R, whatever) and 13 Listology (G, PG, PG-13), so that blocking was automatic based on use of the f-bomb, etc. Is that even feasible?
Yup, if it came to that I could implement some kind of mode like Google's SafeSearch, but I'm thinking (hoping) it won't come to that unless Listology suddenly blossoms (explodes) into a much larger community.
I'm worried now, because I know that I can cuss up a storm in some of my internet writing, but I don't remember cursing too much on Listology. If I did, I apologize to anyone offended.
That said, I always thought that Listology was a signifigantly more mature webspace than most message boards provide, and I haven't noticed too much profanity. But if it is becoming a problem, I guess I just haven't noticed it.
I can't speak for L, but I'm sure you've never crossed the line here as far as I'm concerned (and for what it's worth, I enjoy your more profanity-laced Internet writings elsewhere as well :-).
Actually, Jim, you could've spoken for me.
What he said, on both counts!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I am a big advocate against censorship. I don't like the notion of certain words being taboo. However, the fact remains that we live in a society. Some people are offended by things that others are not. The 1st Amendment gives us the right to say whatever we want. This freedom is pretty complete when in our own home.
Yet, in other people's homes, businesses, etc., we must be willing to have some restraint. That's simple decency.
In the open public, our freedom of speech is somewhere in the middle: we can say whatever we want depending on the predominant audience in that particular spot. If we're cursing up a storm right outside a pre-school, I'd say the police have a right to take issue. If we're at a political rally with an adult audience in Central Park, go nuts. Parents with any qualms about dirty language will know not to bring their kids near the rally.
Since this is primarily's Jim's website, he has the final say about things, just as if it were his house. His policy is pretty open. Showing some restraint does give this site a better reputation. Also, I'll just say that I am currently making progress to stop swearing. Let me say, this is not easy when you're in the military. However, I agree with the comments posted earlier in this board that using other words instead of "bad words" tends to sound more intelligent, gets your point across better, and gives your ideas more credibility.
As for spoiler labels and mature audience labels... Frank Miller has said a lot about why they're bad, and I like what he says. Yet, it seems like a good compromise that lets people avoid things they might find offensive. On the other hand, it shouldn't be employed as a disclaimer that liberates the creator from any responsibility for his expressions.
To summarize, say whatever you want, and don't let Big Brother dictate our means of expression. Just do your best to respect the opinions of those around you and tailor your manner of speech according to your audience. Otherwise, don't complain when those around you no longer want your company.
Well said!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Gee, I wish I knew who has been cursing up a blue streak! Time to start digging through the recent activity. :-)
Am I one of ones who have not been named?
Hardly, though I hope that doesn't make you feel left out.
The closest I've ever seen you tiptoe was, "suggestive stuff that would fly over younger folks' heads." Besides, can't blame somebody for having a name, eh?
Really, I had no person in mind, though I did have a few specific posts in my little noggin. I couldn't even tell you who wrote some of them.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I tend to use too much vulgar language in my everyday speech, which I must especially guard against around children, but it's easier to self-censor in writing; there's a bigger time lag between the thought and execution.
I tend to bridle the ol' tongue at work and around family and children. Otherwise, you might mistake me for a sailor at times...
I find it hard to speak.
So much remains unsung,
But there's a million miles
Between my heart and tongue.
I really should get off the rhymes this morning...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Listology doggerel contest:
My candle burns at both ends.
It will not last the night.
But Ah! My foes, and Oh! My friends,
It gives a lovely light!
Name the author of this tidbit.
No contest: Edna St. Vincent Millay. In my opinion she was one of the most bipolar poets... ever. When you read her stuff through that lens it increases the thrill/chill factor exponentially. The original girl with a curl... when she was bad she was very, very bad, but when she was good she was totally awesome.
When I'm right I'm right.
It is fun (maybe even instructive) to contrast Millay's stuff with her contemporary, retro-classicist HD. I don't like HD's stuff as much but she does have one poem in particular that just slays me. Absolutely 100% no pun intended. (Read it out loud, slowly, pausing a little after each line...)
All Greece reviles
the wan face when she smiles,
hating it deeper still
when it grows wan and white,
remembering past enchantments
and past ills.
Greece sees unmoved,
God's daughter, born of love,
the beauty of cool feet
and slenderest knees,
could love indeed the maid,
only if she were laid,
white ash amid funereal cypresses.
The whispering of the wind in the trees in the last line just crush you with the tragedy.
Sharp.
#$@&% it! In the time that it took me to write this jim provided his feedback. Therefore, please take what I've written with a grain of his salty goodness:
Bless you. Thank you.
As someone who agonized about including the 's'-word in a Harrison Ford quote (and decided that it should stay in) I am so very glad that you seem to share my antipathy for naughty words. I admire your distinction between free expression and civility. I'd like to see listology avoid being a front in a war of conquest so I appreciate your cool- and crispy-headed initiative.
There is another regret that I have. When I use profanity it is a shortcut and a clichéd one at that. Any time they are used as punctuation marks, expletives lose any sense of proportion and lower the level of discourse. If I can't find a different, more artful way of expressing myself than by cussing I try to hold my tongue until I spit the bit. I am reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) story of a politician asked to respond to a foul-mouthed attack by his opponent. "I will not respond in kind. But I do hope that when he gets home his mother runs out from under the porch and bites him on the leg."
If the sheep are giving you grief please follow the Great Shepherd's dictum and tell them to: Shut the flock up. Now I'm worried that I'll be misconstrued as calling the people here sheep. I'm not. I just wanted to seem funny and clever. If I've offended anyone please see it as an example that plain words (or sounds) are more potent than profanity.
Looking up at your straightforward eloquence contrasted with my stumbling agreement I am forced to take solace in the label "doofus" and try not to let my envy show even as I wish that my sentences were shorter.
lbangs! lbangs! Burning bright. In the forests of the night...
I think that I have never sang
A name as clunky as L. Bangs
Thanks. I can actually respect using profanity the way Otis used horns, but if one hurls exclamation points all the time, the sky really isn't falling and the wolf is asleep, and everybody knows it.
So the little guy who listens to logic woulnd't mind if the walls came down; the little artist sorta likes a stash of taboo language to haul out at the proper moment. A mess of contradictions, I tell ya.
But burning bright all the same.
Oh, and I rather envy your dense, involved responses, so much greenery all around!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Nicely said. I do spell things out oh-so-vaguely in the Listology etiquette guidelines. I try to err on the side of permissiveness, but I'm always happy to receive e-mails pointing out posts to me that anyone feels have gone too far, and I'm willing to selectively spoilerize in an adminstrative capacity. I don't consider this to be censorship.
In short, yes, PG-13ish please! It's worked well for us so far, and I think is one of the reasons Listology has such civil discussions, even over hot-button issues (that we have good folks here is a bigger reason, but every little bit helps).
Thanks, Jim!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Since one of the names you're not naming is 'lukeprog', I'll at least let you know what I'm thinking. This post is not a statement of intent, but of thought.
This request does not sit well with my conquest to rid the world of the concepts of 'bad words' and 'taboo subjects of discussion.' I think both of these weaken our society and its individuals. That doesn't mean I want to hear 'F bombs' every two seconds or that I'll start talking loudly about the Eiffel Tower during my family's Christmas celebration. But I think the concept of 'bad words' should be archaic and no subject should be taboo, even among children - why do you think tweens practice unsafe sex or think they are abnormal perverts for touching themselves?
Another reason I react negatively to your request for voluntary censorship is that spoiler tags would ravage some of my beautiful, precious content! For example, imagine how spoiler tags around adult material would wreck this recent post. Tragic!
A third reason. Though I've tried it in the past, using the <spoiler> tag to hide content that isn't spoilerish doesn't seem quite right. A Listology flagging system for adult lists, polls, articles, news, and posts might be more appropriate (and would take care of cranky lukeprog complaint #2), but that would require hella work on Jim's part.
Ah, Luke. So shy... :)
Actually, I don't have any problem with your recent, beautiful post staying unspoiled (giggle). I was only thinking of more extreme content.
And I will level with you. While I can't go as far as you do (I don't, for example, think 'bad words' and 'taboo subjects' are largely responsible for unsafe tweener sex), I actually agree with most of your second paragraph. Words are words, sounds we use to convey meaning, and nasty meaning can be conveyed using 'jerk' as much as any 'bad word'. Just because a word is considered vulgar don't make it bad. I have written poetry with 'bad' words, and I find it beautiful.
However, I also recognize that I'm not going to change society by letting loose everywhere in every context; in fact, the more language considered 'bad' pops up in everyday society, the more the folks who consider it bad react against it. I also see a bit more of a need (perhaps that word is too strong) for a sort of balance that the issue of respect cries out for from me. For example, if my sister were to ask me not to curse in front of her children, who I believe she largely has a right to raise as she see fit, I wouldn't (and I don't anyway). I respect the fact that she doesn't want them to hear those words, and especially not coming out of my mouth.
Profanity offends my parents, and I do not use it in front of them. I respect them too much.
While your revolutionary stance finds sympathy with me, I simply would hate for this site to become off-limits to some younger (or even not so young) folks because of a few obvious words or terms jumping out at their parents or at them. I respect the fact that some folks won't like it, and I don't really see this site as an ideal place to wage that particular war.
If you attend church regularly, I somehow doubt, despite your views, you would stand up, face the audience, and let 'cuss words' rip. I suspect you would have too much respect for the people there and perhaps for the social mores that would discourage you from doing such.
I admit, I could be wrong.
Besides, spoiler tags are hardly censorship. They just allow people the choice to view particular content if they choose to or not if they choose not to.
While there are too many ideas about 'tabooness' and 'vulgarity' in this world I disagree with, there is also a too great of a lack of respect for others as well, especially on the internet.
As I said, it is each person's choice. Look around the site, and you will find me firmly stating my views that censorship should not exist here. I would hope, however, that individuals might be cautious and take some consideration and responsibility upon themselves. I have sided against censorship in (I believe) every issue that has popped up on this site, including a few that hit home on a personal level (don't ask, because I won't tell).
Even if you don't agree, does that make my request at least a little more understandable?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Your request was always understandable.
I agree that we won't change society by 'letting loose' everywhere in every context. My plan of attack is to use 'bad words' intelligently, in art, and where they are most potent. That I don't always succeed isn't the point.
I wage my war everywhere: on Listology, in my home, and yes, in Christian small groups (I don't attend 'church in a big building' very regularly). I won't comment on where respect comes into play because that's yet another life idea currenly in flux for me.
Fair enough! As I said above, forgive me and type on!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Off-topic, just for fun: I won't accuse you of willfully employing this psychology, but "forgive me and type on" binds the slightly sickening notion of 'forgiving' you for something that does not need forgiving to the choice of typing un<spoiler>ized adult content at Listology. This device alone could have persuaded someone who didn't want to take upon the burden of guilt associated with forgiving someone who didn't need forgiving by 'typing on', since the two are connected by your final command.
All this only goes on in the mind of someone who takes forgiveness very seriously, I suspect. Sorry to scare you with that terrifying snapshot of a twisted mind. Forgive me and type PG-13 only!
Don't worry. I don't scare nearly that easily.
Your interpretation is a valid possible truth. I suspect the truth, however, is that the author is simply a man who learned long ago the value of keeping peace until joining the battles he feels are important enough to fight.
Apologizing also shows a certain respect; even if I think what I wrote shouldn't offend, I value our relationship enough and value this issue little enough in comparison to humble myself somewhat if that is necessary to continue the relationship thriving.
At times, I believe that relationships are more important than the truth. Other times (more often more recently), I suspect they are the truth, or at least a microcasm of it, or a piece that also captures the whole in miniature.
Blake thinks we can see the world in a grain of sand and Heaven in a wild flower.
You are correct, though. I do take forgiveness very seriously.
Oh, and the statement, "forgive me and type on" wasn't meant to equate the two or pressure guilt, but merely to express my desire for the order of events if both are necessary.
My mind is quite twisted, but that isn't the proper picture of its contorted workings, to the best of my knowledge. Interesting insight, however. Thanks.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Here is an interesting post that provides a liberal Christian's perspective on 'foul' language. I've already shared my thoughts on language, so I won't comment on his, but I thought somebody might find it interesting anyway.
And now I'll jump back on your sleeping horse and ride like the wind: "I don't, for example, think 'bad words' and 'taboo subjects' are largely responsible for unsafe tweener sex." Surely, inadequate communication & education are not solely responsible for unsafe tween sex - nothing is ever that black and white. But there have been studies (I'm such a cheat for not linking to them, I know, but I think you may have heard of them, too) that show that young teens, especially girls, often have sex solely because they feel 'everyone' is having sex. And, oral sex is especially popular with teens because girls feel they can be sexually active ('normal', they think) without losing their virginity or being succeptible to disease transmission (neither of which are true). Proper communication & education about sex would clear up three misconceptions widely contributing to unsafe tween sex: (1) that everyone is having sex, (2) that oral sex preserves one's virginity, (3) that oral sex makes disease transmission impossible.
Furthermore, confident and copious communication from parents to tweens (or older siblings to tweens, or whatever) about sex could dispel several emotional insecurities that tweens have about sex, help them to consider whether they really want/need sex at that stage in their lives, and be fully aware of the consequences of sex (including those beyond physical health).
There have also been studies (I know you've heard of these) that prove what we've long suspected: something is seen as more valuable and desirable if it is banned or kept hidden. Put sex out in the open (in communication, anyway), and it loses its mysticism, it's curiosity, which allows for a more accurate assessment of its qualities for each involved individual than peeking through the bushes allows.