Timeline for Is the language "BrainF_ck" offensive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2013 at 1:03 | comment | added | Jim Balter | This is intellectually dishonest BS ... there are a dozen instances of the supposedly deadly-to-users word and no one has even noticed. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 15:18 | comment | added | Mechanical snail | Sorry, but I don't believe that your corporate filter blocks web sites just because they contain pages containing certain 4-character sequences. That would require them to disable access to most of the Internet. | |
| Jun 25, 2012 at 14:11 | comment | added | Jürgen A. Erhard | And you state yourself that "but they have blocked other resource sites". So, they already are past that point. Is SO so much more important/valuable than these other sites? I tend to doubt that... | |
| Jun 25, 2012 at 14:08 | comment | added | Jürgen A. Erhard | "difference between censorship that must be opposed on principle" and the other kind that is okay? Sorry, censorship must be opposed on principle, period. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 18:07 | comment | added | Lee Louviere | I have my corp filter workaround. It starts with Andr, and ends in hone, with a smart in the middle. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 18:39 | comment | added | Quibblesome | Is the swear filter well implemented though? For example does it provide false positives for the town in the UK southwest of Hull? | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 20:49 | comment | added | Super Long Names are Hilarious | @David Thornley - Does it make it right or okay not to fight something you consider wrong just because you know you can't win? Is it somehow okay to stand by and do nothing just because you can't change it immediately? | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 18:34 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Workshop Alex - "if this means that thousands won't be able to access the Internet while at work then that's fine by me." The Schadenfreude is strong with this one. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 17:25 | comment | added | Wim ten Brink | @Adam Davis, if this means that thousands won't be able to access the Internet while at work then that's fine by me. People will find ways around this. Just look at the Chinese Firewall which is supposed to control the usage of Internet in China. It fails. Censorship is doomed to fail, as long as people are willing to take their freedom. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 16:16 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Workshop Alex: There are fights that are worth fighting, and ones that aren't. The world is different in so many respects from what I think it should be that I'd have problems cataloging all of these, let alone fighting for them. Fighting with IT for a huge corporation because their automation banned a useful website doesn't appear worth it to me. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 15:05 | comment | added | Pollyanna | In other words you are OK with thousands risking losing access to these sites if it means you don't have to self censor. I understand your position, it just appears juvenile. You are digging in your heels for no benefit to yourself or anyone else since such words and phrase can be avoided with absolutely no loss of clarity in the questions, answers, or comments. Maybe after some years of experience you will be able to tell the difference between censorship that must be opposed on principle, and making small allowances for the benefit of others. Until then, I'll edit and/or mark offensive. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:55 | comment | added | Wim ten Brink | Oh, I won't complain as long as the corporation puts things in the proper context. If I use a word in an obscene way, I should be punished. If I use it simply because it's some name of a language or a person, then allow me to use that word! That's all I'm asking for. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:48 | comment | added | Pollyanna | One can complain about the injustice of it, rant against the corporation, and talk about free speech. But as an adult one shows respect for other human beings by making small allowances. Is this such a hard or bitter pill to swallow? There are times to dig in your heels and be stubborn, but is this fight one of them? | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:36 | comment | added | Wim ten Brink | Furthermore, why are we responsible for you having problems accessing certain sites? It's your own employer who makes you less effective in your work, if they decide to block certain sites. You are giving too much control to your corporate Overlords, and are accepting them to take away your freedom! D@mn them to [beep]! Those beancounters are in control simply because people are accepting this. What if your corporate beancounters start adding f*ck, f_ck, f__k or even [beep] to their filters? I just to work for people who want to restrict my freedom this way. And if I'm the only one, so be it! | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:30 | comment | added | Wim ten Brink | I disagree with this, because you assume that only certain words would be considered obscene. If I mention "Falung Gong" here, this whole site probably ends up being banned in China! Furthermore, you'd assume that only Englisg words would be considered obscene but many people don't use English as their native language. There are a lot of foreign words that aren't considered obscene in English but which are extremely offensive in other countries. It may also surprise you that other countries are less strict about obscenity online than the USA, though. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:13 | comment | added | perbert | You have no coworkers living in Scunthorpe, right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:12 | comment | added | perbert | Or you should be offended, just as I am, by inefficient process, inefficient communication between related areas, and inefficient tools used by organizations. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 14:04 | comment | added | David Thornley | +1 for the first argument against the full spelling of the language name in question I can sympathize with. While I agree that this situation should not exist, it does, and it's easier to edit the Us out of Brainf_ck (or, for that matter, the British city of Sc_nthorpe) than to make a large company do something intelligent. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 13:56 | comment | added | Ladybug Killer | Maybe you should be offended by your overlords and not by the guys who care about free speech. Imperfect world or not. | |
| Oct 1, 2009 at 13:44 | history | answered | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 2.5 |