Cougar, would you have a go at justifying the ‘obvious’ choices of banned words as above?

I’ve tried to explain several times now as I understand it and you’re (probably wilfully) not getting it.

I won’t – and indeed, I can’t – “justify” anything as I don’t make the rules and have no control over the blacklist. If you want justification or object to the policy then you need to take that up with the site owners. Though if it were down to me I wouldn’t change much as it seems to work well.

My take is that profanity is blocked in order to keep the site vaguely respectable / family friendly, but that does not extend to censorship of views and discussion (and IMHO rightly so). A free-for-all on swearing would give a very different ‘feel’ to the forum; would you want your 14-year old daughter to sign up to Mumsnet?

Directly offensive comments (eg, calling someone a chink as opposed to debating whether referring to a “chinky” take-away is racist or not) is similarly forbidden. Would we gain anything by adding “chink” to the swear filter? I doubt it, we’d just repeatedly hit the Scunthorpe problem.

I could be totally wrong here but it’s the best I’ve got.

It’s about intent.

Why do people keep saying this? The intent might tell you whether or not the individual is racist, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is the terminology which is racist

Cougar, it is not wilfully not getting it. What I don’t get is that swear words are not allowed, yet deeply offensive racist terms are. If profanity is blocked, because it is offensive, then why isn’t a term like ****, blocked, it is probably more offensive. It could even be deemed profane. You ask about my 14 year old daughter? Well, I’m pretty sure I would rather she was protected from offensive racist terms than from swearing.

One thing I’m not doing is apologising. Really

Doesn’t matter, you are still a racist apologist. Get your head out of the sand

Charlie – respectfully I disagree to some extent. words cannot be racist – its the context in which they are used that makes them so ie for black urban americans they call each other “****”. thats not racist. However if I said it to a black Briton then it would be

I may be about to be corrected, but that doesn’t seem an unreasonable one to block, given that I can’t think of any non offensive use of the word (apart from by those who have reclaimed it, but let’s not go there any more than we have to). The trouble is you’re going to end up having to be selective, because to come back to where this thread started would we not be allowed to discuss a chink of light, or to do Top Gear could we not discuss steep slopes?

Just for a change I’m with Charlie on this one – unless I’ve missed it, there aren’t many black urban Americans on this forum using that as a term of affection for each other, so nothing would be lost here by banning it. I can’t think of a context to use it on this forum which isn’t racist apart from discussing whether it’s racist 😈

But it is a racist term, albeit in some cases used as a familiar.

FeeFoo – Member

Racists, racist apologists and the plain ignorant use these words.
If you don’t want to belong to one of these categories, don’t use the words.

Why would you possibly argue the point? Why are you so desperate to hang onto these outdated terminologies?

Indeed. I’m so terrified of being called a racist that I’m no longer comfortable using the term “black person”, it is after all outdated, coming as it does from the 1970s.

I think the term “melanistic person” might be more appropriate, if God forbid, you are required to to refer to the colour of someone’s skin – I prefer to pretend that I haven’t noticed.

Its not the intent – its the context.

I am sensitive to discrimination and have fought against it for a long long time but some of your comments here are way over the top calling people racist apologists

No harm in being selective, after all Balls is allowed but Tw@ isn’t.

We can’t talk about a chink of light, as we often do. But currently we can’t talk about how I’d like to Tw@ someone for talking like a ****

quite right aracer – there is no context on this forum for **** not to be racist bar as yo say discussions around the use of words. I was merely using it as an example of a word where the context alters its offensiveness greatly

How about where it’s a resident of a town in Scotland… No wait, I know where this one ends

way over the top calling people racist apologists

Well, if it is intent, then you should know that he does not mind this at all. In fact he invites it

LOL@ Northwind

Well, you’ve at least demonstrated why they might.

Maybe I have.

I’m quite happy to admit that until recently I had no idea that “Oriental” was offensive.

Though in my defence, I’ve grown up seeing it on restaurant signs.

> It’s about intent.
Why do people keep saying this? The intent might tell you whether or not the individual is racist, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is the terminology which is racist

Because “terminology” is words – and the meaning of words change with intent.

(and FWIW, I agree that n****** should be in the swear filter here)

we’d just repeatedly hit the Scunthorpe problem.

*snigger snigger*

YOU can be racist without intent. I see this often. Old folk I work with who use racist stereotyping and terms without meaning it in any derogatory way at all. they don’t realise they are being racist and they don’t mean to be so but they are – just horrendously outdated ideas and language

I’m quite happy to admit that until recently I had no idea that “Oriental” was offensive.

Though in my defence, I’ve grown up seeing it on restaurant signs.

But you understand that it is not a word which, say Chinese people would naturally choose to define themselves.

Hmm – do I get in trouble for swear filter evasion by quoting somebody?

The thing is, that use of the word there is only non-offensive (if it is?) through re-use in a context where an offensive word is required. You **** up a bit there, to coin another non-offensive use of a swear filter word – the thing is there are plenty of alternatives which work fine and those words don’t have a non-offensive meaning which isn’t derived from the offensive one. So non-equivalent.

I may have missed it already being done, but I presume we’re about to head off in the same direction as the “pigeon loft thread” here? It was kind of laughed about on the bits of the thread I have read, but is any term which alludes to the colour of somebody’s skin in any way (as we’ve done further up this page) similarly unacceptable?

But there are also alternatives.to a chink of light, does it matter how they are derived? after all,the filter allows Berk.

Sure, but in that context chink is totally non-offensive and never has been offensive, so still non-equivalent. Find me a totally innocent use of some word that’s in the swear filter and we can try again (your example isn’t – as I wrote, the whole context of the use relies upon the offensive nature of the word).

I’ve not said Oriental is unacceptable or offensive, it just a little superficial.
I think it’s fine to refer to the colour of a person’s skin, so long it is done with awareness of what is appropriate, yes language changes and want was previously acceptable is now not, so, coloured people and people of colour will come and go as the baggage they carry changes. But it’s not so hard to keep up to date and if you use the wrong term and someone points it out, be graceful about it. Especially if it is someone who might be better placed to know. Don’t try defend a position just because you have always held it, change your terminology and change it again and again, it moved us away from all those horrible terms which were acceptable in the seventies and earlier, used by the victims of it too, that didn’t mean the terms were okay

But you understand that it is not a word which, say Chinese people would naturally choose to define themselves.

According to you.

I’d suggest that if someone doesn’t want their food to be described as oriental then they should probably avoid putting “oriental” in the name of their restaurant.

So no, it hadn’t really occurred to me that the person running the local “Oriental Garden” might take offence at it being described as an oriental restaurant. What about the “Chinese Lantern”? Am I okay to describe that as serving Chinese food or should I just say “food”?! Not all of the food they sell is particularly Chinese – especially the chips with curry sauce 😆

(Disappointed no one has posted the “Going out for an English” sketch yet)

Aracer,.point is that our discussions would be no poorer for the loss of the word chink.

I don’t think equivalence matters

But now I have to find a word which meets your criteria!

is any term which alludes to the colour of somebody’s skin in any way (as we’ve done further up this page) similarly unacceptable?

All adjectives can be used to insult and divide.

Therefore all adjectives are bad.

CharlieMungus » But there are also alternatives.to a chink of light

And we could call a spade a “bladed digging implement”. 🙄

In other words, Wheaton’s Law. Though in a similar way, I’m not sure why it’s necessary to continue to argue about the unacceptable offensive superficial nature of a word just because you’ve always held that view…

Well I’ll add another bit of work for you then – give me a phrase which means exactly the same as a chink of light with the same neatness. It might not be that widely a used phrase, but when it fits the context…

The thing is, there is no similar debate to be had over any of the words which are in the filter (unless and until you successfully complete your homework).

I’d suggest that if someone doesn’t want their food to be described as oriental then they should probably avoid putting “oriental” in the name of their restaurant.

But then you wouldn’t know what food they serve.
But actually you might reasonably expect food the middle east, from russia or Skegness. They are able East. India is in the East, would you use the term Oriental.to describe someone from India?

give me a phrase which means exactly the same as a chink of light with the same neatness.

Ooh good game! Ok, but you give me a phrase which means exactly the same as so, “I wanted to tw@ him” with the same neatness.

Nope. Not playing that game, because I’ve already explained why your swear word used in that way is still a swear word, so non-equivalent. You can’t use my argument to defend that.

edit: as I pointed out at the bottom of that post – sorry, I’m not quite sure, but was it an edit after you posted?

A ray of light
A thin beam of light

No, tw@ in the sense of hit is not a swear word

Glimmer of light? Offensive to glims?

“This ruling represents a ray of light in an otherwise bleak outlook”
nope
“This ruling represents a thin beam of light in an otherwise bleak outlook”
nope

CharlieMungus – Member

……………
A thin beam of light

Fattist!

A ray of light
A thin beam of light

This thread is starting to read like the transcript of a Monty Python sketch.

Thanks:
“I wanted to hit him” 😉

Though it’s still derived from the use as a swear word in that context, whilst chink of light has completely different roots to any offensive use.

“This ruling represents a ray of light in an otherwise bleak outlook”

Oh in the metaphorical sense!

A glimmer of hope

“I wanted to hit him”

Not even close

Well I must be completely misunderstanding your use then – does it not involve any form of violence?