Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

vole.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 310 posts

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#291

Post by racl101 »

praptak wrote: post #67
mahathu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In February 2004 in Scotland, Craig Cockburn reported that he was unable to use his surname (pronounced "Coburn") with Hotmail. Separately he had problems with his workplace email because his job title, software specialist, contained the substring Cialis, an erectile dysfunction medication commonly included in spam e-mails." Now that's just bad luck. It could've happened to any of us!

"It irks me how admins always ban my buddy, presumably because they think 88 in his nick is code for 'heil Hitler'. It's really unfair. Take care viagrapenis88!"

88 == SS?

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#292

Post by hayleox »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #95
jawns wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around middle school, I decided that I would stop using swear words, because it seemed like getting myself in trouble by letting one slip out at an inappropriate time was more of a bother than just avoiding them and coming up with more inventive ways to express myself. Refraining from curse words has been part of my character ever since, and just about everybody who knows me knows that I don't swear. And you know wha…

ESL here. At school one teacher told us using swear words only show your lack of knowledge for better words. I took that to heart and the very few times I've used them, I really had no other option. However I've noticed swear words come more easily to me in English and don't feel as harsh as when I hear them in Spanish. I wonder if it's my lack of vocabulary.

I think it's a pretty common thing for speakers of multiple languages to feel that their secondary language(s) carry less emotional weight. Random article on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/27/bad-lan...

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#293

Post by umvi »

oefnak wrote: post #284
umvi wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship (in my opinion) has a time and a place. And it should always be a choice, never forced on you. This is an extremely controversial topic that seems to get a lot of people's emotions running hot, so please try and counter that before responding. In my opinion, censorship of media is a personal preference akin to food aversions. Picking the mushrooms out of a chef's dish isn't censorship, nor an insult to his…

How can you tone that down?

Mainly by deleting explicit extraneous details so that more is left to the imagination.

"There was another dead man beyond the old one, a big red-bearded man with a rotting grey bandage covering his left ear and part of his temple. But the worst thing was between his legs, where nothing remained but a crusted brown hole crawling with maggots."

becomes

"There was another dead man beyond the old one, a big red-bearded man with a rotting grey bandage covering his left ear and part of his temple."

I personally find explicit gore like that revolting, and I also don't like reading explicit descriptions of sex organs and/or act of sex so I deleted them. I remove the explicit descriptions of the sex organs and act of sex, while leaving it clear that the characters are sleeping together.

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#294

Post by BearOso »

Yoshitsuna. I see this false positive on other sites all the time. It needs to exclude censored words that are part of others by checking for white space on the sides. And that won’t work with ligatures at the very beginning of text.

Then you need the censorship to be voluntary, so people aren’t tempted to circumvent it.

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#295

Post by mtrower »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #261
nogabebop23 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People who swear do it so frequently it looses the power. It shows a lack of vocabulary more than any sort of moral failing. If you only swear rarely you get a lot more impact when you do, vs. the person who cannot avoid every 3rd word being a blue one. Also, there are some truly eloquent swears out there!

Yup, some people swear so much it becomes a stop- or filler word, padding out a sentence unnecessarily. I mean you could insert a variation of "fuck" half a dozen times in the above sentence and it would add nothing of value to it.

Emphasis.

Am I suggesting you should do this with all your sentences? Absolutely not. However, I would certainly not read the two sentences the same.

(Food for thought: spices do not generally add nutritional value to food. Yet, each has their own preference as to whether, and how heavily their food should be spiced.)

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#296

Post by mtrower »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #146
sbarre wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument before (and I tend to agree with it), but here's a counter-point I heard recently and appreciated: Eloquence and good vocabulary are important, but there is a time and place for something vulgar and basic. Just like there's a time and place for a rapier and there's also a time and place for a folding chair or a pool cue.

This. People who swear do it so frequently it looses the power. It shows a lack of vocabulary more than any sort of moral failing. If you only swear rarely you get a lot more impact when you do, vs. the person who cannot avoid every 3rd word being a blue one. Also, there are some truly eloquent swears out there!

> It shows a lack of vocabulary more than any sort of moral failing.

Here, now, I call nonsense on that one. I (probably?) swear more than most of my friends in private, casual communication circles. I also have a much greater vocabulary than any of them (this is not hubris --- I'm frequently told to explain words I use; I chalk this up to being better-read throughout my life). It just doesn't follow that because a person favors certain words, that they must not understand or feel comfortable with others.

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#297

Post by mtrower »

jamiek88 wrote: post #235
Osiris wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't cuss / use profane language. However, I have found a few idioms that just don't quite translate. For example, my co-workers laugh at me for saying "for kicks and giggles" instead of "s$!#s and giggles". I've also seen people in leadership positions use a lot of foul language and it can really bring down the professionalism. As someone that doesn't use that language I find that avoid the trap of letting s…

It’s really unfair but you come across as a Ned Flanders type here. I mean for kicks and giggles. You know you mean shits and giggles, they know you mean shits and giggles, the phrase makes no sense with kicks. Seems pointdiddlyointless.

Does it make sense with "shits"?

I mean really, if you stop to think about it, what does it mean to do things "for shits"? Is there a sensibly apparent meaning, or is it like the word "cool", where people attach meaning that the word doesn't formally have?

FYI, where I come from both phrases are considered reasonable. Without researching the matter, it isn't even clear to me that "shits and giggles" is the original phrase from which the other is derived. I suppose it's all a product of environment in the end.

I share the general sentiment though. I heard all kinds of "interesting" phrases growing up that didn't seem to be pointful. For example, people who would say "P.O.'d" in lieu of "pissed off", and become offended if you used the actual phrase. I always felt it was silly. Use the phrase or don't.

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#298

Post by mtrower »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #264
vidarh wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words are words and censoring “bad” words is silly. You can’t censor meaning. “Fk you” is just as powerful a statement as “fuck you”. Especially if it censors words like “associating” or “Cummings” or “arsenal”. This is just fodder for the unnecessary censorship memes. One of my childhood friends kept calling his brother names. He was told off and told he couldn't do that any more... He promptly changed to call his…

Yup, intent is more important than the actual words. An acquaintance has taken to using a feature or piece of wardrobe as an insult, e.g. "Baseball cap" or whatever. There's also a story that I can't remember fully (my girlfriend knows it) where "prairie hat" became an insult.

Ya bloody prairie hat!

...I'm saving this one ;)

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#299

Post by mtrower »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #266
kitotik wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nice counter may be a font that uses ligatures to replace benign impotent words with their more forceful and blunt equivalents.

Or that undoes self-censoring like f k or a$$. I mean come on, who thinks that actually "protects" the reader or whyever they do it?

Kind of curious, isn't it? It gets around filters, but I assume that's not what you're talking about.

I imagine some people have psychological aversions to "filthy" words like this; and that seeing such substitute words is less uncomfortable for them. That does, however, beg the question: if the intent is to avoid giving offense, why not avoid the word in the first place?

Re: Scunthorpe Sans – a self-censoring font

#300

Post by mtrower »

umvi wrote: post #199
IgorPartola wrote: post #66

As a way to show off the capability of ligatures, more power to them. As an effort to censor, why in the ever loving fuck nuggets would you ever actually do that? I have young kids and a large family. We all curse periodically. Instead of telling the kids that these are bad words, we told them they are adult words. As in, when you are old enough you can curse all you want, but as a kid you can’t. We felt that this wa…

Censorship (in my opinion) has a time and a place. And it should always be a choice, never forced on you. This is an extremely controversial topic that seems to get a lot of people's emotions running hot, so please try and counter that before responding. In my opinion, censorship of media is a personal preference akin to food aversions. Picking the mushrooms out of a chef's dish isn't censorship, nor an insult to his…

I suppose it depends on what you consider valuable. Some details will matter more to some people than others.

Essentially, those details you're removing are flavor. Alright, so you don't like the particular flavor here. I'm not going to tell you that you should. There's a certain level of gratuity beyond which I lose appreciation as well. For my part though, I want the experience as envisioned by the author. If I don't like it, I'd rather avoid the content entirely, rather than censor it. This is because, to me, it's all interconnected --- the primary plot, the flavor, all the little details --- everything. I guess I'm a purist. I'm also not the type to pick ingredients out of a dish.

If you want to modify content for your personal consumption though, well, I don't see the harm in that. As you say, it's a personal choice.

Post reply on HN