[META] Censoring quoted slurs is not required. But if you prefer to censor, could you stop with the c[slur] f[slur] business, dearest SRSters? Seriously, what is that? (self.ShitRedditSays)

199 ups - 65 downs = 134 votes

I have no idea how it started and I've never seen it anywhere else. Aesthetically, it looks like shit and it reads like shit. I don't know why I hate it so much but I do, and so do several other mods and regular users.

So let's review the rule: no "ironic" or "satirical" use of slurs. This goes along with the rule of thumb that if your comment is something a shitlord would say, and only differentiated by maybe some smileys and censoring of slurs, then it's probably not a quality comment, and will be subject to removal.

Outside of that, censoring slurs has always been optional. SRS is not a safe space. SRS is, in fact, a subreddit dedicated to highlighting triggering content - hence Rule 4. But, if you're more comfortable censoring, then just do it like a regular person, with hyphens or asterisks. None of this c[slur] business. TIA.

180 comments submitted at 21:31:49 on Feb 1, 2013 by ArchangelleStrudelle

  • [-]
  • BDS_UHS
  • 28 Points
  • 22:03:26, 1 February

Honestly, the only reason I did it was because I thought writing out slurs in a title was banned.

  • [-]
  • nefrytatanen
  • 18 Points
  • 00:39:55, 2 February

I thought it was a rule I'd missed. I tend to go offline for days at a time, get back, and I'm all "wtf is this giant blue bird thing" or whatever. So I just roll with whatever's going on. No sense needlessly upsetting anyone, and if I wait long enough, I'll figure out what's going on, if not why (as in the case of the bird. Seriously, what IS that, is this just some mod in-joke?).

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 13 Points
  • 00:50:59, 2 February

>Seriously, what IS that, is this just some mod in-joke?

pretty much. it started on irc. one of the angelles found the clipart, thought it was funny as hell, and started spamming the hell out of the channel with it for some bizarre reason.

from there it somehow morphed into "brd" instead of "bird" and somehow became the new mascot. Redditors are convinced it means Burn Down Reddit. Which is more than mildly amusing, because they get so darn mad about it.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleRazielle
  • 26 Points
  • 01:01:34, 2 February

>BRD

>Burn Down Reddit

uh

  • [-]
  • vcatdoor
  • 9 Points
  • 02:34:26, 2 February

Burn reddit down?

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleRazielle
  • 9 Points
  • 05:19:54, 2 February

yes do that, I strongly recommend it

  • [-]
  • segoli
  • 4 Points
  • 01:17:43, 2 February

i dont see what the problem is?????????

  • [-]
  • octopotamus
  • 12 Points
  • 01:33:28, 2 February

BDR is the WDR!

  • [-]
  • nefrytatanen
  • 15 Points
  • 01:03:45, 2 February

Thank you SO much.

The sidebar brd hugging the girl is so cute I am working myself up to get it as my first tat. Don't know how I'd explain it to future grandkids. "Welp, you see, once upon a time, there were these horrible creatures called Shitlords, terrorizing the land.... and mighty social justice warriors arose out of the ashes to combat it, and as their emblem, they chose this odd-looking bird....now gather round kidlets as I tell you the tale of SRS."

  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 5 Points
  • 04:40:52, 2 February

do eeet

do eet and i'll get "KNIT FAST DYE YARN" on my back and we can be first tat buddies

  • [-]
  • ponytology
  • 2 Points
  • 06:02:16, 2 February

Awwwww, I hope you post pics if you do! I love huggy brd so much, just big fat fluffy brd hugs, makes me sigh with happiness.

  • [-]
  • pidgezero_one
  • 6 Points
  • 02:45:37, 2 February

At first when I had no idea what it was I went to google "brd srs"

and came upon this http://www.linkedin.com/groups/BRD-Vs-SRS-What-is-98590.S.101920589

as an industrial engineer i was like "wow that's pretty obscure humour that i can appreciate"

  • [-]
  • Shadaez
  • 0 Points
  • 04:01:16, 2 February

Thanks I stopped browsing for a while and had no idea what BRD was, thought it was beard or something.

  • [-]
  • Gracana
  • 16 Points
  • 02:07:27, 2 February

Can I censor my use of [slur] so as not to annoy the mods? I suggest [[slur] as an alternative.

  • [-]
  • Sylvia_The_Turtle
  • 11 Points
  • 00:40:13, 2 February

  • [-]
  • LadyRarity
  • 19 Points
  • 21:49:39, 1 February

>censoring quoted slurs is not required.

THANK SAGAN ONE PART OF THIS SHITHOLE RESPECTS MY DAWKINS-GIVEN RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

:3 <3

  • [-]
  • thel109
  • 10 Points
  • 01:40:09, 2 February

I'm pretty okay with "[slur]". I thought it was a good change when it came about.

  • [-]
  • brdwombyn
  • 7 Points
  • 03:29:09, 2 February

I like it too--better than asterisks anyways. I'll probably keep doing it that way. Oh well, sorry mods.

  • [-]
  • FistofanAngryGoddess
  • 5 Points
  • 04:15:43, 2 February

A little while back I would include the ism/phobia inside the bracket, like [ableist slur] or [sexist slur]. Now I just use the first letter and underscores.

  • [-]
  • devtesla
  • 55 Points
  • 00:47:16, 2 February

I encourage everyone to continue using [slur] because it annoys the mods.

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 39 Points
  • 01:36:53, 2 February

Mods are asleep, censor your slurs

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleGabrielle
  • 22 Points
  • 01:54:30, 2 February

\>:[

  • [-]
  • ScreamingAloudInside
  • 3 Points
  • 05:46:55, 2 February

This is the weirdist act of f[slur] rebellion i've partaken in.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleDworkin
  • 29 Points
  • 01:23:32, 2 February

D:

  • [-]
  • thinkythought
  • 14 Points
  • 03:19:05, 2 February

wait, hold up, didn't this [slur] business start because i think maybe, bzenmojo, and a few other people were saying it made sense since it would make us stop and actually think about the fact that it wasn't just censoring out fuck as F*** or something, but an actual slur?

i agree it aesthetically looks like crap though.

EDIT: for all the people agreeing with me and going "yea!", I wasn't supporting this, just trying to explain it. I think it's assy slacktivism crap. We all know these are slurs. Just star them out. I'm tired of this shit.

As the archangelles said, this bracketed nonsense doesn't happen anywhere else. Let it die. It was a shitty idea.

  • [-]
  • Grickit
  • 5 Points
  • 04:13:01, 2 February

>it would make us stop and actually think about the fact that it wasn't just censoring out fuck as F*** or something, but an actual slur?

That.

It's just like the kick bot in the IRC channels.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleFarrah
  • 4 Points
  • 04:18:17, 2 February

Well, the IRC bot is there because IRC is considered a chill, safe space. SRS Prime, not so much.

  • [-]
  • exnor
  • 5 Points
  • 05:03:33, 2 February

That's what I thought it was for. If anyone can think of a more aesthetically pleasing alternative that does the same I'll happily adopt it.

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 16 Points
  • 01:06:23, 2 February

lol, literally this. :p

  • [-]
  • hannahbrun
  • 5 Points
  • 05:26:21, 2 February

Ooahahahahaaa. Where is that evil hedgehog when you need him?

  • [-]
  • devtesla
  • 8 Points
  • 05:28:06, 2 February

She's not evil! She's just grumpy.

  • [-]
  • hannahbrun
  • 5 Points
  • 05:38:50, 2 February

Is there an evil rat? I remember little wringing hands.

  • [-]
  • devtesla
  • 7 Points
  • 05:47:25, 2 February

Ohh, that's the racoon.

Also if u ever need to find a smiley the list of em is in the sidebar!

  • [-]
  • Lilivati
  • 7 Points
  • 00:29:44, 2 February

I'm fortunate to not have had too much traumatic shit happen in my life. I could wrap my head around trigger warnings and censoring words and respected that, but I didn't understand it. Then I got in a major car accident. I couldn't read or talk about even other people's accidents without starting to shake. It was years before I could drive normally again. And then I was like, this is what happens to some people every time they hear/see [word] or discuss [topic]. A little linguistic ugliness is a small price to pay imo. That said, it's not my sub to moderate and I try to abide by the rules of whatever sub I'm in.

  • [-]
  • CressCrowbits
  • 8 Points
  • 01:44:15, 2 February

I'd rather over censor myself and avoid horribly triggering people than avoid censoring myself because people might find it slightly annoying.

  • [-]
  • qweer
  • 17 Points
  • 22:51:16, 1 February

No mod sass intended, but maybe people do it for the purpose of clarity of what kind of -ism it is? Ie, if reddit is being slut-shamey and stuff, it's more easy to see that's happening if the quote is "that girl is a s[slur]" that "that girl is a [slur]"

Then again, most of the time you get the point anyway. Just a thought.

edit: I realized I kinda missed the point of the thread, I thought the OP meant we should just say [slur] instead of X[slur] (with a letter in front). Now that I've re-read it, and while I'm aware that Prime is not a safe space, who cares if we censor a word, ie poop, as p[slur] instead of p--p? And why would we encourage people to leave in the slurs? If someone wants to write p[slur], who cares, it's less slur and people have said they would prefer not to read "p--p"-style censors because it's more triggery.

edit2: wow I just wrote the word "slur" a lot and now it doesn't sound like a word.

edit3: writing asterisks (ie p**p) does mess with reddit's formatting sometimes, which is annoying, so, I do think that's another reason why p[slur] > askterisk splosion

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 16 Points
  • 23:11:25, 1 February

idk i find saying "s[slur]" instead of "slut" to be rather ridiculous, particularly in prime. Do I think stuff like tra***y should be censored? sure, of course.

i just find the constant f[slur] s[slur] type stuff annoying as heck and its gotten to the point of absurdity.

  • [-]
  • GammaTainted
  • 1 Points
  • 00:28:51, 2 February

To be clear, are you objecting to the use of f[slur] when actually quoting some shitlord? Or just when when people are jerking because you feel it lowers the quality of the jerk when comments are just [slur][slur][slur].

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 14 Points
  • 00:42:11, 2 February

okay to clarify, its not me objecting on some social justice grounds or something (at least not primarily).

>if you're more comfortable censoring, then just do it like a regular person, with hyphens or asterisks. None of this c[slur] business.

like, a bunch of people, myself included, find it annoying as hell. no one is telling people not to censor shit, just try to do it in a less annoying way. the c[slur] s[slur] crap constantly is just weird.

>I have no idea how it started and I've never seen it anywhere else. Aesthetically, it looks like shit and it reads like shit. I don't know why I hate it so much but I do, and so do several other mods and regular users.

on a personal level, when people get to the point of censoring words like "slut" or "stupid", yeah I think thats absurd tumblr nonsense.

hope this helps to clarify a bit.

  • [-]
  • thinkythought
  • 5 Points
  • 03:27:07, 2 February

>on a personal level, when people get to the point of censoring words like "slut" or "stupid", yeah I think thats absurd tumblr nonsense.

i agree with this, i just never had the energy to even mention that i thought this way since i knew i would instantly get ripped down.

  • [-]
  • Fl3et
  • 8 Points
  • 01:14:18, 2 February

>on a personal level, when people get to the point of censoring words like "slut" or "stupid", yeah I think thats absurd tumblr nonsense.

Just because your experiences haven't led you to find them offensive to the same degree as some other slurs or triggering to you doesn't mean that applies to others.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 24 Points
  • 22:54:13, 1 February

It's a bad and privilege-blind decision.

Mod sass intended.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleSyzygy
  • 13 Points
  • 23:10:47, 1 February

Sass aside. Explain?

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 20 Points
  • 23:14:02, 1 February

I have kind of scattered my POV all over the thread, which I regret, but I am kind of angry.

>I don't understand, in any way, how this sub can understand the concept of trigger words and yet refuse to require people to censor quoted slurs.

>IT'S A FUCKING ASTERISK. IT'S LITERALLY THE LEAST YOU CAN FUCKING DO.

>i recognize that there are other things than slurs that are triggering, and that censoring slurs will not make SRS a safe place.

>but it takes such minimal effort and lets some people participate who otherwise would not.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleSyzygy
  • 13 Points
  • 23:16:28, 1 February

No, it's fine. Because you might indeed have a point. I just haven't looked at the rest of the thread yet, so it's my bad.

>I don't understand, in any way, how this sub can understand the concept of trigger words and yet refuse to require people to censor quoted slurs.

Frankly, I'm still against slurs. I'm just also against seeing [slur][slur][slur].

I'll yammer about it with the other Angelles. :)

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 12 Points
  • 23:20:37, 1 February

No no, I just was apologizing because you have to piece together what I'm saying, and I didn't want to look like I was quoting myself to be a shithead.

I'm against slurs too, but sometimes comments with slurs are the ones we want to discuss. When those are quoted, they should be censored IMO.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleSyzygy
  • 12 Points
  • 23:27:44, 1 February

Yeah, if it's any consolation I'm of the same mindset.

  • [-]
  • tears4brd
  • 3 Points
  • 05:37:35, 2 February

I brought this up in SRSD, but I want to bring it up here also. You being receptive to the idea is a reason why and perhaps you can discuss it with the other Arches. One of the reasons I like having things censored is that for me personally certain things dealing with rape can be triggering for me. So, I avoid those topics for the most part. While most things don't bother me so much to be triggering I can see how they might for others. Just using my experience to try and give support for them being banned because despite my aversion to those topics I do like participating in other topics.

  • [-]
  • Grickit
  • 17 Points
  • 00:58:56, 2 February

I don't see why there's a problem with people doing their bit to stop slurs from spreading. :|

I will keep censoring them.

n[slur]/f[slur]/t[slur] and the rest may be ugly, but they're one of the better ways to censor. It lets people new to the sub see exactly why that word was censored. It's a slur. These people must not like slurs. I should be careful not to use them.

It also helps train people to not say these because they're so used to pausing and taking a few seconds to censor. They get used to taking that little pause when one of these words comes to their brain. It's similar to the kickbot on IRC.

  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 9 Points
  • 04:49:27, 2 February

also, fwiw, i think n[slur] is a lot less ugly than, you know, slurs

plus asterisks often screw up my post formatting and i am not good at computer.

  • [-]
  • 0x1000000
  • 2 Points
  • 05:26:03, 2 February

Use backticks to post a whole bunch of asterisks in a row.

even with words to either side ******* like this

even with words to either side `*******` like this
  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 5 Points
  • 05:28:29, 2 February

**********

stop trying to teach me to computer, you

  • [-]
  • 0x1000000
  • 2 Points
  • 05:33:04, 2 February

You're welcome.

I'm still deciding what side of this conversation to come down on, though :/

  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 4 Points
  • 05:38:51, 2 February

I'm coming down on both sides, sort of! I personally don't really like asterisks in text as much as n[slur] or whatever, but I prefer them both to just straight up saying the slurs. And disliking the asterisk thing is mostly just an aesthetic thing, combined with a small degree of "boo fancy formatting you can't ask me to remember thing" and the aforementioned point that [slur] makes it a lot clearer why the word is being avoided.

  • [-]
  • 0x1000000
  • 2 Points
  • 05:59:22, 2 February

Devils Advocate:

There is a real problem, and it's faced with macros as well, is that people sometimes use ~~the communicative awareness brought by~~ that X[slur] makes it clear as to the reason for the censoring to compensate for a post that would otherwise be shitty.

For example of such behaviour where awareness was intended to compensate for being shitty, let's examine a post of mine from 2 days ago. Let's play "Spot the edit!"

Thing is, while we expect the context of SRS and additional stuff like, in my case, mentioning non-binary possibilities, or X[slur] to carry part of the communication for us, not everyone is going to put the amount of thought into understanding us that that expects. Clearly the onus is on the writer to write clearly, and to keep in mind that:

  1. People read quickly. If there are a number of subtleties a post relies upon, they can be missed

  2. If they're here, people are reading through shit, and expect to see shit. They might miss any secondary meanings from the context/subtleties simply by not expecting any.

  3. People reading through here are very often angry. See point 2. We all misread things when we're angry.

  4. Relying on ~~esoteric folklore~~ in-knowledge and in-customs might be fine for private subreddits, but for public ones, such as prime, a) there exist people who wouldn't understand the in-knowledge, b) ~~the levels of common knowledge do not exist~~ people who do know the in-knowledge might not interpret it correctly evenso because the context of prime is a context where in-knowledge shouldn't be relied upon, so they still might miss the secondary meaning.

I don't particularly like the way ArchangelleStrudelle is arguing, as zie makes it look like primarily a stylistic argument.

And then you have stuff like this:

>>on a personal level, when people get to the point of censoring words like "slut" or "stupid", yeah I think thats absurd tumblr nonsense.

>i agree with this, i just never had the energy to even mention that i thought this way since i knew i would instantly get ripped down.

Which makes me really uncomfortable and knee-jerk want to continue using it to make a point. I mean c'mon, people, you have those nice big green numbers by your names and you still think stuff like that?

  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 2 Points
  • 06:21:05, 2 February

Well, yeah, I do have a problem with just making a shitty comment with the slurs censored as a jerk comment. I think I just like it more because even if some people don't notice that subtext, some people do, and there's no harm done. (also fwiw i think strudelle is primarily making a stylistic argument.)

As for the last exchange... yeah. I personally am not triggered by slurs against women or the mentally ill, but it's not too hard to censor them, just because I know some people are. That's just courtesy, pretty much.

  • [-]
  • 0x1000000
  • 1 Points
  • 06:41:20, 2 February

Yeah, that last exchange was in this thread . . .

>Well, yeah, I do have a problem with just making a shitty comment with the slurs censored as a jerk comment.

Well, I used that example of mine to show that it goes a bit further than the obvious example. I got PMs for that accusing me of erasure. I'm cool with that, I edited for clarity. If people think I meant something shitty, that means I said something shitty.

And if you're using n[slur], s[slur], t[slur], whatever, it means you're always walking that thin line. Well, there are exceptions: you could be quoting someone, you can just use 'slur' if you want to censor this way, no need for the [] or the X. If people are curious, there's a link right there for them to find out. Or you could just post it: SRS is not a safe place. (See int_argc in this thread as to why censoring is better). In any case, X[slur] isn't really the best choice, and in that sense, if that was the only sense in which the argument applies, it's a pure stylistic choice

But unless you're quoting, writing down the slur in a post, blanketed by X[slur], that's necessarily walking a thin line.

If there is an agreement on that last statement, then:

Now I can talk about the memetic effects of allowing it. X[slur] is something fairly unique to the fempire, right? Asterisks and other common censoring is not unique to us, and isn't often read as being so. X[slur], as evidenced by several posts here, was actually thought to be a rule of the fempire by many people.

So use of X[slur] in quotations encourages use of X[slur] in posts. Now, taking in mind that out-group people, with a focus on those becoming in-group people, necessarily contain a majority of shitty people, the purpose they ascribe to the use of X[slur], being unique to us, isn't the purpose that we're arguing is the nice bits of it.

And that encourages new people to use it badly. Because they think that's its purpose.

Now, the negative use I'm talking about, well, that's already against the rules. We don't really need a post telling us to follow the rules that already exist, and what's more, the archangelles HAVE reminded us before that using X[slur] isn't just a fancy way of saying the slur and letting it slip, and if it's still a problem, we aren't listening.

So, sumup:

In quotes: Stylistic

In posts: Problematic

Discouragement of one leads to the discouragement of the other.

Direct discouragement of the problematic one has not worked before.

  • [-]
  • kraken_calamari
  • 1 Points
  • 06:22:55, 2 February

'Backticks'. I love that. What's it mean?

  • [-]
  • 0x1000000
  • 2 Points
  • 06:48:31, 2 February

backtick = `

The tick is ', which on computer fonts is typically also used for single quotes and apostrophes. In a font that differentiates, typically a single quote is comma-shaped, an apostrophe is straight-down and a tick is a mirror of the backtick.

edit: putting backticks on either side of something on reddit makes it code-like, almost identical to putting four spaces before a line

to make the entire line codelike

except that method also includes indentation.

backticks don't indent

  • [-]
  • Pony_Stanza
  • 12 Points
  • 22:59:49, 1 February

What about ironically, like "We should castrate all the male cra[slur]kers"

What then, huh?

  • [-]
  • GigglyHyena
  • 6 Points
  • 23:53:11, 1 February

Obvs you get flair and a medal.

  • [-]
  • poffin
  • 24 Points
  • 22:10:35, 1 February

This is cool and all but why does it matter? Who cares which method of censoring we use? I definitely agree that trying to make srs a safe space is laughable but if the only reason we're banning "[slur]" is because the mods think it's ugly then that makes me uncomfortable.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 17 Points
  • 22:25:21, 1 February

"Banning" is probably overstating what's going on here. Think of this post as a PSA clarifying the rules on censoring, and a stylistic note that the [slur] method is objectively bad. Mostly I don't want people to think the [slur] method is required, which, if I had just stumbled upon the sub today, I probably would've assumed it was a rule. Basically I hate it and I want it to go away. What is the problem?

  • [-]
  • johnbeeharvard
  • 13 Points
  • 23:06:20, 1 February

Just to be clear, wasn't "no slurs in the jerk" a rule in the past? I definitely remember people being corrected by mods in the past for not censoring slurs...

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 9 Points
  • 23:10:54, 1 February

Yes, that was the previous wording of Rule 3. Same meaning, different wording.

  • [-]
  • Caesar_taumlaus_tran
  • 5 Points
  • 05:45:16, 2 February

  • [-]
  • qwestionseverything
  • 22 Points
  • 21:34:21, 1 February

>SRS is not a safe space

Especially not for white straight ablebodied cis men. But you can't take our bathrooms from us!

  • [-]
  • bobappleyard
  • 24 Points
  • 23:15:52, 1 February

\> is feminist man

\> goes into your bathroom

\> polices what you say

  • [-]
  • Nytzschy
  • 13 Points
  • 23:53:42, 1 February

  • [-]
  • GigglyHyena
  • 4 Points
  • 23:51:36, 1 February

boom roasted

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleDworkin
  • 20 Points
  • 21:34:52, 1 February

>and will be subject to removal.

and banning

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleGabrielle
  • 24 Points
  • 21:54:39, 1 February

everything will be banned

  • [-]
  • apjane
  • 9 Points
  • 23:01:44, 1 February

dworks! I haven't seen you post in weeks! Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but it's good to see your, erm, face? typing?

  • [-]
  • HokesOne
  • 8 Points
  • 23:14:50, 1 February

Typeface?

  • [-]
  • apjane
  • 6 Points
  • 23:22:08, 1 February

YES

  • [-]
  • johnbeeharvard
  • 23 Points
  • 23:18:16, 1 February

So now the jerk is for the non-slur triggered privileged to complain about triggering comments and everyone who actually has to deal with triggers either has to cope or stay away?

I mean, yeah, the content is inherently shitty, but does the jerk need to contribute to the shittiness in this way? Why? Cause some people think it "looks awkward"?

I'm not really getting this.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleDworkin
  • 16 Points
  • 23:52:43, 1 February

the point of srs is to be a mirror. that's why we use direct quotes and dont allow jerking in the titles.

it's supposed to be difficult to get though.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 13 Points
  • 23:36:57, 1 February

Nothing is changing, I don't understand why people are acting like we've banned censoring or something? Censorship was always optional, just look through old posts if you don't believe me.

  • [-]
  • spoonipsum
  • 11 Points
  • 00:37:22, 2 February

You asked them to stop doing something they think is good and decent without giving an alternative until the very end of the post.

Don't be too surprised if some people misunderstand, including something like "Instead of whitecismale being redacted to [slur] or even more annoyingly w[slur] you can use the standard ****, but also avoid mashing shift numbers as some of them will change your text ala: @#%!$%^!@%#^ "

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 18 Points
  • 00:56:45, 2 February

>You asked them to stop doing something they think is good and decent without giving an alternative until the very end of the post. Don't be too surprised if some people misunderstand

haha I'm sorry but the title says "if you prefer to censor," don't do such and such, implying there must be more than one way to censor (as if that wasn't obvious to begin with?). I feel ridiculous even typing this many words about this issue. So many comments in here are like people didn't even read the post. It was just meant to be a short note about a little annoying thing and people are acting like it's some sweeping, oppressive policy change.

  • [-]
  • spoonipsum
  • 4 Points
  • 01:16:06, 2 February

haha I'm sorry but the alternative wasn't given until the very end and it looks like a bunch of people were/are confused.

My point is people are confused, you put out a message that makes sense but requires a level head and maybe even a reread to really understand.

Your post kicks off with:

> Aesthetically, it looks like shit and it reads like shit.

to an audience who from the comments disagrees. all I'm saying is you could have done a better job selling it and that's maybe were the confusion is coming from. I Shouldn't have made a suggestion since I'm sure I wouldn't have done a better job, communicating to the genpop is really hard.

  • [-]
  • RodManmeat
  • -1 Points
  • 01:30:14, 2 February

It's about seven lines of text. The "if you prefer to censor" part is in bold. If you're confused, it's your own fault.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 8 Points
  • 01:33:40, 2 February

tbf, I bolded that part after it was clear that people were confused. But it was always in the title!

I don't dispute that people are confused, I just dispute that it shouldn't have surprised me.

  • [-]
  • spoonipsum
  • 2 Points
  • 01:56:18, 2 February

:/ It should have surprised you! You did a much better job than I would have. I was just trying to say that after the fact I get the confusion.

Every email I send out at work comes a good two minutes after me staring at the monitor mumbling 'how am I f'ing it up this time?'. I only meant constructive criticism :/

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 4 Points
  • 02:00:15, 2 February

s'all good

  • [-]
  • srs_anon
  • 11 Points
  • 03:19:02, 2 February

Wow, why the fuck is this post so condescending? Did you consider that users err on the side of caution because there's such a hard-line stance taken on both explicit and tacit policies in the various SRS subreddits, despite that those policies aren't (always) ethical guidelines and that they change often and are difficult to keep straight? I actually agree that it makes more sense not to censor slurs in SRSPrime, but it's really fucked up that you're talking to SRSers like they're stupid just because they're trying to be courteous / avoid breaking rules and getting attacked for it.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 5 Points
  • 03:24:21, 2 February

It's possible I had bottled up my hatred for c[slur] et al too tightly and let it explode all over the OP. Sorry about that, brds.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleFarrah
  • 4 Points
  • 03:23:34, 2 February

What part of this post did you find condescending?

  • [-]
  • srs_anon
  • 5 Points
  • 03:28:18, 2 February

>dearest SRSters

-

>Seriously, what is that?

-

> Aesthetically, it looks like shit and it reads like shit

-

> I don't know why I hate it so much but I do

(from other posts)

>as if that wasn't obvious to begin with?

-

> I feel ridiculous even typing this many words about this issue

-

> So many comments in here are like people didn't even read the post

-

> note about a little annoying thing

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleFarrah
  • 4 Points
  • 03:37:39, 2 February

Would you be able to tell me how that's different from some of our other meta posts? I didn't get that Strudelle was being condescending when they referred to SRSters as "dearest". We actually consider you all dear to us. I guess that wasn't clear.

In defense of Strudelle, I don't think them speaking casually or venting frustration came off as condescending. However, apologies from us if that happened.

  • [-]
  • GigglyHyena
  • 8 Points
  • 23:49:46, 1 February

Yeah it felt a little like a child saying "The ess word!"

  • [-]
  • lborgia
  • 4 Points
  • 00:32:55, 2 February

Honestly, I used that form in my submissions cos 1) Most submissions did that and b) I misread the rules.

Whilst I get that SRS cannot be a safe space because of the content we exist to highlight, I always thought it was a good idea to censor in titles, as it gives people the chance to choose to read further or not, without being ambushed by it in their front page.

I can get on board with a stylistic decision regarding how we censor tho. And perhaps if the censored slur is unclear in its censored form (I am slow sometimes and can't put the words together) we can have the uncensored form as a comment (for those who don't want to step too near the poop?

  • [-]
  • TheLadyEve
  • 2 Points
  • 01:47:59, 2 February

I wish everyone on Reddit would read this post. My personal rule is that I not use slurs, not even ironically. It's hard sometimes because so many comments use them, but I think it's the only way for me to be authentic and effectively communicative.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 34 Points
  • 22:20:49, 1 February

~~-1 dislike~~

~~MOD ABUSE~~

~~This may come off as circle-jerky, and I'm trying to address it with good humor.~~

but I really think it's a terrible policy not to require quoted slurs to be censored.

IT MAKES A BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO ME WHETHER I SEE TR_NNY OR I SEE TRANNY.

(apologies to my trans* brothers, sisters, and others)

this is not really helping the fempire in its quest to eliminate cissexism. I can't speak for other marginalized people, but I imagine others are feeling the same way.

  • [-]
  • RoomForJello
  • 17 Points
  • 23:04:03, 1 February

Yeah, I thought earlier policy was that censoring slurs in titles was required? Which seems fair enough.

But obvs I agree that "[slur]" is silly.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 16 Points
  • 23:07:20, 1 February

It has never been policy that censoring slurs was required, although some mods would remove exceptionally triggering titles. But I have always hoped we would change that.

  • [-]
  • seriously_nope
  • 12 Points
  • 23:55:20, 1 February

It seems to me like saying, "That person just said t[slur]" is like when talking to someone and saying "That person just said the t-word." It's a way of censoring yourself so only the bare minimum offense leaves your mouth while still getting the point across. It's something that's polite to do, and if we are calling ourselves socially aware it would be disgusting to freely use those words, even if we're quoting someone else.

If it is simply the "[slur]" aspect that is visually unappealing to the mods then that's fine. I'll continue to censor my words using asterisks, and I hope everyone else does too. Normalization of slurs within inclusive areas cannot be something that we support. I want everyone to be able to contribute to this subreddit, so it would be unfair to exclude some people who are triggered by certain words when we could easily type out ***** instead of the slur.

  • [-]
  • bionicsheep
  • 10 Points
  • 23:59:05, 1 February

seconded

[slur] might be clumsy, but it's ultimately a minor stylistic quibble, and this rule is weird + unhelpful imo

it's nice when people dont quote slurs bc it makes the place just a little nicer, even tho we all know this place is triggering as heck

  • [-]
  • katakatoka
  • 17 Points
  • 23:47:47, 1 February

I know I'm not a super-active well-known SRSter, but I'm 100% with int_argc on this one. Even just loading the sub a moment ago was super-shocking with an uncensored n-word right there in my face. Can we appeal this one?

  • [-]
  • weird_on_top
  • 10 Points
  • 23:56:33, 1 February

I'm with you and /u/int_argc. It's been really bothering me for a few days now. I read the n-word enough on the rest of reddit, and when I see it on a sub where I'm not expecting it, it honestly makes me feel like shit.

  • [-]
  • AintNeverGonnaStop
  • 17 Points
  • 01:36:54, 2 February

Why are you not expecting it on SRSPrime? That's the whole point of this sub.

  • [-]
  • Scurvy_Space_Pirate
  • 2 Points
  • 03:21:41, 2 February

I agree completely. Not only is this a weird decision but it makes a lot of people less comfortable or even up and leave our little reddit which IMO will end up hurting SRS's growing infamy and population. Imagine what would happen if some more sheltered reporter went to SRS for a scoop and saw all the triggering words of shitlords all over the place. It would most certainly highlight how bad it is but it'd be uncomfortable for a sheltered or simply decent human being.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleFarrah
  • 7 Points
  • 03:27:39, 2 February

This really wasn't a decision. It's a reiteration of our current rules (or lack thereof). Censoring has always been optional in post titles.

  • [-]
  • Scurvy_Space_Pirate
  • 1 Points
  • 03:32:18, 2 February

Yeah that's true. IMO it should be a rule to censor but whatever even though this is a circlejerk it can be pretty democratic and most people are agreeing so whatever.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleFarrah
  • 4 Points
  • 03:42:14, 2 February

As another Archangelle said above, the reason we have Rule IV ("To our readers: consider this entire sub to be labelled with one gigantic trigger warning.") is because in our earlier days, we had users complain of a lack of TWs or censoring. We were unsure if the posts should be deleted or not since this entire sub's purpose is to document shitty/triggering/toxic behavior on reddit, so we put that rule in place. Now if it's something extremely graphic, an Archangelle might ask the SRSter to resubmit with a trigger or mark it NSFW, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule.

  • [-]
  • tralalabrd
  • 3 Points
  • 03:42:47, 2 February

Agreed. I don't need to see slurs more than I already do.

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 6 Points
  • 00:48:13, 2 February

It's kind of troubling we're having what shouldn't be a circlejerk post here. I am very much not okay with the policy as it stands.

The rules for slurs should be simple:

  1. Never post an uncensored slur
  2. Only post completely censored slurs if quoting the redditry.
  3. Never include a slur, censored or otherwise, in words of your own making.

"Completely" means no leading or trailing characters, period. Prefer [slur] to a matching number of asterisks or dashes. If a reader really wants to know what it is, we can look at the screenshot or, T*A forbid, click through to the thread.

So, to take a made-up slur for example: lwyxndan

Dildo:

Dildon't:

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 6 Points
  • 00:57:30, 2 February

I can't tell if you're being serious right now.

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 1 Points
  • 01:02:10, 2 February

Serious. Which is why this shouldn't be in our circlejerk sub, but should have been posted in SRSD or meta.

What would lead you to believe that I'm not being serious?

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 8 Points
  • 01:15:38, 2 February

soo, when "nig***" gets upvoted to +400, and its a one word comment, you want people to just have the title say "****** [+400]" ?

  • [-]
  • williammc
  • 3 Points
  • 04:28:25, 2 February

That would actually be awesome, IMO.

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 3 Points
  • 01:23:41, 2 February

I would prefer that it says

>A slur got +400 in /r/funny.

If I want to know what it is, I know exactly how to find out.

  • [-]
  • thinkythought
  • 4 Points
  • 03:22:52, 2 February

i completely agree with this, and i miss when this was allowed. that kind of thing was knocked out by the "direct quotes only no editorializing" rule, which didn't used to be enforced as strictly.

honestly SRS would be better if you could make posts like what you were saying, that weren't effortposts.

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 1 Points
  • 03:31:16, 2 February

I think an exception could be made to the editorializing for one or two word posts, and we could get the best of both worlds.

  • [-]
  • thinkythought
  • 1 Points
  • 03:32:46, 2 February

i completely agree with this, and i'm actually slightly angry to see that your previous post got buried at -1(updownvoted? downupvoted? you know what i mean)

message the mods?

  • [-]
  • TIA-RESISTANCE
  • 1 Points
  • 03:41:17, 2 February

They told me to bring it up in meta, at which point I showed them that it already had been brought up in meta. No response since, unless you count OP.

  • [-]
  • FluffySauce
  • 2 Points
  • 23:04:44, 1 February

Yeah, and really the whole "t[slur]" or "b[slur]" type stuff doesn't even make sense to me -- my brain is just going to fill it in based on the context and therefore it's not doing anything to stop a trigger if there is one. If anything I think just plain "[slur]" or "****" or similar would be best if we're going to censor quotes. Let's just go all the way with censoring or not at all (but preferably with) why not?

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 22 Points
  • 23:08:34, 1 February

I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying, or reading sarcasm where there is none, because it seems to me that we don't agree.

Yes, when someone says tr_nny I understand what they mean. But it's a completely different thing from encountering the uncensored word "tranny," which I hate to even type.

> my brain is just going to fill it in based on the context and therefore it's not doing anything to stop a trigger if there is one

this is basically the argument that racists make for using the n-word. It does make a difference, but people who don't have any triggers probably won't understand.

  • [-]
  • Enkmarl
  • 4 Points
  • 23:40:06, 1 February

Yeah were not trying to invoke words we are trying to directly criticize them via quotation! If this is a thing about triggering people when censored slurs would prevent that trigger then I get that completely. Putting that aside though are you saying that uncensored criticism of hate speech is something that normalizes hate speech?

edit: seems to be a trigger thing which I admit I have no appreciable perspective into. Subjectively I am exponentially more alarmed that this hate speech goes unmoderated than I am when I simply see the word in print. But for someone who has had deep trauma related to those words I have to admit I have zero idea what that feels like,

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 2 Points
  • 23:48:50, 1 February

No I definitely don't mean to say that, although it's an interesting idea.

  • [-]
  • FluffySauce
  • 4 Points
  • 23:19:46, 1 February

> It does make a difference, but people who don't have any triggers probably won't understand.

See, it doesn't make a difference to me. In your above example, both set me off just as badly. Like if someone removes one letter, or all but one letter, I do at least know that they're aware that it's triggering to others and they're not ignoring that, but for me it doesn't matter because my brain is going to fill it in and it's going to be just as awful for me as if it were typed right out, sans the fact that I know the person saying it isn't aiming it at me. I know everyone is different, but I'm saying that if you're going to censor, be aware that partially censoring isn't necessarily going to help everyone.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 11 Points
  • 23:24:32, 1 February

that's a fair point and i'm sorry for using words that set you off to make a rhetorical point. i couldn't think of any other way to make it, but that doesn't reduce the harm you felt :(

i just want to make it clear that there are people in both camps. are there any forms of partial censoring that will work for you?

  • [-]
  • FluffySauce
  • 6 Points
  • 23:47:17, 1 February

oh hey, no, don't worry. As we say, prime is not a safe space. I come here assuming I will get triggered, and you have nothing to apologize for. I was just reflecting that I don't think partial censoring is necessarily the end all. And I take your point too -- while partial censoring may not help me at all, as you've said, it does help others, and that's better than nothing! Cheers!

  • [-]
  • ElDiablo666
  • 2 Points
  • 06:07:09, 2 February

Perhaps I misread but I thought this post was about using b**** instead of b[slur]. Heh, I said balls.

  • [-]
  • Chamiabac
  • 11 Points
  • 23:46:40, 1 February

Okay so this is literally (and I do mean literally) the opposite of what I've been told when I got into SRS like half a year ago.

Is this post ironic or sarcastic? Am I missing a certain tone? You don't even explain why you hate it, you're just telling me to not do it because it doesn't read well? What is the point of leaving the option open when one half censors themselves and the other half doesn't?

I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard to be as considerate as I can, but now I'm being told that censoring myself is apparently shitty and please don't do it because your eyes don't like reading it?

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 12 Points
  • 00:29:24, 2 February

>but now I'm being told that censoring myself is apparently shitty

I think you're misreading the OP. thats not what they're saying at all.

all this post is doing is clarifying the rules that were already in place, and saying to do "b**ch" instead of b[slur], because its less obnoxious.

  • [-]
  • Ontheroadtonowhere
  • 7 Points
  • 00:32:28, 2 February

They're clarifying the rules, which don't force censorship of slurs in titles. But, they're saying if you do want to censor, please avoid the c[slur] s[slur] nonsense that is really just annoying to read. Use asterisks or something like most people do, cause it really does read better.

  • [-]
  • DILDOTRON2012
  • 41 Points
  • 22:49:34, 1 February

I'm sorry if you find my attempts to be more inclusive "awkward"

  • [-]
  • OffColorCommentary
  • 6 Points
  • 02:00:19, 2 February

Is there anyone here that's more uncomfortable with a****** than with a[slur], for whichever slur?

I think the heap of asterisks is great, and just started playing along with the [slur] thing because I assumed there was a good reason for it.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 48 Points
  • 22:54:01, 1 February

Agreed. I don't understand, in any way, how this sub can understand the concept of trigger words and yet refuse to require people to censor quoted slurs.

IT'S A FUCKING ASTERISK. IT'S LITERALLY THE LEAST YOU CAN FUCKING DO.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 33 Points
  • 23:28:29, 1 February

It's basically the same reason we don't require trigger warnings. Literally every post on SRS could be triggering. Before we added Rule 4, threads were getting derailed all over the place by people demanding they be re-submitted with trigger warnings (this was before link flair), and mods were perpetually unsure of whether we should remove the threads or not. We decided that it was kind of silly for triggering threads to be removed from a sub that's dedicated to highlighting triggering content.

Similarly, there's never been a rule requiring that certain words be censored, lest we get into debates about which words need censoring and have people demanding that threads be re-submitted because OP didn't censor "stupid" or "crazy" or what have you. It just makes very little sense in the context of a sub where those hypothetical posts could exist alongside a highly triggering submission about rape that wouldn't require any censorship.

Again, there's never been a rule requiring censorship, but of course people have always been free to censor things if they prefer. Literally nothing is changing.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 13 Points
  • 23:32:47, 1 February

No no, I understand that nothing is changing. I am surprised and disappointed to learn that the status quo, which I don't think is appropriate, is being reaffirmed.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleStrudelle
  • 17 Points
  • 23:38:59, 1 February

Well, that's a whole other conversation that would require a more involved discussion. This post was just meant to discourage this one little habit that people have been doing.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 20 Points
  • 23:50:56, 1 February

Fair enough, but I don't understand how it's possible to weigh "stylistic quibble" vs "triggering language" and come down on the side of discouraging [slur]. it's not how I censor, but I'll be grateful for whatever way it's done.

  • [-]
  • johnbeeharvard
  • 23 Points
  • 23:09:30, 1 February

Yeah, I remember it used to be a rule, but I guess now it's not cause people who are triggered are not allowed in the jerk anymore, I guess. Cause... Um... The jerk isn't for people who are triggered, just people who aren't triggered but still bothered by it... I guess.

Yeah, no, I don't get it.

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 17 Points
  • 00:17:08, 2 February

censoring titles was never actually a rule. people seem to be misremembering.

this post is addressing how its gotten to the point of absurdity with people saying "Joe said s[slur] is f[slur] and b[slur], can you believe that?"

Strudelle isn't saying don't censor slurs. They're just saying maybe we can do it in a less obnoxious way.

  • [-]
  • RelationshipCreeper
  • 5 Points
  • 03:10:19, 2 February

Also, I've seen so many people use the [slur] bit in "ironic" comments in ways that I hardly ever see asterisked-out words used. It's like the feeling of "I'm acknowledging that this is a slur" overrides their "wait this is something a shitlord would say." I don't think people do it on purpose, but it seems it's an unfortunate side effect.

So then you get "Joe said s[slur] is f[slur] and b[slur], can you believe that?" all over comment threads, and it just gets tiring.

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 2 Points
  • 03:15:46, 2 February

ppft, youre that one linguist i met online. you're supposed to say a bunch of fancy stuff about werds and how saying a**hole is the way Shakespeare would do it or something. :P

  • [-]
  • RelationshipCreeper
  • 3 Points
  • 03:25:07, 2 February

I DID say a bunch of fancy stuff about werds! This is what I do! Okay, maybe it was more thoughtful than fancy.

Seriously, though, asterisks are fascinating and they are one of the most ancient symbols.

  • [-]
  • williammc
  • 7 Points
  • 01:15:33, 2 February

This

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 20 Points
  • 23:11:05, 1 February

right.

i recognize that there are other things than slurs that are triggering, and that censoring slurs will not make SRS a safe place.

but it takes such minimal effort and lets some people participate who otherwise would not...

  • [-]
  • frazzy
  • 12 Points
  • 23:37:13, 1 February

Triggers are different for every individual and therefore there is no way of making a foolproof list of "real" triggers that have to be censored. If you have ptsd it's probably not such a good idea to read srsprime at all. It's all horrible shit. No amount of asterisks will make it less so.

  • [-]
  • int_argc
  • 9 Points
  • 23:47:43, 1 February

Yes, I definitely understand that it can't be done in the general sense, and I also didn't mean to make you an involuntary spokesperson--I actually meant, for you in particular!

  • [-]
  • champselysees
  • 3 Points
  • 02:22:54, 2 February

How does the content not trigger just because a word is censored? I come from the best place, as someone who is just as triggered by a slur and by a s**r that is censored. The meaning isn't lost on me, I get it. I still get triggered. I still feel like shit. I still want to cry in a hole.

  • [-]
  • johnbeeharvard
  • 3 Points
  • 06:03:44, 2 February

Not that it would not be triggering but that it shows a base level of sensitivity in the jerk. Is that worthless?

  • [-]
  • KillIndividualWill
  • 8 Points
  • 01:53:40, 2 February

You can censor slurs if you really want to, just don't do it in a way which doesn't please us. Doesn't matter if you had good intentions, shit is annoying. Because after all, what matters is not a tiny bit of expressed solidarity with oppressed groups, but aesthetics.

  • [-]
  • fido_the_cat
  • 4 Points
  • 02:57:58, 2 February

Fuck you mods and your rules. This has gone on far enough.

Something's not aesthetically pleasing? Let's un-slur the triggering language instead :D:D:D

I'm reappropriating srslibertarian as the new srsprime.

  • [-]
  • FistofanAngryGoddess
  • 2 Points
  • 04:32:37, 2 February

I don't think that's what the mods are saying (unless you're being sarcastic and I'm missing it). You can use asterisks, hyphens, underscores, etc. to censor any triggering language.

  • [-]
  • yayamamabee
  • 17 Points
  • 23:04:20, 1 February

Reading slurs on reddit gives me bad feels. I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to not have those exact same bad feels simply because they're within quotation marks on SRS. If you allow slurs you're just as bad as the rest of reddit.

  • [-]
  • kaycal
  • 6 Points
  • 01:00:59, 2 February

I'm on subreddits outside of the fempire. Ended up unsub'ing prime because, ionno, it's discouraging to see shitlordy uncensored comments sandwiched between gays getting high and women playing videogames.

Like, there goes my good mood for the day :I

  • [-]
  • GigglyHyena
  • 6 Points
  • 01:30:43, 2 February

The best part of wakin up

Is shitlords in your cup

  • [-]
  • armilla
  • 3 Points
  • 03:05:08, 2 February

OH THANK FUCK

seriously what's wrong with asterisks? if a word's all bl**ped out i can figure out it's a bad word

ps. that was a rhetorical question

  • [-]
  • thinkythought
  • 2 Points
  • 03:29:32, 2 February

i know it was a rhetorical question, but there's actually been several(irritating, imo) posts on here about how it's supposed to make us think every time about how it isn't just a swear word, but a slur

  • [-]
  • FistofanAngryGoddess
  • 5 Points
  • 21:52:24, 1 February

Thanks for clearing this up, ArchangelleStrudelle!

  • [-]
  • JohannAlthan
  • 10 Points
  • 00:41:53, 2 February

Oh thank fuck. I was getting really tired of censoring direct quotes. I understand that a lot of people are upset by the shit people said on reddit. But those people should really evaluate if they should be reading a sub titled "shit reddit says."

  • [-]
  • Grickit
  • 9 Points
  • 00:53:59, 2 February

How inclusive of you.

  • [-]
  • JohannAlthan
  • 9 Points
  • 01:04:36, 2 February

I thought SRSHome or SRSDiscussion was the place to be inclusive or have discussions. SRS prime was for jerking about the shit reddit said, which is disgusting, foul, triggering, and -- yep -- not inclusive... per say.

  • [-]
  • greenduch
  • 10 Points
  • 21:35:43, 1 February

Oh my gosh thank you so much strudelle. This was bugging the hell out of me and I'm not really sure why. Idk why but it just always looked super ridiculous to me.

  • [-]
  • Roughcaster
  • 3 Points
  • 02:54:56, 2 February

I thought the same thing. It was just so oddly jarring to read.

But people in here have convincing arguments supporting it. I dunno now.

I'll go sit this out I guess

  • [-]
  • ThaneOfFifeHadAWife
  • 3 Points
  • 01:47:15, 2 February

Between the censored slurs and the profanity filter on my laptop that I CAN'T FUCKING GET RID OF OMFG HOW DO I TECHNOLOGY I don't know what the fuck ya'll talkin bout half the time.

  • [-]
  • jackrabt
  • 2 Points
  • 03:02:48, 2 February

IDGAF either way, for myself. I have used the [slur] formatting before, I'm not upset to use asterisks instead.

Words and discussions don't really trigger me here, because it's what I come here to see. They very much trigger me in places where they're unexpected, but I don't come to the poop show and get mad that I got a little on me.

Absolutely no offense intended toward those who are triggered by this kind of stuff. This is my personal outlook, and yours is just as valid.

  • [-]
  • Pileus
  • 3 Points
  • 05:49:39, 2 February

You know, I think this thread is a prime example of how intolerant SRSers are. Anyone showing any discontent with the rules is summarily banned, and no actual discussion ever takes place.

...wait, what's that? People are disagreeing vehemently with the moderators, and their discomfort is being listened to respectfully by SRS leadership? THE PEACHES REMAIN UNTHAWED?!

  • [-]
  • bobbieluvsya
  • 4 Points
  • 06:08:51, 2 February

well clearly this is all a clever ruse by the archangelles to trick people into thinking srs is open to discussion or something

to the /r/SRSMythos-mobile

  • [-]
  • ponytology
  • 2 Points
  • 06:31:01, 2 February

Yeah that's how dictatorial the evil evil archangelles are... discussing things with the masses and actually listening and shit.

  • [-]
  • barbadosslim
  • 3 Points
  • 06:21:45, 2 February

Censoring slurs was required in like 2011

  • [-]
  • Kibethy
  • 3 Points
  • 06:29:08, 2 February

I always read the s[slur] etc. as "s-slur" and not just as a censorship, as someone who is still on his journey of being more conscientious about this stuff, it's been positive. I think terms like "the n word" is so trivialised that having an internal monologue of connecting it with a slur has really only had a positive impact. Also aesthetics are clearly subjective, it's rather silly to say things like "this objectively looks bad". Reddit has enough people telling others what things look good and bad that I would have hoped that people on here would know that speaking in absolutes regarding personal taste is a little off the mark.

  • [-]
  • TheIdesOfLight
  • 5 Points
  • 21:38:06, 1 February

Hallelujahz....I said, hallelujahz...

  • [-]
  • Laurelai
  • 6 Points
  • 21:35:01, 1 February

  • [-]
  • honkies_tears
  • 2 Points
  • 22:23:06, 1 February

  • [-]
  • MuForceShoelace
  • 0 Points
  • 04:39:11, 2 February

Thank god, people that want to censor triggering stuff should censor it, not do a weird childish "the F word" thing. If people were just writing [slur] that seems fine, if people write f[slur] it just seems off-putting, like they are just saying the word anyway but like a small child.

It feels like they are tee-heeing.

  • [-]
  • southpaw88
  • 0 Points
  • 01:56:35, 2 February

Do spoiler tags work in titles?

  • [-]
  • blueorpheus
  • 2 Points
  • 05:45:43, 2 February

Sorry about that. I saw other people doing it and assumed that's what we were supposed to do

  • [-]
  • Able_Seacat_Simon
  • 2 Points
  • 07:10:09, 2 February

Thank you!!

Reading n[slur] this and f[slur] that is so distracting and I was afraid that was the brd approved way of censoring shit.

  • [-]
  • NonSarcasticRaccoon
  • 0 Points
  • 22:02:55, 1 February

Down with [slurs]!

  • [-]
  • Sparkling_Poo_Dragon
  • -2 Points
  • 22:05:24, 1 February

Fuck yeah!