Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

I'm not for censorship,but you'd figure google would have a filter.

(1/4) > >>

tinyvillager:
Like i say i'm not for censorship but you would figure google would have some sort of language filter for it's news page.I found this on the front page of google's news this morning...

mouser:
hahahaahahahaha  ;D ;D ;D

Carol Haynes:
Eh ???? What's offensive?

I presume it is a typical political quote ...

Maybe you should turn on the naughty word blocker on this formum ...

An ISP I used to use used USENET to provide support, and they had a naughty word filter which rejected all posts that matched a naughty word. It was great 'cos you couldn't report abuse!!! It is surprising how inventive people can get with their spellings though ;)

Edvard:
Yeah, that is funny, but I wouldn't want my kid to see it. Yes, I know George Carlin's "they're just WORDS..." argument, but seriously, "dirty" words are undeniably used in a context and intent much different from "normal" words, and every culture has them. Look up Semantics, Semiotics, Memes, and check out the authors that speak on such subjects (Although I am not implying that A. Korzybsky's GM arguments are in play here...). Advertisers know full well the power of words, and apparently so do politicians. If a word that is obviously intended to be offensive is not offensive it is because you have made a conscious choice to adjust your conscience to accommadate. The word and it's intent has not changed. Consider the difference between an irate driver saying "Please warn your child of the foolishness of crossing the street without looking both ways"
and the same driver saying "Hey, A**hole would you keep your p**ant brat outta the f**ing street before I splat his f**ing brains on it!!". Which comment would you rather explaing the meaning of to your distressed 7-year-old? I realize I may be yanking a few chains here, but censorship of the kind tinyvillager is hoping for is less a restriction of freedom and more a preservation of basic level-headed decency. My opinion of the politician quoted is now more likely to be one of suspicion. Suspicion of his level of self-control and therefore his ability to effectively administer the office he is placed in and I might even suspect he is trying to over-compensate for the fact that the entire situation is the exact opposite of his vehement (dare I say potty-mouthed) evaluation. If the same headline had the same Politician saying something like "Unfounded..." or even "Preposterous..." I might view him AND the situation with a clearer head and more positive outlook about the whole thing.
Oops, I think I just ranted. Apologies.

Innuendo:
Edvard,
Nothing against you, but to play Devil's Advocate here...

If there's something on the PC that you don't want your children to see then turn it off.

If there's something on the TV that you don't want your children to see then turn it off.

And finally, don't let your children operate either device without active, close adult supervision. The parents should raise the children not these devices. They are just electronic gizmos NOT babysitters.

I do not have children I do not want to be told what I can see, hear, watch, and/or interactive with just because some people can't control their children.

Can't be there 24 hours a day when the children watch TV? Buy televisions & cable boxes that implement the V-Chip and use it.

Can't be there 24 hours a day when the children are online? Buy a child control program such as Child Control or Net Nanny and use it.

Censoring the content your children see does not mean one has to censor the content the world sees.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page