8
   

Red flagging threads for having the word bullshit in titles

 
 
BillRM
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 06:56 pm
After having a thread of mine red flag NSFW for the sole reason of using the word bullshit in it title instead of nonsense I did a fast google.com/news search for the keyword bullshit and found 8000 hits with at least half of them coming from major news outlets.

From the Guardian to the Time mag.

Ok able2know powers to be are you going to now going to red flag this thread as not being safe to read in the work place or not?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 3,413 • Replies: 28

 
McGentrix
 
  10  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 07:18 pm
Looks that way. Easy solution: Don't use the word "bullshit" in the title.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 07:20 pm
@BillRM,
http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/bullshit.jpg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 07:42 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Looks that way.


LOL you are correct and it did not even take them very long to do so.

I wonder where Robert came up with these bearers of the red stamp?

Could he be using a time machine from the 1950s to get employees from the old TV Standards and Practices department who once rule that you could not use the word pregnant but needed to state instead that a woman was in the family way?

Quote:
Easy solution: Don't use the word "bullshit" in the title.


My reply to that suggestion is also the word bullshit.

In the future, I am going to throw in the word bullshit on all my future threads just for the principle of the matter no matter what the subjects of the threads happen to be.

At least all my threads will stand out in the master listening.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 07:58 pm
Oh have you guys all read how one of the main architects of the idea of filtering the internet for porn in the UK was found to be into child porn?

Quote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/06/patrick_rock_adviser_on_u_k_porn_filter_arrested_on_child_porn_related_allegations.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

Earlier this week, amid increasing media pressure, the U.K. prime minister’s office confirmed that authorities arrested top David Cameron aide Patrick Rock on Feb. 13 on suspicions related to child pornography. Authorities have not yet formally charged Rock, citing the ongoing investigation as the reason behind the prolonged silence at 10 Downing St. Details surrounding the arrest timeline have fueled speculation that Rock, who resigned from his position on Feb. 12, may have been tipped off by colleagues before his arrest. But that isn’t the only troubling circumstance surrounding the already disturbing scandal. For those in the tech community, Rock is well-known as one of the main proponents of the U.K.’s controversial “war on porn.”
More specifically, Rock served as Cameron’s adviser for combating child pornography, helping to implement new requirements that British Internet service providers filter search results to sites that the government deemed explicit. The new requirements, which force users to “opt-in” in order to view pornography online, have come under heavy scrutiny from many Internet policy experts who suggest that such restrictions may have chilling effects on free expression. Some ISP filters have blocked access to domestic abuse resources online, while others have censored websites focusing on sexual and reproductive health.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  10  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 08:17 pm
@BillRM,
Bill, if u r not discussing sanitary considerations,
then there is no need to befoul your fellow citizens with thoughts of excrement.

Give us a break, in the name of decency.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 08:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Give us a break, in the name of decency.


Sorry David but it is now the principle of the matter and if major news outlets have no problems with using the word bullshit as a stand in for nonsense, just with a stronger emotional impact I see no excuse for the powers to be to here to red flags threads with that word in it as a danger to your continued employment.

From this point on all my new threads will have this at the end of the title [bullshit].
OmSigDAVID
 
  5  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 10:53 pm
@BillRM,
Y do WE have to suffer for your new obsession with excrement ?????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2014 10:55 pm
@BillRM,
WHERE did the "news outlets" acquire
the authority that u attribute to them ???????????
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 03:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
WHERE did the "news outlets" acquire
the authority that u attribute to them ???????????


David David first you do not need to read any thread with or without a red flag marker and second the whole excuse given for marking a thread with NSFW [not safe for work] is that you somehow might get into trouble for reading such material in the work place due to the content of the thread in question and Robert merry men will therefore give you a warning over the material in question.

Now assuming that is true then it is not also safe to read a large percent of the major news outlets online or off line at work as many of them do indeed used the word bullshit in both the title of news stories and in the body of news stories and that can be shown by a simple google news search for that word.

Next until the red flag marking occur the only used of the word bullshit was in the title of the Amish thread for all to see at once and the body of the thread was complete free of any "bad" words of any kind and any other content for that matter that anyone could have a question about.

So why would anyone need a warning of a red flag over content they can see for themselves at once and at the same time as they would see the red flag marking unless Robert red flag markers are claiming a better understanding of what is or is not acceptable to read at your work place then you happen to have?

To sum up the whole idea seems to me to be as silly as having a panel in the 1950s that would not allow the word pregnant to be used in TV shows but instead forcing the use of the phrase in the family way instead.
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 05:43 am
Bill:

Can we use the word "CRAP" instead of bullshit?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 08:52 am
@Miller,
Quote:
Can we use the word "CRAP" instead of bullshit?


Crap is not normally used as a full in for the word nonsense so no not when you are looking for a word that have the same meaning but more emotional impact then the word nonsense.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 09:57 am
@BillRM,
In some movies, the word crapper is used in place of bathroom.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 10:22 am
@Miller,
Quote:
In some movies, the word crapper is used in place of bathroom.


You do know that the word crapper came from the real name of a man by the name of Thomas Crapper?

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crapper

Thomas Crapper (baptised 28 September 1836; died 27 January 1910) was a plumber who founded Thomas Crapper & Co in London. Contrary to widespread misconceptions, Crapper did not invent the flush toilet. He did, however, do much to increase the popularity of the toilet, and developed some important related inventions, such as the ballcock. He was noted for the quality of his products and received several
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 10:28 am
@BillRM,
I've heard it used outside of movies too. I've known Chicago cops to use the word crapper for the bathroom.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  4  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 11:02 am
@BillRM,
You might want to reread Robert's blog post announcing the use of the NSFW tag.

http://blog.able2know.org/2012/10/03/one-mans-meat-is-another-mans-poison/


Quote:
One Man’s Meat is Another Man’s Poison
October 3, 2012 | By Robert Gentel
As an open marketplace for ideas, Able2know seeks to support a diverse range of discussion. One of the inevitable results of said diversity is that some of the speech that occurs freely on Able2know is objectionable to some people, sometimes acutely so.

Our preferred way of dealing with such situations is to try to create solutions that allow for the free expression to continue for those who seek it, while providing a way for those who find said speech objectionable to avoid it.

Towards these aims we are introducing a new NSFW feature that allows for members to report posts that are Not Safe For Work through the normal topic and post reporting buttons. Moderators will mark topics and posts that are NSFW that follow our definition thereof. These topics and posts will not be removed, but will be marked with a “NSFW” flag (and posts are collapsed by default). Anyone who wants to see the content can still do so on a case-by-case basis or members can edit their user preferences if they don’t want to collapse NSFW posts at all.

This NSFW flag allows us to better serve the different portions of our community. For example, no longer will we be editing out graphic images, and replacing them with links. Moderators will simply mark posts NSFW and those who want to see them can, and those who do not don’t have to, problem solved.

If only all the world’s objectionable-content problems were resolved this easily.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 12:33 pm
@Butrflynet,
Once more given how in common use the word Bullshit is in the population to the point that any numbers of major news outlets have no problem with using the word to red flag it is beyond ridiculous.

If you are going to red flag every word and every concept that anyone in the world might have a problem with then all you will end up with a blinding world of red.

Now let look at the idea of red flagging for graphic images are you going to be red flagging any thread that have pictures of women who are not fully cover up from head to toe?

After all there is not a small percent of the total world population that think that such pictures are sinful.

Is the below picture the only type of picture that will be allow of women that will not be red flag and if not why not?

http://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/media/01/00/6fe61647c30eb39d3381d35339b47ba3.jpg

Robert put into place a so call solution that by it very nature is open to abused more often then not and in the case of the thread questioning the DC channel treatment of the Amish community that solution had clearly been abused.

Oh if you are still going to have an arbitrary censorship program it at least should be an opt in not an opt out program.
Butrflynet
 
  5  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 02:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Oh if you are still going to have an arbitrary censorship program it at least should be an opt in not an opt out program.


It already is an opt in program.

When you registered for Robert's website, you agreed to his site's terms of service and privacy policy. If you do not agree with his site's terms of service and privacy policy, you have the option of opting out and using some other website.

OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 03:37 pm
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
WHERE did the "news outlets" acquire
the authority that u attribute to them ???????????
BillRM wrote:
David David first you do not need to read any thread with or without a red flag marker and second the whole excuse given for marking a thread with NSFW [not safe for work] is that you somehow might get into trouble for reading such material in the work place due to the content of the thread in question and Robert merry men will therefore give you a warning over the material in question.

Now assuming that is true then it is not also safe to read a large percent of the major news outlets online or off line at work as many of them do indeed used the word bullshit in both the title of news stories and in the body of news stories and that can be shown by a simple google news search for that word.

Next until the red flag marking occur the only used of the word bullshit was in the title of the Amish thread for all to see at once and the body of the thread was complete free of any "bad" words of any kind and any other content for that matter that anyone could have a question about.

So why would anyone need a warning of a red flag over content they can see for themselves at once and at the same time as they would see the red flag marking unless Robert red flag markers are claiming a better understanding of what is or is not acceptable to read at your work place then you happen to have?

To sum up the whole idea seems to me to be as silly as having a panel in the 1950s that would not allow the word pregnant to be used in TV shows but instead forcing the use of the phrase in the family way instead.
I have no comments qua red flags. I don t care. I don t work.
Its rude to turn the attention of your fellow citizens to excrement.
The idea is to make the forum WORSE????

Y not just be literal and deny its truth,
or say that it has no merit
for whatever reason is satisfactory to u????





David
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 05:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its rude to turn the attention of your fellow citizens to excrement.
The idea is to make the forum WORSE????


Amazing Dave that a word that connection to animal excrement is mild to begin with and off hand does not bring up a mental picture of bull **** to any great degree, as it is now used not to refer to excrement but as a slightly stronger stand in for the word nonsense would be so upsetting to you.
 

Related Topics

Is this normal behavior for men? - Question by KloolesKittai
Married Men Sex Drive - Question by marriednymph
sexual thoughts - Discussion by G2g
Fiddling while Pompeii burns? - Question by centrox
NSFW? - Question by mark noble
Donald Trump? Show us your .... - Discussion by tsarstepan
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Red flagging threads for having the word bullshit in titles
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 01:46:27