[HN Gopher] Scunthorpe Sans, A font that censors bad language au... ___________________________________________________________________ Scunthorpe Sans, A font that censors bad language automatically Author : WayToDoor Score : 248 points Date : 2022-07-02 09:38 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (vole.wtf) (TXT) w3m dump (vole.wtf) | theelous3 wrote: | How about we just stop censoring words in the first place. | wonderbore wrote: | The US is too deep into this shit to go back now. | adventured wrote: | Definitely not. The US was highly censored when it comes to | language until the 1990s. [1] We improved considerably, | including in (and thanks to) not censoring the WWW when it | exploded onto the scene in the 1990s. It can be done again, | as there will be a massive cultural backlash against the | hyper over-sensitive woke era. The pendulum always swings | back aggressively. The new rebels are, once again, going to | be those that are intellectually free, not self-censoring and | not over-sensitive. The US is becoming primed for a new era | of shock, and young people will eat it up when it happens, to | rebel against the hyper sensitive status quo. | | [1] See: George Carlin and Howard Stern, and their running | battles with abusive government censorship and cultural | repression around language. | voidfunc wrote: | New era of shock cant happen soon enough. | wonderbore wrote: | I hope it will happen, but the pendulum is going back so | fast right now. Some old words are being more accepted now, | but people are becoming more sensitive to whole topics and | specific trigger words, even and especially young people. | cmeacham98 wrote: | The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections | on speech in the world. | the_only_law wrote: | That gives you legal protection against the government, but | doesn't otherwise affect general culture. | swiftcoder wrote: | > The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal | protections on speech in the world. | | Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or | advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or | perceived to be threatening towards an elected official... | | The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, | but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount | of leeway. | educaysean wrote: | Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the | strongest legal protection of speech in the world? | | I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it | pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of | how other countries provide legal protection for speech | in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? | I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows | for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't | straight up incapable or corrupt. | pessimizer wrote: | The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded | theater, and I agree with your judgment on it (although | not for your reason.) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_ | the... | | edit: it's strange not to even be able to imagine the | circumstances you are currently in. | mannerheim wrote: | You can advocate direct harm towards a protected class. | What do you think the Skokie case was about? | cmeacham98 wrote: | That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on | all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the | strongest protections that does exist. | | Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under | the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any | serious person wants threats of violence to be | universally legal. | sebastianconcpt wrote: | In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can | discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or | more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history | so far. | | And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak | (with an officially approved typography)? | vkou wrote: | > And what's the alternative anyway? | | Any of the other implementations of the same concept | found in most of the western world, take your pick. | Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be | able to point that it also applies to some application of | the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in | the united states. | drdaeman wrote: | I think the primary intent for the First Amendment and | best indicator how US is different from most places is | how in the US anyone can freely say whatever is on their | mind about anything government. Okay, sure, except for | the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Or | make a sort of a statement by desecrating national | symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside | down. And fear no legal persecution. | | People are people - they have emotions and whenever they | argue politely or swear profusely they must not be | persecuted for being upset with something. Even if | they're most terribly wrong. | | I found this nice summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org | /wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_st... (sure, Wikipedia | can be wrong, but I think this table should be accurate | enough). It's all "no" only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, | Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and the | United States. This is a minority, surely not "most of | the western world". | mannerheim wrote: | You won't get arrested for performing a Nazi salute in | the US, but you will in Germany. | | You won't get arrested for a joke video about training | your dog to do a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in | the UK. | DonaldFisk wrote: | "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of | religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or | abridging the freedom of s***ch, or of the press; or the | right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion | the Government for a redress of grievances." | framapotari wrote: | Unless you're a student and want to hold up a sign saying | "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" outside of school property. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick | briantakita wrote: | ...of the governments imposing bureaucratic will over | natural man. | ttyprintk wrote: | I would argue this with: Should the existence of such a font | mean, when fonts can be user-configured in a browser, that all | subsentence censorship can be opt-in? | waterpowder wrote: | Fuck yes | sph wrote: | Few words convey so much meaning, emotion and depth as | expletives. Swear words are truly the peak of human language | in my opinion. | | The absolute best are the ones in every languages that are so | versatile. Like "fuck". One of these can replace whole | sentences and still be as expressive. | ddingus wrote: | Profanity is a part of speech and it has two forms: | | Lazy profanity, which also has low value, is the form where | the majority of the value of the expression is carried by | profane words. | | The not-lazy form, which has considerably higher value, is | the form where profanity augments the primary value | contained in the non profane elements of the expression. | | In my view, the not-lazy form is to be respected and | preserved. Using the lazy form is most generally a | disservice to the speaker, though not always. Context | remains king! | galangalalgol wrote: | I find that they are like a medicine, that if I use them | for every ache pain or sniffle, they don't work as well | when I truly need them. When I use an expletive I want | people to understand I have exited my normal range of | emotional intensity. | z3c0 wrote: | "Fucking" is the only English "infix" that I know of, where | it can be inserted inside of words like "abso-fucking- | lutely". The only other is "freaking", which is a just | euphemism for the former. | | Edit: American English, I should say. The Brits have | "bloody". | withinboredom wrote: | I say back-asswords instead of ass backwards. | sib wrote: | I've most commonly heard it said, "bass-ackward," in | order to remove the "ass" as a standalone syllable... | JasonFruit wrote: | There's a song that goes, "Wouldn't it be loverly sittin' | abso-bloomin'-lutely still?" Still just a euphemism, but | an example that can be used with children who lack self- | control with their language. | InCityDreams wrote: | IME 'fucking' is used very often in words, considerably | more than 'bloody' - in British Fucking English. | mattkrause wrote: | The linguistic "process" that allows this is called | "expletive infixation" and it, as you might guess from | the name, only works with swears. | | There's some neat work on where within the original word | you can add them, made all the funnier by hearing people | dispassionately dropping strings of f-bombs "to see what | works". | | Here's a classic paper on it: https://scholarworks.umass. | edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... | someweirdperson wrote: | > only works with swears | | It also works with "diddly" which isn't. | | It's intersting what information can be found out there | in this world, even about something as diddly. | | https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/wendell.kimp | er/... | Brendinooo wrote: | I disagree, but I do think that if swear words weren't | verboten, you wouldn't think that. | KineticLensman wrote: | I once attended an experiment where soldiers were trialling | a new CIS system. An officer asked how it was going. A | soldier replied "the fucking thing is fucking fucked, sir". | It was a succinct statement aimed at a senior decision | maker and the trial was halted ten minutes later. | IshKebab wrote: | This is obviously a joke. | natly wrote: | I feel the same way. But just want to point out that the link | is actually satire and makes a push for the same side as yours. | simondotau wrote: | Everyday censoring is the spice which makes these words | desirable to use in the first place. | [deleted] | hanoz wrote: | I often find people expressing that sentiment mean only the | words they happen to be cool with, and on examination say well | obviously we should still censor _those_ words. | knorker wrote: | I have never heard this in my life. Either people treat words | as magic or they don't. | | There's a difference between "you'll never hear me say that | word, just all other words" and trying to censor. | | I won't say the n word, but I'll watch a Tarantino movie. | smegsicle wrote: | tarantino the p*dophile apologist? i'd rather say the | n-word | thiht wrote: | Why do you self censor the word << pedophile >>? | | No judgment, just an honest question. Do you also self | censor << murderer >> or << rapist >>? | smegsicle wrote: | the topic originally under discussion being self- | censorship, it is an expertly subtle reference to how | things like rape (especially child rape), while not | directly censored in the same way as expletives, are very | rude subjects to bring up in polite conversation | swayvil wrote: | Ah yes, the "u r dum" retort. | | Wait, are we still allowed to say "dum"? Is this even | visible? | | It's doubly hard to predict what will be censored these days | given that so often the censored words lists are themselves | secret and, well, censored from view. To combat spammers no | doubt. | | Funny how "secret" and "censored" overlap. | blooalien wrote: | > "Wait, are we still allowed to say "dum"? Is this even | visible?" | | Nope. You've been moved here to the "shadow ban" forum with | the rest of the "cool kids". | icod1 wrote: | And rightly so | Brendinooo wrote: | Upvoted because I make this argument too, but I think it's | better applied to the kind of person who says "words are just | words, man" than free speech absolutists. | | Though, to one who believes that swear words have power but | shouldn't be censored: is that just in a legal sense or in a | societal sense? | simonh wrote: | It very much depends on the context. As an advocate of free | speech rights I believe the only justification for legally | penalising speech is when it is incitement to violence or | criminality. Speech being offensive is no good reason to | penalise it legally, otherwise it's no freedom at all. | | However social groups and independent forums or publishers | should be free to set their own editorial standards. Nobody | (acting in their private capacity, that is not as a | government employee) should have any obligation to repeat, | distribute or publish the speech of others that they | disagree with. | int_19h wrote: | Yet at the same time, there must be enough independent | forums for a true diversity of opinions. If they all end | up being owned by a couple of monopolists, any semblance | of free speech is just that. | simonh wrote: | In theory maybe, but in practice we're nowhere even | remotely near that. E.g. Twitter is full of very vocal | politicians complaining loudly that their political | beliefs are being, er, silenced on Twitter. It's all part | of the show. | | The western media landscape is incredibly diverse, pretty | much every conceivable opinion and niche community is | available and discoverable. In fact there seems to have | been a huge boom in fringe attitudes and beliefs, as | barriers to communication have fallen away, exactly the | opposite of what you'd expect if communications was being | meaningfully restricted and moderated at the societal | level. | Cloudef wrote: | I hate when games have no option to turn word filter off. | Souls games are infamous of the word Knight getting censored, | the word filter is so bad most people invading are just | asteriks | icod1 wrote: | Why would "Knight" get censored? | JasonFruit wrote: | "Nig" is sometimes used as a racial slur by older, lamer | racists. | buchoo wrote: | Reminds me of a Udemy Unreal Engine course where the | instructor would pronounce APawn* as "APawn star", which | Udemy's subtitle generator would suitably render as "a ** | star". | bogota wrote: | I have never met anyone who thinks words should be censored | in print. Maybe this is specific to the US? | kube-system wrote: | A review of Chinese mobile games found 180,000 different | censored words. | | https://citizenlab.ca/2017/08/chinesegames/ | | The idea that print shouldn't be censored is more of a | progressive western idea, than a non-US idea. | swimfar wrote: | Definitely not a US-only thing. Every time there's an | article on BBC about someone getting in trouble for saying | something offensive they often don't even provide a quote | of what was said. | koonsolo wrote: | No, it's because we are non-US. We don't want that fucking | stupid censor bullshit in the rest of the world. | IncRnd wrote: | If you think there is no censorship outside the US, even in | places like Belgium, you are sorely mistaken. | shrimp_emoji wrote: | Censorship is the norm practically everywhere EXCEPT the | U.S. | thiht wrote: | feanaro wrote: | I never find this. Isn't it quite weird to spend time | thinking about which words should or should not be censored? | How about we just leave people to speak their minds instead | of slowly but surely meandering into newspeak? | jodrellblank wrote: | No more weird than spending time thinking about what other | behaviours should or should not be censored (criminalised). | Should harming people with words be separate from harming | people with actions? Is it the case that blaring a loud | noise at night is harmful enough to be banned, but putting | racist leaflets through letterboxes is harmless? | | What about online forums where it's not about moralistic | control, but a pragmatic action because if you _don 't_ | censor some kinds of words and speech, it's like a positive | feedback loop where everything gets more intense until | Godwin or his equivalents turn up? It does seem to be the | case that control feedback is needed to keep discussion | forums relevant and on topic, and that involves thinking | about what needs censoring and by whom and in which | situations. Does that same effect and consideration not | apply in wider society? | ellopoppit wrote: | >Should harming people with words be separate from | harming people with actions? | | Have you ever been physically assaulted, punched in the | face, had your ribs broken, or been put in a strangle | hold? | jodrellblank wrote: | Thankfully, I haven't. Telling someone who was physically | assaulted that at least they weren't murdered isn't much | comfort. If you're saying "the amount of harm they do is | different", I agree. If you're saying "people can't be | harmed by words", I disagree - especially at a population | level; popularising and spreading of ideas that certain | subgroups are subhuman has happened over and over in many | countries and caused lots of harm. Punching someone is | worse than calling them a moron, but bruises from | childhood heal in weeks where verbal assault from | childhood (e.g. by an abusive parent or teacher, as well | as by peers) can still be hurting decades later with | wider knock-on effects. | toolz wrote: | I think people very generally miss the very important | subtlety that words never hurt people. It's the intention | behind the words that hurt and you don't need words to | communicate intent. So banning/censoring words really | doesn't do much other than placate the people who just | wanted to feel involved in changing the status quo. | | Compare that to a punch to the face. It really doesn't | matter if someone was just joking or angry with you, 150 | psi to your jaw is going to do damage. | ellopoppit wrote: | >bruises from childhood heal in weeks where verbal | assault from childhood (e.g. by an abusive parent or | teacher, as well as by peers) can still be hurting | decades later with wider knock-on effects. | | That's like saying physical damage from a rape will heal | in weeks but verbal sexual harrassment can still be | hurting decades later. | jodrellblank wrote: | You're trying to say that I'm suggesting verbal sexual | harrassment is worse than rape because it lasts longer? | But you're ignoring that rape involves psychological | traumas of losing trust in people, nightmares, loss of | bodily autonomy and control, being afraid to go out in | some situations, or to some places, which lasts much | longer than the physical damage (of a non-violent rape). | If you include those things then you have both types of | attack having mental harm and rape having more of it | (because of the intimacy and intensity and loss of | control, among other things) and rape having physical | harm too, which makes rape worse. | | > but verbal sexual harrassment can still be hurting | decades later. | | In the vein of putting words in peoples mouths, you think | this is a positive good thing and a reason you support | verbal sexual harassment because it will toughen people | up for decades? (I suspect not). | wizofaus wrote: | "Only someone who is so privileged as to have never been | physically assaulted could think that it doesn't cause | life long physiological and psychological damage" | | Depends entirely on the degree and nature of the assault. | I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, I'd | dare suggest if anything it made me stronger, and | certainly can't think of anything likely longterm damage | it's caused. But I certainly don't presume it's the same | for all kids. | jodrellblank wrote: | I don't think phsyical assault cannot cause lifelong | damage. Is it a terrible weakness of my privilege that I | would like a society where other people have such a good | life as I have had, instead of a difficult stressful dog- | eat-dog life to try and toughen them up to survive a dog- | eat-dog life? As if that's my business? | | > " _I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, | I 'd dare suggest if anything it made me stronger_" | | Overcoming challenges builds character, but wouldn't it | be nicer if you chose the challenges? If you had built | strength by choosing to do Karate and learn Mandarin | instead of being badly beaten up being foisted upon you? | Women report being catcalled from puberty around age 13; | is your response to that "if anything it makes them | stronger; women who didn't get catcalled are just | privileged and weak"? | wizofaus wrote: | Who said that was my response?? I totally agree that | physical AND mental/verbal abuse should be chargeable | offenses. I'm less sure why the former is necessarily | always worse than the latter, but it's sure easier to | prove the damage in court. | ellopoppit wrote: | That's a very good point which I totally agree with, and | also why martial arts and controlled sparring can be | extremely beneficial experiences | anigbrowl wrote: | Yes to all of those, and verbal attacks are often | incitement or a precursor to physical attacks. I think | anyone with security experience could summon numerous | examples from memory. | x3n0ph3n3 wrote: | > Should harming people with words be separate from | harming people with actions? | | Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words | and name-calling -- "Sticks and stones" is a common | nursery rhyme for a reason. | wizofaus wrote: | Even if you could demonstrate the long term impact on | somebody's mental health and sense of self worth through | constant name calling was worse than the short term | impact of, say, busting their nose? (But I agree | censorship isn't likely to help prevent the former. I | assume physical abuse is subject to criminal charges far | more often than mental/ verbal abuse is largely because | damage from the latter is far harder to prove in court) | jodrellblank wrote: | > " _Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against | words and name-calling_ " | | Maybe. Maybe not. If you choose to educate yourself about | financial scams, and are always wary when strangers call | you, that's sensible given the world we live in. If you | see pensioners being scammed out of their life savings | and support doing nothing because "I would never let that | happen to me, they should take responsibility like I do" | that's naieve at best and maybe cruel. | | Similarly, a society full of media which insults and | swears at people because "people should toughen up" is | like refusing to clean dogshit off the streets because | people should just wear shoes. Great, now you have people | trampling dogshit everywhere, what a success. | | Like, yes you should lock the door of your house when you | go out. But isn't it interesting that there are places | where _people don 't have to_? Wouldn't that be ... nice? | Better? Do we really want to encourage a society full of | people who are wary, calloused, defensive, always on | edge, because doing something about it would be 'weak'? | martin-t wrote: | This is naive. Even if you can make _yourself_ immune, | you can 't influence those around you. I barely care | about words like "shit" and "fuck" but I can't stand | lying because there will always be somebody who falls for | it and starts treating you negatively because of it. And | that's how harm using words turns into harm using | actions. | | Of course you can't censor lies automatically. Toxicity | doesn't have a technical solution. | Someone wrote: | > Should harming people with words be separate from | harming people with actions? | | I don't think so, so let's treat the two cases similarly. | We can forbid harming people with words without | forbidding words altogether, just as we do for cars, | knifes, hands, etc. | | Context matters. In the right context, said in the right | tone, "Yeah, beauty" can be quite an insult. | simonh wrote: | Some words have specifically pejorative or derogatory | meanings, and if general swears are considered acceptable | I'm afraid there are people who will exploit that for | genuinely offensive purposes. | Swizec wrote: | Is it less offensive to use the n-word with explicit | intent to offend by saying "n-word" or by actually saying | the word? | | I think it's the same. ie: it's not the word that's the | problem, it's how you use it. | | To expand further: I think the obsession over words is | the left's version of thoughts and prayers. We would | rather debate what something should or shouldn't be | called than fix the problem. Because it's easier and | feels like progress. | tsimionescu wrote: | Censoring words is much more the right's obsession than | the let's. You're right in the particular case of the | n-word, and slurs in general, but the conservative right | has been adamant in banning all use of swear-words in | mass media for decades. | UncleEntity wrote: | I don't think the conservative right gives a flying fuck | about censoring swear words. | | The religious right, on the other hand, cares a whole | ducking lot. | | Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together | though. | tsimionescu wrote: | What non-religious conservative right is there, at least | in the USA? Who would be an example of such a thing? | | I do agree that the libertarian right does not care about | this (say, Ron Paul). | UncleEntity wrote: | There are plenty of people who are politically | conservative but don't have particularly strong religious | beliefs. Not every republican is anti-abortion and pro- | prayer in school no matter how the media portrays them. | | You should meet some real people sometime and see how the | other half lives. | | --edit-- | | Though...if you don't look like you walked straight off | the set of _Duck Dynasty_ they are probably closet | conservatives and won't risk offending some random | stranger with their "hate speech" because that's what | 'merica has become. | the_only_law wrote: | > Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together | though. | | Which is easy to do when the only two parties with any | influence are massive conglomerates of many different | groups and factions. | eesmith wrote: | "MyPillow CEO's free speech social network will ban posts | that take the Lord's name in vain" - "You don't get to | use the four swear words: the c-word, the n-word, the | f-word, or God's name in vain," - | https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383841/mike-lindell- | soc... | | "Parler CEO Says He'll Ban Users for Posting Bad Words, | Dicks, Boobs, or Poop" - https://gizmodo.com/parler-ceo- | says-hell-ban-users-for-posti... | vkou wrote: | In 2022 America, those two groups are welded at the hip, | and the latter are steering the boat, while the former | smiles and nods. It's a distinction without a difference. | Swizec wrote: | You are right and I think censoring swear words is even | sillier. | | Although it does lead to the particularly beautiful art | of the British swear word. How they can turn any random | noun into an insult is pure poetry. I wish American media | did more of that. | CoastalCoder wrote: | Just for clarification: | | Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in | the antonym of "defensive"? | simonh wrote: | I mean people's feelings. See my reply to Brendinoo for | my position on that in more detail. | [deleted] | sebastianconcpt wrote: | How deeply narcissistic arrogant and authoritarian one should | be to promote the normalization of any kind of censoring? | jodrellblank wrote: | How deeply narcissistic arrogant and selfish one should be | to see all the harm that comes from a free-for-all and | still promote a free-for-all because you think you'll be | one of the winners and other people's suffering doesn't | matter? | ellopoppit wrote: | Hiding from reality via censorship sets one up for even | greater harm and suffering, because they never have a | chance to build up their mental strength and armor that | they will need in the real world. | | Like never letting your child ever ride a bike without | training wheels. | | It's a form of agoraphobia. | | Kevin Hart talks about the fact that no one can insult or | harm him with words because of the initiative gauntlet he | went through to become a comedian. | jodrellblank wrote: | More like never letting your child ride a bike with | training wheels because falling off builds character, and | when they grow up they're bound to be falling off a lot | and need the callouses to protect them. | | Did your parents skip your childhood vaccinations on the | grounds that a bout of polio or tetanus builds physical | strength? Or did they prefer a more gentle introduction | to let your immune system become accustomed in a | protected, simplified, environment? | sebastianconcpt wrote: | Note that, that unfounded accusation of indifference (and | the rest of the unfounded accusations) to other's people | suffering comes with the additional layer of arrogance of | taking as granted that censorship is a valid solution | that will not have consequences even worst than the | original problem. | | It's like putting the most incompetent engineers in | charge of architectural decisions in a system design and | giving for granted that a service that is scaling fast | and adding features to it will deliver 99.9999% uptime. | | No. | haunter wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial | | Do you think these countries are "deeply narcissistic | arrogant and authoritarian"? I don't think so | ellopoppit wrote: | Yes, those countries indeed have a history rich with | arrogant authoritarianism. Those laws are a literal | recognition of that fact. | jansan wrote: | How is your experience with performance of ligatures in fonts? I | recently tried to create a "meta-font" for Google fonts, which | contained a glyph for each font displaying the font name in the | font's own style. The glyph would be displayed as a ligature if | the font name was encountered. This way I could have a list with | all font names that would display normally without the meta font | available, but with the meta font available, the font names would | be displayed in the fonts' own style. | | I liked this idea a lot, but unfortunately with roughly 1500 | ligartures (one for each font on Google fonts) the meta font | became much larger than expected and quite slow when used in the | browser. Any experiences how many ligartures are fine performance | wise? | [deleted] | shever73 wrote: | Pity that the small town in Austria changed its name to Fugging. | mike_hock wrote: | Those fuggin' fuggers! | mikey_p wrote: | Sounds like this is a good solution to a clbuttic problem. | | https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The-Clbuttic-Mistake- | [deleted] | BrandoElFollito wrote: | As usual - everything is US-oriented. French still have to suffer | looking at merde and putain and politique. | OisinMoran wrote: | Scunthorpe is in England. | educaysean wrote: | It's ironic how you associated the English language font with | the U.S. by default while complaining about everything being | U.S. oriented. A fine illustration of how we're blind to our | own biases yet others appear so obvious. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | Ohhhh, that was a joke (as highlighted by the last dirty | word). I am sorry for having offended anyone by mentioning | the US. | kwatsonafter wrote: | hollerith wrote: | Does not work when I "try it out here" on Mobile Safari with the | content blocker Wipr installed. | cabirum wrote: | For those interested, to get the ligatures in this font, run: | otfinfo -g scunthorpe-sans.otf | grep _ | sed s/_//g | tr | '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | uniq | throw0101a wrote: | Etymology: | | > _The problem was named after an incident in 1996 in which AOL | 's profanity filter prevented residents of the town of | Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, England, from creating accounts | with AOL, because the town's name contains the substring | "cunt".[1] In the early 2000s, Google's opt-in SafeSearch filters | made the same error, preventing people from searching for local | businesses or URLs that included Scunthorpe in their names.[2]_ | | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem | | Also, grawlix: | | > _Grawlixes (#, $,_ , @): typographical symbols standing in for | profanities, appearing in dialogue balloons in place of actual | dialogue.[2]* | | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexicon_of_Comicana | | * https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/grawlix-symbol... | | * https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/the-grawlix-how-the... | walrus01 wrote: | The residents of Dildo, Newfoundland have embraced the name, | you can buy t-shirts that say Dildo and visit the historic | Dildo museum | | https://www.newfoundlandlabrador.com/plan-and-book/attractio... | Someone wrote: | On the other hand | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria): | | _"Fugging (German: ['fUkING] (listen)), named Fucking until | 2021, is an Austrian village in the municipality of Tarsdorf, | located in the Innviertel region of western Upper Austria. | The village is 33 km (21 mi) north of Salzburg and 4 km (2.5 | mi) east of the Inn river, which forms part of the German | border. | | Despite having a population of only 106 in 2020, the village | has drawn attention in the English-speaking world for its | former name, which was spelled the same as an inflected form | of the vulgar English-language word "fuck". Its road signs | were a popular visitor attraction and were often stolen by | souvenir-hunting vandals until 2005 when they were modified | to be theft-resistant. The name change to Fugging, which is | pronounced the same in the local dialect, was rejected in | 2004 but passed in late 2020."_ | walrus01 wrote: | In the UK, there is also: Brown Willy, | Cornwall. Cock Alley, Calow. Shitterton, | Dorset. Fanny Barks, Durham. Fingringhoe, | Essex. Bitchfield, Lincolnshire. Moisty | Lane, Staffordshire. Shitlingthorpe, Yorkshire. | | The residents of Shitterton now have an almost theft-proof | sign. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitterton | twelvechairs wrote: | There also used to be much more explicit street names | until they were sanitised | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane | Hallucinaut wrote: | Also Slutshole, Kent | [deleted] | 0xedb wrote: | wh*e made it through. What is bad language? Who decides? | npteljes wrote: | Society in general, and often an authority in particular. For | example if you were a radio broadcaster, your employer might | warn you about using particular words: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words | blooalien wrote: | George Carlin was a comedy super-hero. | blooalien wrote: | > "What is bad language? Who decides?" | | And then who gets the privilege of goin' back and keeping all | these silly censor lists up to date everywhere when the | standard of "acceptable words" changes? And how to handle | "regional" curses? All just sounds like more hassle than it's | worth to me. | tweetle_beetle wrote: | 30 seconds browsing the site at the domain vole.wtf, where the | newest piece of content (found clearly promoted on the | homepage) is "Penga - the penguin physics game" with slogan | "How many penguins can you rescue?", should be enough to inform | you that this is a comedy site, not a gender politics | manifesto. | | If you want to decide, then fork it. | zamalek wrote: | I get the idea that this font is a joke. | momirlan wrote: | English only :-) | blooalien wrote: | https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-well... | | Why swearing is a sign of intelligence, helps manage pain and | more | | Although, I must admit, it's a creative (mis)use of ligatures. | tgv wrote: | The study actually says that the people who could produce most | words starting with F, S and A in a limited timespan, also | produced most swear words. So CNN buggered a (rather useless) | finding for a clickbait headline. Wonderful. | omoikane wrote: | If you like creative uses of ligatures, you might also like: | | "Video Game in a Font": | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26495059 | bj-rn wrote: | Reminds me of Paranoia Sans "a self-censoring, conspiratorial | typeface that will automatically redact more than 150 words | popular in conspiracy myths/theories." | | https://fleg.de/paranoia | pavel_lishin wrote: | It would be fun to be able to generate these fonts for any | arbitrary phrases people might use! | Semiapies wrote: | That's delightful. Thanks for showing a sense of humor, unlike | most of the people commenting. | gs17 wrote: | Weird that it turns "alien" into "aTRUTHn", but "aliens" gets | blanked. | ovsuvdjv wrote: | At a guess, the dictionary contains "aliens" and "lie", but | not "alien", and rewriting proceeds in alphabetical order. | Hanschri wrote: | My only guess would be that it for some reason picks up on | 'lie' within the word while you're typing it out, changing in | to 'TRUTH', and then blanks when it detects 'aliens'. | shric wrote: | It censors puss for some reason. What a sourpuss. | galangalalgol wrote: | and I won't be able to write a letter to my friend Dick about | his ass breeding, or the tennis balls he left at my house. | geuis wrote: | So I don't know if this really works or not, but if you copy and | paste the purported blacked out words, it's just using asterisks | ie shit is s**. | projektfu wrote: | Yeah, I think they did that so that if the font doesn't render | you get the idea. Certain letters followed by *** are render | the blackout bar. But if you wrote the "bad word" in the | inspector, or the text area provided, it would also get blacked | out. | Semaphor wrote: | 2 years ago, almost 300 comments: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23131559 | hahamrfunnyguy wrote: | Can anyone summarize how this works? | KhalPanda wrote: | Right on the home page... | | > How this s** works: Modern fonts can combine letters into a | single ligature, usually for things like fi or fl but you can | pick anything so we've done it for swears. | breakingcups wrote: | They are abusing Font Ligatures | (https://fonts.google.com/knowledge/glossary/ligature), a | feature that allows you to substitute one glyph in the place of | two or more other glyphs combined if it looks more | aesthetically pleasing. Also used for some other script | features / rules. | onion2k wrote: | https://fonts.google.com/knowledge/glossary/ligature | dtgriscom wrote: | Ligatures [0] are special glyphs which replace a series of | letters. For instance, an "fl" is often replaced by a single | glyph which looks far better than the individual glyphs. | | Scunthorpe Sans has ligatures defined for each nasty series of | characters, but instead of replacing them with something more | readable it replaces them with a black box. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligature_(writing) | chmod775 wrote: | This doesn't censor anything at all, because it's still perfectly | clear what is being said. | | Makes as much sense as replacing 'dickhead' with 'penishead'. | pwr22 wrote: | Some engines are profane.... apparently :P | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine | croes wrote: | The N word is possible | wonderbore wrote: | "N word" isn't a swear word. N[?][?][?][?][?] is | InCityDreams wrote: | Is it swearing, though, or just occasionaly very offensive? | croes wrote: | In the demo box it's possible to type N[?][?][?][?][?] | without censoring | lostlogin wrote: | L3viathan wrote: | With a built-in exception for Scunthorpe, but not for the million | of other examples why automatic swear word filtering is a bad | idea (Shitake, Sussex, classic, peoples' names, ...). | | A fun piece of art, but I hope nobody actually uses this font. | The_suffocated wrote: | Yes, it's a fun piece of art. I don't think this was meant to | be practical. It was probably just an interesting experiment or | proof of concept. | pessimizer wrote: | It passed my buttbuttinate test, but it turns out it doesn't | think "ass" or even "ass hole" are swears. | cynix wrote: | > Shitake | | This one wouldn't have been censored if it was spelt correctly | :) | bencollier49 wrote: | What, in Kanji? | cynix wrote: | No, shiitake. It was missing an i. | hvdijk wrote: | No, it wasn't. Merriam Webster includes shitake as a less | common but valid spelling. | | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shitake | bluejekyll wrote: | This reminds me of a professor who while reviewing a | paper of mine, circled a word in red ink and said "not a | word". So I brought in my dictionary and pointed to the | word, and said see? | | They then told me that Merriam-Webster is shit, and I | should be using the American Heritage dictionary: https:/ | /www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=shitake+&sub... | hvdijk wrote: | I wonder what your professor's opinion on OED is. It | includes shitake. | | https://www.lexico.com/definition/shiitake (note the | "also shitake") | toast0 wrote: | OED is a great reference, but not really normative for | the US. | anigbrowl wrote: | That's just institutionalized mediocrity, it's only valid | because enough people spell foreign words poorly that you | just have to deal. | colejohnson66 wrote: | The dictionary's job is to describe you how words are | used, not prescribe definitions. | omoikane wrote: | At this point, we should probably acknowledge that | "shitake" is a common accepted variant of "shiitake", | just like how most of the world uses "Tokyo" even though | it should be "Toukyou". | cynix wrote: | At least there's a good reason behind Tokyo, since it's | meant to be Tokyo but the diacritic was dropped because | it's hard to type. What's their excuse for dropping a | perfectly typable i? | pessimizer wrote: | Because double "i"s don't mean anything in English | orthography, and at best serve as reminders of a sound | you've heard somewhere else? | | The name for that mushroom is not from a Roman script. It | is translated into one in various ways, official and | unofficial, devised by arbitrary missionaries. Once it | becomes an English word, it's nice if it is respelled in | a way that we can easily pronounce, although it's against | our nature as Americans not to just leave it obscure and | look down on people who aren't in the know. | | British people will happily mangle a word to make it an | English word, especially if it's French, but they really | should be tried for what they do to the word "jaguar." | Americans are more insecure, I guess, due to youth. | comradesmith wrote: | Isn't that the same justification for Shitake vs | Shiitake? | | In Japanese it would be kanji or occasionally hiragana, | some transliterations will be imperfect, and so long as | the authors intent is clear, to me that's all that | matters | [deleted] | benj111 wrote: | I don't get it, what bad words does the string "people's names" | contain. | | Is 'les' a perjoritive for lesbians now??? Or is it the near | anagram of 'man penis'??? Or is it because it doesn't contain | any of the letters in 'shit'??? | simonh wrote: | Some personal names contain naughty words. | traverseda wrote: | They mean names that include swear words in them. For example | there are people with the last name Shite (mostly in the DR | Congo) according to google. | benj111 wrote: | Yes. I was joking. I would have hoped that my increasingly | silly theories would have made that clear. | neya wrote: | I may actually use it just to p** off people. Oh wait, maybe I | didn't need a font for that :))) | Majestic121 wrote: | Did you mean piss off, or is it a three letter word that is | missing from my vocabulary ? | sh4rks wrote: | He's talking about the other end | smegsicle wrote: | i think it's hn's formatter mangling it, let me check | | a* | | s** | | p** | | yup, though when editing it escapes them so they don't get | mangled again | npteljes wrote: | Maybe it's piss | [deleted] | JasonFruit wrote: | This is totally broken. It still lets me say "damn". I'm calling | the police. | wizofaus wrote: | Doesn't work on Strine, try "Bloody hell, quit arsing about, ya | total drongo". | aidenn0 wrote: | I remember when I stumbled across a forum and was very confused | by the near universal use of the phrase "gently caress"... | [deleted] | MrYellowP wrote: | Bad language doesn't exist. | | It simply fucking doesn't. That's just the person, who has a | problem with words, blaming the words for his problem. | | The problem is _solely_ within those who don 't want to hear it, | who believe they can tell others how to speak. | millzlane wrote: | The problem comes in when the crybabies cry because noone wants | to play with them. | colmmacc wrote: | So far this font has failed to censor a single horrifically | racist or homophobic slur that I've tried, and these words are | _much_ more universally taboo in every culture. It makes me | nervous even just to type them in as an experiment and the words | are so shocking to me that it 's very possible I have _never_ | spoken or typed them out. But they are not censored. | | It also only blocks one misogynistic slur (the slur that is in | Scunthorpe, but not say the slur that looks most like 'slur') | that I've tried. | | That's quite a skewed definition of "bad" language. | lostlogin wrote: | It's a shame it blocks like this as down here the highest | praise of character is to be a 'good cunt'. | nmilo wrote: | Really? You see a joke project made for fun and the first thing | you do is try every horrifically racist and homophobic slur you | can think of? Do you always look for things to be mad about? | politician wrote: | I've been toying around with the idea of building self- | censorship software. These comments are good for | demonstrating that there's a market of people who would | eagerly engage in blinding themselves. | lostlogin wrote: | It would be neat if the black list was easily configurable. | Just imagining the workplace arguments is fun. | politician wrote: | I don't think it can just be configurable, but needs to | be programmable. But yes, 100% fun times ahead. | void-pointer wrote: | Perhaps because it's a joke font that's not supposed to be | taken seriously? | causality0 wrote: | Swear words that mean "jerk" are mostly gender-divided. That | doesn't make them sexist slurs. Just because you generally | wouldn't call a woman an asshole doesn't make the word asshole | a misandrist slur. | | You're quite right about it failing to block ethnic slurs | though. | JasonFruit wrote: | I'm interested here, because I've noticed that there's a | loophole to the gendered nature of "asshole": I wouldn't call | a woman that because of what she's done to _me_ , but if she | offends my wife, we might agree that she's an asshole. I'm | not sure if that's a common usage or not. | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | > this font has failed to censor a single horrifically racist | or homophobic slur that I've tried, these words are _much_ more | universally taboo in every culture | | How to say you're from the US without saying you're from the US | Nextgrid wrote: | Related: Sans Bullshit Sans (https://www.sansbullshitsans.com) | spicybright wrote: | Bitch doesn't work. Was the first one I tried lol | CoastalCoder wrote: | > Bitch doesn't work. | | At first I interpreted that entire sentence as slang for, "The | font doesn't work." | | I guess that's another limitation of that approach: multiple | parsings of the same sentence. | sph wrote: | You might be referring to a female canine. | UncleEntity wrote: | I used to have a friend who would get offended when I | referred to my dog as "my little bitch" and it's not like I | spare the profanities during everyday speech or anything. | stevefan1999 wrote: | because bitch could mean female dog | aeturnum wrote: | This is a neat project! | | It makes me think about the worlds of 1985 and Fahrenheit 451 - | what does it look like to make it impossible to express | something? When you see a dystopia, what are the mechanics moving | underneath its surface, supporting what you can see? | ajuc wrote: | > When you see a dystopia, what are the mechanics moving | underneath its surface, supporting what you can see? | | In the dystopias that were realized in practice mostly | autocensorship. | | Let's say you have 1 in 1000 chance of going to Gulag and 1 in | 20 chance of losing your job if you say something bad about | Stalin. Will you risk it? Will you promote a guy that openly | talks bad about Stalin? He will get into trouble eventually and | your career will suffer in turn. And so on. 1% is enforcement | 99% is fear. | aeturnum wrote: | Sure - but generally new dystopic situations are unlike | previous ones. Things change and art gives us the potential | to reflect on how they might change. In 1984 there is the | idea that newspeak is trying to eliminate the ability to | express thoughts contradictory to the party line. It's | interested to think about what that might look like at every | level of implementation. | ajuc wrote: | > but generally new dystopic situations are unlike previous | ones | | Not really. Replace Stalin with Putin and the incentives | not to talk about the war in Ukraine are very similar. | | > In 1984 there is the idea that newspeak is trying to | eliminate the ability to express thoughts contradictory to | the party line. It's interested to think about what that | might look like at every level of implementation. | | That's nothing new. "Troubles" in UK/Ireland. "Special | Operation" in Ukraine. Blasphemy in most of religious | societies that still cared about these things. N-word. Etc. | | Language is a weapon, always was. It's not even restricted | to totalitarian regimes, totalitarian regimes just use it | more and generally for evil means. | | My problem with 1984 and how it's perceived today is that | it made a whole mythology around totalitarianism that makes | it seem there's healthy "normal" state and inhuman | totalitarian state, and they share nothing in common. In | practice they use the same tools, the differences are in | scope and intentions. | crikeyjoe wrote: | Fuck that shit | viginti_tres wrote: | Try to type fuckuck | dtgriscom wrote: | Back in the day, I was the Exhibits Engineer at the Computer | Museum in Boston. We had an exhibit with a robot arm and alphabet | blocks; visitors could type in a phrase and it would be spelled | out. I maintained the "dirty word" list, which was the list of | things that the robot wasn't allowed to spell out. | biztos wrote: | Did it autocorrect, like Apple's famous ducking duck? | fortyseven wrote: | More useful: make it change 'cloud' to 'butt' automatically, like | that browser extension. | jl6 wrote: | Everybody's got an opinion on what bad language means, but maybe | everybody should maintain their own local variants of this font | that censor specifically the words that they don't want to see. | noneeeed wrote: | That's delightful. I love this sort of silly (miss-)use of | technology. | ddingus wrote: | A broken font that does not accurately represent expression. | | Seems pretty useless to me. | | Edit: Joke or Art font. Got it! | annoyingnoob wrote: | Charles Dickinson | WesolyKubeczek wrote: | Doesn't censor "classic", "mass", and anything with "ass". | lostlogin wrote: | Is 'ads' considered something that should be censored by | anyone? | | I come from a land where 'arse' is probably more common, so may | be missing something. | AHappyCamper wrote: | They didn't block the N word | gunfighthacksaw wrote: | My cockerel was not amused. Nor was my pussy-cat. | layer8 wrote: | Won't help for text-to-speech and screenreaders. ;) | awsrocks wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-02 23:00 UTC)