Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would like to begin by saying that I think "feth" is an excellent substitution word. It's so close to the word it replaces that there is really no drawback to using it. Sentences such as, "feth off, you fething fether", require no explanation, the message has the same sound and weight that it was intended to have.

There are other filter words, however, that I think could use improvement...

Gak: this one is okay if you're talking about having a "gakky day". But it can be quite jarring and ambiguous if the context is something like horsegak. Recently (in a topic about catchphrases) I was going to mention one from Duke Nukem, which would have come out: "I'm gonna rip your head off, and gak down your neck". But I felt it had lost too much in translation. If the word is used as part of a rhyme the replacement is also jarring. Might I suggest instead a word like ""silt". This is much closer in form to the censored word, and I think it fits with the grimdark theme (silt mines), and it works: "that's horsesilt!" or "you're full of silt"

Slowed: this one is frankly terrible, as it replaces a noun with an adjective, which is almost never going to work "you are a slow", or an adjective with another adjective in the wrong tense "I felt totally slowed". I'm also not even sure why the word needs to be filtered? It's no more offensive than "crazy" "lame" or "dumb". I feel there is also a much greater chance of crazy lame and dumb people actually visiting the forum, as opposed to people who don't read good, who probably aren't going to want to hang out in a place that is mainly comprised of text, getting offended by other people's posts. It also potentially breaks posts about paint retarder (which is 100% on topic), and removes one of the most concise words from the Off-topic forum, to describe when people are acting like retards.

My suggestion is that it doesn't need to be a ban word. But if it must be then almost anything would be better. How about: reprobate, reprehensible, dumbass etc...

EDIT: also does the post edit message really need a number? That's just embarrassing and offensive for us people who can't write good. :(

Both 'feth' and 'gak' have canonical uses within 40K, hence why those words were chosen.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Feth

 Ghaz wrote:
Both 'feth' and 'gak' have canonical uses within 40K, hence why those words were chosen.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Feth

I can't find an entry for Gak, but regardless of the sentiment, I don't think it's the best replacement, functionality should also be a consideration since people might need or want to use the word in their posts. I can think of at least two occasions when I've used the word because it was part part of a quote. If the word isn't supposed to be functional then why not just replace it with the "see forum rules" message that replaces the N word. If it is supposed to be functional then it should be as functional as possible. How about Smeg? That has a canonical sci-fi origin.

'Gak' is in the entry I linked to. It is a better choice than a word that has no relation to the word that it is replacing, which is what you're wanting.

This is a 40K-centric board, not a Red Dwarf-centric board. Therefore the 40k-centric term 'gak' is more appropriate than 'smeg'.

 Smacks wrote:

Slowed: this one is frankly terrible, as it replaces a noun with an adjective, which is almost never going to work "you are a slow", or an adjective with another adjective in the wrong tense "I felt totally slowed". I'm also not even sure why the word needs to be filtered? It's no more offensive than "crazy" "lame" or "dumb". I feel there is also a much greater chance of crazy lame and dumb people actually visiting the forum, as opposed to people who don't read good, who probably aren't going to want to hang out in a place that is mainly comprised of text, getting offended by other people's posts. It also potentially breaks posts about paint retarder (which is 100% on topic), and removes one of the most concise words from the Off-topic forum, to describe when people are acting like retards.

Discussion of paint retarder is exactly why changing it to 'slow'works ... Any legitimate use of the word still makes sense that way.

Using it as an insult is inappropriate in any context. The fact that 'slowed' makes the insult less effective is pretty much the entire point.

If you find yourself pointing out to someone that you think they're acting like someone with a disability, your post is inappropriate for the forum regardless of the specific words being used.

 Ghaz wrote:
This is a 40K-centric board, not a Red Dwarf-centric board. Therefore the 40k-centric term 'gak' is more appropriate than 'smeg'.

Okay, I agree about smeg. However, gak has very little in common with the word it replaces, and it's kind of an obscure reference anyway. Phrases like "full of gak", "talking gak", "couldn't give a gak", "that's some funny gak", "gak just got real",and the verb form "gaking" don't really translate well. Something with the form "s??t" would work better. However, I appreciate that there might be too much love for Gak to ever get it changed, even if it is annoying and renders one of the most versatile words in the English language unusable. So I don't want to get waylayed discussing it when there is something far worse...

Slowed!!! Come on, that has nothing canonical about it, and doesn't even make sense half the time. Even something like "Raven Guarded" would be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
If you find yourself pointing out to someone that you think they're acting like someone with a disability, your post is inappropriate for the forum regardless of the specific words being used.

Have you been to the off topic forum? :p

And it's not always about insulting someone, often people just want to say things like "GWs business strategy is slowed". I've never really considered the word to be about disability, it's about things being behind where they should be. It's a pretty good word actually because an awful lot of things in life are not as good as they should be.

 Smacks wrote:

Slowed!!! Come on, that has nothing canonical about it, and doesn't even make sense in half the time. Even something like "Raven Guarded" would be better.

The only times it doesn't make sense are where it's being used inappropriately anyway.


So far as 'gak' goes, here's a handy tip: If you don't like the way the word filter alters your profanity, you can always try to make your point without profanity.

Drastic, I know, but it's quite in vogue in some circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

And it's not always about insulting someone, often people just want to say things like "GWs business strategy is slowed"..

And that would be inappropriate. Hence the word filter.

The fact that you personally think it's a great way to describe things doesn't change the fact that an awful lot of people, including this board's administration and moderators, consider it extremely offensive, and insensitive to those with disabilities, or with loved ones with disabilities.

 Smacks wrote:
However, gak has very little in common with the word it replaces, and it's kind of an obscure reference anyway.

Again, 'gak' is a canonical replacement for the word in question via the Gaunt's Ghosts novels. It doesn't need more than that. And with this being a 40K-centric board, its not an obscure reference. Why should a 40K-centric board not use a 40K-centric term, 'obscure' or not?

 insaniak wrote:
And that would be inappropriate. Hence the word filter.

The word that feth replaces is also inappropriate, yet it has a usable filter word. If the word was only being used appropriatly then it wouldn't need a filter.

The fact that you personally think it's a great way to describe things doesn't change the fact that an awful lot of people, including this board's administration and moderators, consider it extremely offensive, and insensitive to those with disabilities, or with loved ones with disabilities.

I'm also very sympathetic to people with disabilities, and would never use that word to describe them. To the extent where I don't even associate the word with genuinely disabled people. But I suppose there is no point starting an argument about people taking offence where none is given.

So far as 'gak' goes, here's a handy tip: If you don't like the way the word filter alters your profanity, you can always try to make your point without profanity.

Drastic, I know, but it's quite in vogue in some circles.

Well that is exactly what I do, but occasionally there isn't a good replacement. Some phrases lose their impact, or humour.

This man explains it rather well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h68CfIUkPKs (warning profanity)

 Ghaz wrote:
Why should a 40K-centric board not use a 40K-centric term, 'obscure' or not?

I think what I don't like about it if I'm going to argue seriously, is it creates ambiguity. Gak is already a word that describes something like slime. If someone says "I got Gak down my shirt" it is unclear what they are talking about, and people new to the board won't intuitively understand it like they would feth.

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
And that would be inappropriate. Hence the word filter.

The word that feth replaces is also inappropriate, yet it has a usable filter word. If the word was only being used appropriatly then it wouldn't need a filter. .

Apples and oranges.

The main English language swear words are filtered out to keep the site reasonably family friendly, but with the words replaced there is generally nothing inherently offensive about the remaining statement.

The word that 'slow' replaces is filtered out because its use as a pejorative is offensive and insensitive... But ultimately, if you're using it as a pejorative, there's a very good chance that your post is breaking Dakka's rule #1 anyway.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm also very sympathetic to people with disabilities, and would never use that word to describe them. To the extent where I don't even associate the word with genuinely disabled people. But I suppose there is no point starting an argument about people taking offence where none is given.

What an utterly ridiculous notion. The word 'slowed' replaces refers to disabilities yet you think just because you, personally, don't mean it in the way 90% of people percieve it? Seriously??? Starting an argument about people taking offense when I say offensive things but I don't actually mean them? The word IS associated with disabled people, you can't just wave that away.

What a stupid, nonsensical and foolish (all synonyms for the meaning you want btw) train of thought.

Also, Gak and Feth are used very often in both the Ciaphias Cain book series. So it's not obscure in the slightest.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
What an utterly ridiculous notion. The word 'slowed' replaces refers to disabilities yet you think just because you, personally, don't mean it in the way 90% of people percieve it? Seriously??? Starting an argument about people taking offense when I say offensive things but I don't actually mean them? The word IS associated with disabled people, you can't just wave that away.

What a stupid, nonsensical and foolish (all synonyms for the meaning you want btw) train of thought.

Someone could just as easily claim that you were being offensive to disabled people by using the word stupid, and call you an insensitive bigot. But people with mental disabilities, and their families, would never self-identify as stupid any more than they would *slowed*, so why are you making it about them? I happen to be dyslexic, am I supposed to personally be offended every time someone says the R word? According to you I should be, because you seem to think people with learning disabilities are "slowed", and you need to use delicate language around them so as not to be offensive. I think people like you are far more reprehensible, going around telling everyone that they shouldn't use the R word because it's offensive to people like me with learning difficulties.That's far far more offensive than someone just idly using the word to call someone an idiot. It's akin to someone saying that you shouldn't use the word "thief" because it's offensive to ethnic minorities. You're the one making that connection, not me, and it shows the kind of putrid biases that you're harbouring under that mask of PC thuggery.

Words are just words, the word "slowed" isn't any more about mental disabilities than "dumb" is about people being mute, unless people like you make it about that. Colloquially they both just mean "stupid", and nothing more. Pretending it's offensive to anyone other than the person it was directed at is itself offensive.

Also, Gak and Feth are used very often in both the Ciaphias Cain book series. So it's not obscure in the slightest.

I've been playing 40k for 20+ years, and I've never heard of those books. Books that only a handful of 40k players, who actually read Black Library, are going to know about = obscure, even by war gaming standards. By popular standards it's positively clandestine.

 Smacks wrote:
But people with mental disabilities, and their families, would never self-identify as stupid any more than they would *slowed*, so why are you making it about them?

Because it is about them.

The word in question has been used by those lacking int he sensitivity department to describe people with mental disabilities for an awful long time. You may not personally regard it as a derogatory term for mental disability, but most of the rest of the English-speaking world does.


And so, yes, someone 'idly using the word to call someone an idiot' is all sorts of wrong on multiple levels.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
But people with mental disabilities, and their families, would never self-identify as stupid any more than they would *slowed*, so why are you making it about them?

Because it is about them.

Apart from when it is about paint, or when it is not about them at all. Just because a word can mean something in a certain context, doesn't mean that it always means that and nothing else in every context.

The word in question has been used by those lacking in the sensitivity department to describe people with mental disabilities for an awful long time. You may not personally regard it as a derogatory term for mental disability, but most of the rest of the English-speaking world does.

I do regard it as a derogatory term for people with mental disabilities, just as I regard "stupid" to be a derogatory term for people with mental disabilities (which has also been used by those lacking in the sensitivity department to describe people with mental disabilities). That doesn't mean the term stupid always refers to people with disabilities.

And so, yes, someone 'idly using the word to call someone an idiot' is all sorts of wrong on multiple levels.

If you read back, I never said that it wasn't wrong. I just said that making an out of context connection is far more offensive. For the sake of argument, it's like me saying the word "jerk" is offensive to moderators. Because historically the word in "jerk" has been used by those lacking in the sensitivity department to describe moderators for an awful long time.

It might be offensive to moderators because it is offensive generally, but if it is used against non-moderators, then there is no reason a moderator should take personal offence. For me to say that they should is to imply that I think moderators are jerks (I don't it's just an example).

The words dumb and lame are used frequently, but rarely used to refer to people with disabilities any more, because they have been reclaimed and re-purposed by speakers. A lot of words started off meaning one thing and now they mean something else. The word "berk" has become a very innocuous pejorative in English (an almost child friendly alternative), but historically it means something very offensive, yet the original meaning has largely been forgotten. Attempting to suppress the R word and prevent speakers from re-purposing it by insisting it means something offensive to disabled people, probably isn't doing disabled people any favours at all in the long run.

 Smacks wrote:

Also, Gak and Feth are used very often in both the Ciaphias Cain book series. So it's not obscure in the slightest.

I've been playing 40k for 20+ years, and I've never heard of those books. Books that only a handful of 40k players, who actually read Black Library, are going to know about = obscure, even by war gaming standards. By popular standards it's positively clandestine.

Wow, you must have been living under a miniature rock then. I don't think I ever met a 40k player who did not know about Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM! I think that in 40k circles (and this forum is mostly about 40k), feth and gak are not obscure.

Also, you know you spend too much time on Dakka when you actually start saying feth rather than "the f-word that can not be named on here". I know, it is horrible, but, feth, I can't stop it!

 Smacks wrote:
Apart from when it is about paint, or when it is not about them at all. Just because a word can mean something in a certain context, doesn't mean that it always means that and nothing else in every context.

Sure. However, the reason that this word is filtered is because the primary usage of it online is to use it as a pejorative.

It might be offensive to moderators because it is offensive generally, but if it is used against non-moderators, then there is no reason a moderator should take personal offence.

I think you've misunderstood how moderating works.

It's not filtered because I might be personally offended by it. It's filtered because it's generally used in an offensive fashion, and we would prefer to avoid that in order to keep the site more family-friendly.

Attempting to suppress the R word and prevent speakers from re-purposing it by insisting it means something offensive to disabled people, probably isn't doing disabled people any favours at all in the long run.

Describing someone as slowed because you disagree with their point of view is not 'repurposing' the word.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Also, you know you spend too much time on Dakka when you actually start saying feth rather than "the f-word that can not be named on here".

I've been checking every instance of 'feth' and 'gak' I've come across on the forums since this topic came up. The majority of them are not due to the language filter, but it's what the poster typed (if you quoted the post, the original text comes up, e.g. you should see gak instead of 'gak').

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. However, the reason that this word is filtered is because the primary usage of it online is to use it as a pejorative.

Which... is fair enough actually. Your comment about apples and oranges clears up the inconsistency. Unless you also consider how the C word is filtered, is that an apple or an orange?

My other post was just responding to the argument (that I didn't want to have) about the legitimacy of people "being offended". I appreciate that it is the prerogative of the dakka administration to do things however they see fit, regardless of my views. My last post was not intended to persuade dakka to change anything, its only purpose was to assert that my opinion is not "stupid, nonsensical and foolish", I just feel differently about censorship and the sanitising of language to ALEXisAWESOME, which evidently left him confused (five question marks confused), and so demanded a response.

insaniak wrote:I think you've misunderstood how moderating works.

No, I simply used a moderator in my example because I was tailoring my post to you for the purposes of rhetoric, while discussing offensiveness. I wasn't speaking about filter words on dakka at that time. It was kind of a tangent, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, you can disregard it.

insaniak wrote:Describing someone as slowed because you disagree with their point of view is not 'repurposing' the word.

Sure it is, it's already "informally" in the dictionary:

"informal offensive
very foolish or stupid."

See, there no mention of disabled people. It just means 'stupid' in this context.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wow, you must have been living under a miniature rock then. I don't think I ever met a 40k player who did not know about Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM!

Perhaps... I don't really read Black Library, and I'm not much of an IG fan, so I guess it's in a blind spot. I'm sure I'm not the only one though. I did read Ragnar's Claw once, which was given to me as a gift, but I can't say it encouraged me to read any further BL publications.

 Ghaz wrote:
I've been checking every instance of 'feth' and 'gak' I've come across on the forums since this topic came up. The majority of them are not due to the language filter, but it's what the poster typed (if you quoted the post, the original text comes up, e.g. you should see gak instead of 'gak').

I also do that, but mainly because I know the filter will change them anyway. Also I feel like it gives me a better chance of staying on the right side of the forum rules. If a moderator were to check my post an discover it was full of cursing then it might be frowned upon.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
I've been checking every instance of 'feth' and 'gak' I've come across on the forums since this topic came up. The majority of them are not due to the language filter, but it's what the poster typed (if you quoted the post, the original text comes up, e.g. you should see gak instead of 'gak').

I also do that, but mainly because I know the filter will change them anyway. Also I feel like it gives me a better chance of staying on the right side of the forum rules. If a moderator were to check my post an discover it was full of cursing then it might be frowned upon.

I can only speak for me as a moderator but I don't give a feth what you actually write, as long as the fething filter catches all your fething swearing and I'm not left with a gak job of cleaning up your gakky language.

But seriously guys re: the filter, always remember that after you post something with a lot of swearing in it to give it a once over, some ways that the words can be typed don't always get caught, and in the end it is on you as the poster to ensure you aren't swearing a blue streak past the filter.

It's also worth a mention that swearing in post attachment titles isn't filtered, so don't cuss there and assume it'll be changed.
I may have found that out accidentally.

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
But people with mental disabilities, and their families, would never self-identify as stupid any more than they would *slowed*, so why are you making it about them?

Because it is about them.

Apart from when it is about paint, or when it is not about them at all. Just because a word can mean something in a certain context, doesn't mean that it always means that and nothing else in every context.

The word in question has been used by those lacking in the sensitivity department to describe people with mental disabilities for an awful long time. You may not personally regard it as a derogatory term for mental disability, but most of the rest of the English-speaking world does.

I do regard it as a derogatory term for people with mental disabilities, just as I regard "stupid" to be a derogatory term for people with mental disabilities (which has also been used by those lacking in the sensitivity department to describe people with mental disabilities). That doesn't mean the term stupid always refers to people with disabilities.

You do of course realise and understand that words that were long ago used in a clinical or medical sense (moron, imbecile, idiot, cretin, idiot, stupid, fool, dumb) were appropriated more widely as specific insults, dropped as clinical or medical terms and over extended time have become simple, non-specific insults. "slow/slowed" is now in that phase of time where it's still a specific insult towards those with an intellectual disability as well as being used as a wider insult. In a few decades, it might be as mild as "idiot", but it's far from there yet. If you want a litmus test, talk to someone with an ID and/or a member of their family and say "that (thing) is stupid" and then "that (thing) is slowed" and see which one offends them. Even better, tell a person with an ID "don't act stupid" vs "don't act slowed".

Well okay, I stand corrected then. I wouldn't want to upset anyone with a mental disability, or their family, that was never my intention. I apologise if I came across as ignorant or insensitive. I've just never considered the word to be in the same league as things like "racial slurs", as it's a term which is often banded around by school children here, and though I wouldn't call it "harmless", I've never thought of it as particularly scathing either. If other people find it "very offensive", then I'm a little surprised, but also very sorry for bringing it up.

I'm still not a big fan of Gak though.

 Azazelx wrote:


You do of course realise and understand that words that were long ago used in a clinical or medical sense (moron, imbecile, idiot, cretin, idiot, stupid, fool, dumb) were appropriated more widely as specific insults, dropped as clinical or medical terms and over extended time have become simple, non-specific insults. "slow/slowed" is now in that phase of time where it's still a specific insult towards those with an intellectual disability as well as being used as a wider insult. In a few decades, it might be as mild as "idiot", but it's far from there yet. If you want a litmus test, talk to someone with an ID and/or a member of their family and say "that (thing) is stupid" and then "that (thing) is slowed" and see which one offends them. Even better, tell a person with an ID "don't act stupid" vs "don't act slowed".

VERY well said - and Exalted!

Thank you for clearly expressing what is essentially the reasoning behind that - it is greatly appreciated!

 Smacks wrote:
Well okay, I stand corrected then. I wouldn't want to upset anyone with a mental disability, or their family, that was never my intention. I apologise if I came across as ignorant or insensitive. I've just never considered the word to be in the same league as things like "racial slurs", as it's a term which is often banded around by school children here, and though I wouldn't call it "harmless", I've never thought of it as particularly scathing either. If other people find it "very offensive", then I'm a little surprised, but also very sorry for bringing it up.

And thank you for being understanding!

 Smacks wrote:
Well okay, I stand corrected then. I wouldn't want to upset anyone with a mental disability, or their family, that was never my intention. I apologise if I came across as ignorant or insensitive. I've just never considered the word to be in the same league as things like "racial slurs", as it's a term which is often banded around by school children here, and though I wouldn't call it "harmless", I've never thought of it as particularly scathing either. If other people find it "very offensive", then I'm a little surprised, but also very sorry for bringing it up.

I'm still not a big fan of Gak though.

That's fine - I get where you're coming from. I just wanted to explain to you where the word is right now.

I found out a few years ago (not the hard way, thankfully - especially since it was my boss - but hearing it talked about) that people with epilepsy don't like being called "epileptics" and instead prefer "people with epilepsy". It's about people being defined by others by (or as) their medical condition as opposed to being considered people first who happen to have a condition. I have to admit that I hadn't even thought about it before that, but since then I try to bear it in mind when thinking about individuals or groups of people who might be defined in a certain way. And thinking before I speak!

I broke the filter again.

The slang word "feth + tons" is not screened.