« Farewell, Crappy Slogan |
Angela Valdez - our new highly... »
Erica C. Barnett
on October 16 at
CBS News’s blogs apparently consider “gay” a dirty word:
This reminds me of some idiot ultra-PC Seattle liberals I met once who thought that the word "Jew", applied to Jews, was offensive to them.
It makes sense for CBS. I mean, they've been covering closeted, gay politicians for years. It's just that when they say "gay politician," the network wisely edits out the first word.
Its probably innocent, as in not intentional, as many of these types of applications come with filters for all kinds of words and phrases that could be used in an offensive way. I've worked with some systems that have such filters (in multiple languages!). For example, did you know that dziwka means prostitute in Polish?While on an academic level it seems pretty absurd, on a practical level it is easy to see how that would get on the list just because the flak someone would get for "allowing" people to use "gay" in negative connotations far outweighs the kind of "can you believe this?" type attention that your post brings.nothing to see here, move along...
Gay? I thought they were blanking out the ass in "ass man."
"While on an academic level it seems pretty absurd, on a practical level it is easy to see how that would get on the list just because the flak someone would get for "allowing" people to use "gay" in negative connotations far outweighs the kind of "can you believe this?" type attention that your post brings."
But "gay" is never, by any definiton, a slur or a dirty word. In fact, there are several different usages, none of which are offensive. It can only really be offensive if you are one who is offended by an implication that you are a homosexual. So while I also think it was filtering software that asterisked the word, the filter should have never been tuned to do so!
Josh, I agree with you. However people who make these filters don't make them out of a desire to make distinctions such as that. Filters are put in place to avoid controversy, not to make some egalitarian gesture towards making conversation civil. All *kinds* of words make it into these filters with the idea being that they're going to err on the side of caution because most often the types who complain about things aren't basing their objection on rationally argued points.For example, in that same restricted words list I referenced earlier, I've found "shemale", "queer", "lesbian", "fag". These were there by default, and until this issue came up I never even looked to see what *was* in there.So before people get their dander up about what CBS news does or doesn't think, remember that journalists typically don't know how the fuck to operate the technology that publishes their pieces. I'm not ragging on paul, just making a point that most people never look at nor change the default settings of their computer, web browser, or web application, and a developer is far more likely to be cautious, especially with a corporate customer.
Not to mention it looks like its a moot issue since their filter seems to have been relaxed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122