Trumps comment truncated

October 8, 2016 11:53 AM

I was surprised in the latest election thread to see that Donald Trump's "Grab them by the pussy" comment was bowderlerized when it was printed as a link to a video of the comment, but printed in full when a partial transcript of his remarks was reprinted. Is this something that's just at the disgression of the poster? Otherwise, I'd don't understand the inconsistency. (I think I understand the arguments for and against each method of handling Trump's vulgar language, but having both versions in a single post is puzzling.)
posted by layceepee to Etiquette/Policy at 11:53 AM (18 comments total)

It is indeed just at the discretion of a given poster or commenter. There is no site rule about, or enforcement or expectation of, munging or eliding of strong language, beyond the fundamental question of being thoughtful about whether and when to deploy it in the first place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:57 AM on October 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

I got "print's fucked, yo" onto the front page this week, so I imagine anything is possible.
posted by Etrigan at 12:32 PM on October 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

SANDWICH A LA CHEESE

Ingredients
- Loaf of bread
- Butter (or other spread)
- Block of cheese

1. Cut two slices of bread (thickness to taste) from the bread.
2. Spread the butter/spread on one side only of each of the slices of bread.
3. Cut several slices of cheese (thickness to taste) from the block of cheese.
4. Arrange slices of cheese onto one of the slices of bread (buttered side). Place the other slice of bread on top, buttered side touching the cheese.
5. Cut either sideways or diagonally. Serve immediately.
posted by Wordshore at 12:43 PM on October 8, 2016

I can understand the editorial choice of having it expurgated "above the fold" on the front page and in full in the "more inside." The New York Times took the extraordinary step of printing the words uncensored on the front page, which I agree with, but I like Rhaomi's call here too.
posted by zachlipton at 12:46 PM on October 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Let's not go diving into recipes. It's okay if this is just an asked-and-answered thing with a few comments total.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:48 PM on October 8, 2016 [16 favorites]

I seem to recall that FPPs with "the c word" have been deleted, though. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not objecting to it, just thought it was worth mentioning in this context.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:25 AM on October 9, 2016

Lots of stuff gets deleted. If a post is destined for deletion censoring any particular word isn't going to prevent that.
posted by Mitheral at 4:46 AM on October 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, like I said it comes down to showing decent judgement in the decision-making itself. I can imagine plenty of situations where someone constructs a post using language on the front page that would be a problem in most contexts but would be justified in a particular case, or where someone could find a way to make problematic through framing something that otherwise would be normally acceptable. It's impossible to reduce this to a contextless "always/never okay" sort of thing: context, here even more than in many aspects of MeFi moderation, matters a lot.

But that difference is very unlikely to come down to e.g. "fuck" vs. "f***", and we're in any case never as mods going to make that unilateral change from the former to the latter.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:52 AM on October 9, 2016

I seem to recall that FPPs with "the c word" have been deleted, though.

Banned in comments as well.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2016

I'm ok with discouraging slurs. Every culture has its taboos; a culture where the taboo is on insulting people with slurs is one I prefer.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:26 PM on October 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Banned in comments as well.

Not precisely, but it's a rare day that its use is thoughtful and justified.

I know that rankles folks for whom their pejorative use of it is e.g. merely UK rude instead of US fucking horrible and misogynistic, but that's not much of a defense for casually tossing it around and so when it's use rather than mention in question it's got a very good chance of getting a comment kiboshed.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:36 PM on October 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

I read this often on MetaFilter: please ignore my countrymen's claims to the contrary, "cunt" is INCREDIBLY rude in the UK, much more than "fuck" or "shit". It's not taboo amongst MetaFilter types, like "nigger", and indeed it can be used to show how cool you are with your relaxed nature towards swearing. But please, don't go into a pub or poetry reading and start tossing "cunt" around thinking it's a bit of jolly banter.
posted by alasdair at 12:11 PM on October 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

Australians use it the same way we use 'person'.

'Have a look at the ears on that person.'
'Can some person turn down the music?'
'Which one of you persons moved my keys?'
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:59 PM on October 11, 2016

Can we please not use this as an excuse to redebate use of the word and why many of us find it deeply offensive? Much obliged.
posted by Lexica at 10:34 PM on October 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Australians use it the same way we use 'person'.

Not All 'Strayans, mate.
posted by crossoverman at 10:45 PM on October 11, 2016

Yeah, to be clear, we have had that particular conversation a bunch of times and beyond wanting to clarify where we are on it from a moderation perspective I'm not really interested in wandering into an actual rehash of the cases for and against.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:54 PM on October 11, 2016

Not All 'Strayans, mate.

Doesn't your mouth get tired from having to say all of the extra syllables in 'Peter Dutton' or 'George Brandis'?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:30 PM on October 13, 2016

You mean Pe'er Du'on and Jor Shbrandis I think.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:07 PM on October 13, 2016