While we merrily close questions asking about profanity and vulgar language usage on Stack Exchange as duplicates of Are expletives (cursing, swear words or vulgar language) allowed on SE sites? the reality is that users are not following that rule, moderators are not enforcing it, and edits to c...
@Catija Have you searched for profanity on the movies and tv stack exchange, your top site? It's one of the worst - a lot of it is uncensored quotes, but there are also posts where the words are used for effect, and in fact my most recent rejection of edit, and rejection of flag was on that site due to a post that wasn't a quote. So I'm not sure I can believe your statement that the sites you use are generally expletive free, and thus your implication that it's limited to a few sites only.
Search for the lessor profanity such as dam* and sh*t on sites such as seasoned advice and note the usage there. I'm not going to go through every site, and obviously there are a few sites where its necessary to have the word uncensored (the two english language sites when discussing those specific words), but I have not yet found a site where profanity simply didn't exist. I'm sure there must be several, but the biggest sites appear to have this issue, and I'm running more and more into moderators and users who prefer it that way.
@Shog9 Ah, I hadn't thought to use data explorer for this.
@AnkitSharma Even when used in a non profane, non vulgar way, the rule was not to use it unless necessary, and then censor it with symbols if possible. So context may matter in terms of necessity, but otherwise didn't change whether the words were allowed or not.
@AnkitSharma I'm well aware of the various contexts these words are used in, thanks. If you'd like to have a discussion about the context of profanity, consider asking a new question or searing previous questions for that specific topic.
@AnkitSharma This question doesn't address context. It merely asks whether we should change the policy, or adhere to the old one. While a discussion of context might be informative once one of these two paths is chosen, it would derail the purpose of this question. I appreciate the importance of context, but we've had many discussions about it in the past which I've participated in. You can have that discussion in those questions if you need to delve into it further, but I do not need to do so, and it would not help answer this question.
@AdamDavis: If you decide on policy before looking at concrete examples, then the discussion is not meaningful. The issues that you bring to light (a discrepancy between the guideline and its real world application) can be explained by your interpretation of the context in which this guideline should apply. So if you want to reevaluate the policy, we must also reevaluate the context on which the policy is applied. Are we trying to censor words (explicitly) or meanings (implicitly)? Are we trying to steer the content (implicitly) or improving the format (explicitly)?
@Flater The policy was that when it is absolutely necessary to use a profane or vulgar word, it should be censored, and that there are very few situations where it would be acceptable to use even the censored version. See the vast discussions regarding the programming language brainf*** on this site for that background. Context doesn't need to be discussed to see that either the policy is changed, or is being ignored. This question seeks to bring one or the other closer so that policy and moderation are congruent.
@AdamDavis: It's somewhat strange that you "merely ask whether we should change the policy, or adhere to the old one", and as a justification as to why you are asking this, you state that there are many examples of swearing to be found. You didn't explicitly mention them, but your justification still relies on their existence regardless. And then when counterpoints are made that contradict the applicability of your argument, you then argue that concrete examples aren't relevant. You can't base your question on the existence of something that you then explicitly exclude from the discussion.
@Flater If you have a valid counterpoint to any one of my assertions, this should be contained in an answer. When we have a discussion regarding a complex topic like this it's very easy to get lost in the weeds discussing relevant aspects about it that do not bring us closer to a resolution. Nevertheless, if it's relevant, then it most certainly should be included in an answer, and not a comment thread. If you have evidence that such examples don't exist, or that where they exist context absolves them please update your answer or add a new answer.
@AdamDavis: You are right about answer vs comment, and I am composing an answer as we speak. However: "If you have evidence that such examples don't exist" It is impossible to prove a negative. If anything, the burden of evidence lies with you, if you claim that they exist.
@Flater My claim, specifically, also contains the method for you to verify the claim: "If you search for a variety of vulgar words you'll find they now permeate many sites, are no longer restricted to situations where the profane word itself is under discussion, and when they are a necessary part of the post are not self-censored." You don't have to prove a negative. All you have to do is say, "I've performed the suggested search and do not see the problem you are suggesting." Given that Shog9 provides an answer with numbers my claim isn't unreasonable.
@AdamDavis: You're cherrypicking. Shoq9 himself immediately confirms that false positives are not excluded in any way. Catija then continues that a vast majority of cases (that she checked) relate to direct quotes, not unwarranted swearing by the author themselves. This has all been established and you've responded to it, yet you omit it when bring up the same point here again.
@flater When I want to discuss specific questions I try to do so in per site metas. When I bring up specific questions here, someone jumps on them and changes them, and this weakens the point of this specific post. I guess that's fine, since I personally would like the rules to stay as-is, and for people to simply enforce them. But it doesn't provide a fair setting in which to discuss whether the rules should be changed or not.
If we have several hundred posts on the network which violate the rules, and we start pointing to specific examples, they will be changed and fought over, causing other problems throughout the network.
1) The examples exist, it's easy to find them. If you disagree with that assertion, then I will agree to disagree.
2) Some of the examples may be in a gray area,and you'd allow them where I would not. That seems to be an issue that should be discussed in a separate question - not one intending to change the rules, but one about the proper application of the rules.
But at the end of the day, comments are the wrong place to resolve these issues. If my question is founded on faulty assumptions, post a comment and see if I improve my question. If I don't, post an answer showing where I'm wrong, or where I fail to prove my point. Continuing a long discussion in comments isn't useful due to the extraordinary limitations. Further it's easier for others to chime in on particular point when they are contained in an answer.
