-23 votes

I want to see curse words

How do I see fuck instead of 'f '? I noticed that when you reply to a post, you can see the whole word.

edit: bunch of word nazis. I was just asking if its an option. I mean... we have user accounts.

edit 2: after the warm reception, I gotta ask what's the point of putting this in the footer? (the 'different site' is a link to disney)

"This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately."




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Actually, you did say you wanted to see them

That is the title of your post! I want to see curse words LOL!

Now you're changing your story, eh?

Sorry you think people are high on the horse, but if you want better answers, ask better questions. I answered the ambiguous question you asked, which was:

I want to see curse words
How do I see f​ instead of 'f '? I noticed that when you reply to a post, you can see the whole word.

Not only was your question ambiguous, but what you 'noticed' was also incorrect. So two strikes against you.

When you swagger in the door all disrespectful like that, and with two ignorant strikes against you right off the bat, don't expect to be treated with respect.

So - finally - no, it is not an option that you can turn off. And if you want to see curse words, then go to some other website. There are plenty of them out there.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

What I noticed is correct

What I noticed is correct Micheal. Find a post with swear words and click reply. Look at the post. You'll see the full word. I'm sorry you never noticed that but at least treat your members with a bit of respect. Especially when you're wrong. Also, please don't pontificate about lazziness and yet don't bother to check what I said before you called it 'a strike against me'. The strike against me is that you don't know your own site. And then to add to lazy, you highlight my headline as if it's the meat and potatoes of what I asked? If I stopped reading your posts at the headline, I'd be as confused as you are now.

That's rude of you. Period.

Fuck. Whoops, seems you're

Fuck.

Whoops, seems you're wrong.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

then explain this

But censorship is? Granted it

But censorship is?

Granted it is your site and absolutely your prerogative and really not a big deal either way. But I don't understand how censorship helps the cause of liberty.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Michael Nystrom's picture

There is plenty of censorship on the Daily Paul.

There is plenty of censorship on the Daily Paul, and always has been.

  • During the presidential race, negative opinions of Ron Paul were whisked down the memory hole and those pushing such opinions were summarily banned. Censorship.
  • While it is easy to find pictures of naked ladies all over the internet, you will not find any on the Daily Paul. My favorite example of Censorship.
  • The same goes for the spammers who come here pushing fake Rolex; The Nigerian money scammers; Viagra, Celexa, and various and sundry other prescription medicines. Those posts are deleted and the users banned as soon as they are caught. Censorship.

Now, I like pictures of naked ladies just as the next red blooded male, and I can swear up the room with anyone. Especially if I'm drinking. But to have productive debate you certainly must set some parameters, and these are the parameters that I have set.

During the election campaign, talk of Aliens, reptilian blood lines, crop circles, and 911 truth was also discouraged. I got banged around a lot by some people for that decision. Now that the election is over, I've loosened the reigns on that. I got banged around by other people for that one.

But yeah, there is Censorship on the Daily Paul, and it does help the cause of liberty. Does that answer your question?

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Fair enough! Thank you for

Fair enough! Thank you for the explanation, and thank you for the fantastic website you run.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thanks man

Always question authority.

Funny, and weird to think that around here, I'm the "authority."

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

it's not censorship

but the way it helps is that advertisers drop sites full of c**t and f**k

They just turn the letters

They just turn the letters white. They're still on the page.

Well, it is actually. By

Well, it is actually. By definition.

Not sure why all the downvotes. So much for being allowed to be a free thinker... I wasn't dissing anyone or anything, just didn't understand the reasoning.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You're right,

it is censorship. However, it's Michael's site and those are his rules. It may be hypocritical in a "Liberty" site (freedom of speech?), but as someone pointed out before, it may have to do with revenue for advertising, Michael's personal preferences, etc, regardless those are the RULES. It may not be a so much a thing as being "politically correct" as it is trying to be "inoffensive".

You'll always find people that are overly sensitive and are offended by anything, people that have "seen & heard" it all and laugh/shrug it off, - and all those in between. It may not affect you, or me, but it may affect some that come here for "intelligent conversation/debate". Curse words aren't usually associated with such, and others who may have a wealth to contribute, but are turned off by the language, may turn away from the site. IMO that's a loss-loss for both parties.

For the record; I up-voted your reply, and didn't bother voting on the post/thread itself.

Now Fuck off! LOL Just kidding ;-)

Freedom of speech?

The court house steps and any other public place is where the right to freedom of speech is protected.

It [the right to freedom of speech] is not protected on private property. And yes, it really is that simple.

Whether or not it is legally

Whether or not it is legally protected is entirely outside the question. Everything doesn't have to be legislated. It should absolutely be legal for Michael to censor his own site. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss whether or not it is actually a good thing.

I don't understand how so many people who claim to support liberty still cannot separate law from morality.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I'll clear this up (hopefully)

Would you be justified in the eyes of the court if I was a guest in your house/private club and after I uttered the words "Oh shit!", you slapped/punched me and dragged me out for having said that?

Or would the appropriate matter be more appropriately handled by you stating you dissatisfaction/disapproval/dislike, and then, if you so chose to, asking me to leave?

By "Freedom of Speech", I am NOT talking about the 1st Amendment and one's right to express themselves without government interference. Instead, I AM talking about my (God given if you will) inalienable rights as a human being.

In your analogy...

I would only be justified if I told you to leave and you wouldn't. Then, yes, I would be justified to slap the $hit out of you until you left.

Exactly!

You wrote:
"The court house steps and any other public place is where the right to freedom of speech is protected.

It [the right to freedom of speech] is not protected on private property. And yes, it really is that simple."

And my point is that you would NOT be justified if you had assaulted me in your non-public residence for having simply uttered those words. A defense of "I simply didn't like what he said and my residence isn't a public place.", would not hold any weight in court. It would have nothing to do with court house steps or other public places. You could ask me to leave, I could be on my way out heading toward the door - still cursing, and by law, you would be at fault for catching up to me and laying a hand on me. That's the Freedom of Speech I was referring to. Hope we're clear.

Yes

You have definitely made yourself clear to me.

Based on your argument;

Would you be justified in the eyes of the court if I was a guest in your house/private club and after I uttered the words "Oh shit!", you slapped me and dragged me out? Or would the appropriate matter be more appropriately handled by you stating you dissatisfaction/disapproval/dislike and then, if you so choose to, asking me to leave?

How did slapping get based on my argument?

Slapping isn't speaking.

Sorry but I inadvertantly hit some

shortcut key and replied without finishing. I just replied again - sorry for the confusion.

Sorry but I innadvertantly hit some

shortcut key and replied without finishing. I just replied again - sorry for the confusion.

Here's the reasoning.

Michal Nystrom owns a website and calls the shots on it.

He doesn't want cuss words on his site.

Since it is his property, he calls the shots and cuss words don't appear on his site.

So, you have the freedom of choice. You can choose not to use the site or choose to live within what the owner of this site has stated is acceptable to him.

Pretty simple. Even for a free thinker.

I understand and already

I understand and already acknowledged all of this. He is free to do what he wants with his site. And I love his site, I'm certainly not going to leave over such a small issue. I'm just asking why. Are you ignoring what I'm saying on purpose?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

My goodness.

I couldn't have been any clearer on my answer to your question of why. So, I have come to the conclusion that I do not have the answer you are looking for...

One last try as to why:

Because he wants to, that's why.

While that's a legitimate

While that's a legitimate reason, it's not a very reasonable one. Thanks much to Michael I suppose I ultimately agree that there has to be some censorship.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Not very reasonable?

So, if you came into someone's house... Let me pick someone at random here... Oh, let's say: Michael Nystrom.

You walk into his house and start cussing like a sailor on a three day drinking binge. He tells you to stop it. And THAT is censorship to you?

Here's the point: Living Room, Website. Same thing applies.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you Mr. Hillbilly

That about sums it up.

People are used to swearing to make their point. In speech, that's fine, but it can get tiresome.

Personally I think swearing is a lazy mans way to make a point. Sometimes the F-bomb is called for, but more often than not, you can make a more powerful point with the judicious choice of words. I would like to encourage people to practice that.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

It's not lazy to swear. I've

It's not lazy to swear. I've never liked that reasoning. I think it's actually uppity to spend lots of time trying to find a politically correct way of saying what could be best said with a swear word. If a person naturally writes with no swearing, that's fine. If a person's voice and style have the right tone for swearing, and yet they purposely avoid it, their writing often is so overdone and trite that it becomes unreadable... think Pierce Morgan's smug ass. (see how the use of ass worked here? my writing tends to be short and punchy which lends to useful swearing.) I bet Pierce fully supports your view that swearing is for the lower classes and spends hours each day with a dictionary trying to find bigger and bigger words to impress everyone with.

However, I don't swear much. I just was curious how to turn off the filter for my own account.