For a Lemmy.world example, I was discussing medieval siege warfare (either I or someone else was quoting a primary source, I think?) when I found out that either ‘fags’ or ‘faggots’ was censored.
Had no clue before that.
Essentially, nearly every slur either has other usages (I’m reminded of overzealous word filters censoring niggardly and snigger, or ‘a chink in the armor’) or may still be relevant in the context of quotation (calling someone ‘cunty’ is being Australian, probably; calling someone ‘chink’ is being racist; knowing which 5-letter profanity starting with ‘c’ was used may be relevant in forming an opinion on someone’s behavior).
Slurs should get the ban hammer, not an autocensor; and bans should be handed out by people who can judge context.
For a Lemmy.world example, I was discussing medieval siege warfare (either I or someone else was quoting a primary source, I think?) when I found out that either ‘fags’ or ‘faggots’ was censored.
Had no clue before that.
Essentially, nearly every slur either has other usages (I’m reminded of overzealous word filters censoring niggardly and snigger, or ‘a chink in the armor’) or may still be relevant in the context of quotation (calling someone ‘cunty’ is being Australian, probably; calling someone ‘chink’ is being racist; knowing which 5-letter profanity starting with ‘c’ was used may be relevant in forming an opinion on someone’s behavior).
Slurs should get the ban hammer, not an autocensor; and bans should be handed out by people who can judge context.
Good points, and also good thing I’m not a moderator