.

Agreed. Incel/bigot content

You know, I started thinking about it. I'm not against it or something, but just wondering something.
For example, things related to the word autism.
Autistic is a state of mind, like in autistic thinking which is being absorbed by inner thoughts.
as such it isn't a bad word combination, not even in common language so far I know, but...
if you put you in front of the word autistic, autistic suddenly becomes insulting.

What I mean to say is, I think it may come with a lot of difficulty to implement something like this properly. Another, but opposite example would be the word gay, which used to be an insult, but currently its more or less accepted as a normal word instead (at least where I live).

so basically I see two problems:
1. under what circumstances is something homophobic, sexist, mental heath demeaning or racist?
2. how do you differentiate between what falls under an insult and what not?
To create a filter (list) it's kinda a must know.

I think, it could work properly if the word filter system is capable of detecting pieces of the sentance around a specific word, even if it is just one word. For example, with autistic, if it has you in front of it, autistic could be filtered. If it doesn't and has thinking as next word, it could remain unfiltered.
Such a system would more correctly associate words with their intended meaning.

I at least hope this explains what I mean.

edit: a good question would be, is it not the pronoun that makes something insulting instead.
perhaps it maybe an idea for any profanity detection system to focus on pronouns, such as he, she, you, them, they, and then detect what surrounds it, since I think to be fair, in the end it's the cause of the problem. The word use suggests something on a very personal level.
though pronouns are not filtered because they can easily be 'imagined' I suppose.

Maybe replace bad words with nice ones instead of stars. Would be interesting

Nothing should be checked by default instead let users make the choice for them instead of making a choice on their behalf.

Cruel to minorities but what about majorities? What/who do you consider a "minority"? I'm part of a minority group and I wouldn't like anything filtered by default. I don't want that choice made for me but instead I'd appreciate if I was made aware of these options instead so I can decide on my own.

Women? What about Trans and Men and other genders? You can't just cherry pick these things. We live in 2020 where we have to make a calculated step and tread these waters carefully.

Hate speech can be targeted towards any group and I agree with Elucidator. Words require context otherwise they are powerless. If I put the word autistic pineapple in my sentence, will it filter it automatically without context? I hope not given there are ML/NN libraries out there that analyze texts and figure out the tone and context of them.

Besides what you deem homophobic, sexist, racist, etc, I may find it the opposite which is why it is crucial to leave it up to users to configure and tweak filtering to suit there needs rather than flip the switch on by default and calling it a day though that's what are most likely to do, good PR rep.

"Besides what you deem homophobic, sexist, racist, etc, I may find it the opposite."

That's literally the definitions of homophobia, sexism, and racism.

This is why it needs to be on default, and you can turn it off if you feel like it. This community's culture is founded on straight, white, cisgender men and narrate the story.

Valve needs to consider systemic prejudices.

I think what Yikes tried to explain is that, for example when someone you know says:
"You look amazing" or "You look amazing today".
I imagine most people find it a pleasant experience and perceive such words as a compliment.
I can however also imagine some people will find it rather sexist.

I suppose it doesn't just depend on the subject, but also the underlying context behind it, the whole situation around it, as well as who receives it on how such example would be perceived.

I agree at least that users should have some form of control on what they wish to see or not see, on this level as well, Considering some people take pride in their status as homosexual for example, people like that would perhaps feel complimented when you acknowledge that with specific terms and word use. Others however could indeed on the other hand find it homophobic, due to what the people around them use these specific terms.

edit: note that censoring specific ways that people identify themselves as could potentially lead to them feeling undervalued.

sure but it should be OFF by default

Originally posted by north:

sure but it should be OFF by default

Agreed

It should be obvious from my posts, but I also feel it should be disabled by default. Simply because it can give unwanted side effects even for social justice activists. The very groups they try to protect might in a way be demeaned due to such actions. (as they would feel censored out), but I am not against the idea if it would bring peace to the minds of certain users.

edit: To be honest I am against censoring within lines and freedom of expression myself, so I will disable it for me if possible. xd
but I think censoring is also a form of expression and concern, so it shouldn't be missing basically. It can help at least temporary avoid specific problems, such as children learning bad words at the wrong moments or being confronted with (and perhaps forced upon) stuff you never had interests in seeing, so despite being against censoring of expression, I think censoring should be optional and that stuff should be choosable to avoid.
For example, I think if people don't want to see certain pictures, then they should be able to avoid these. If they don't want to see advertisement, they should be able to block it, basically.

in other words, I am not completely against censoring. I mean I keep people with posters outside of my house as well and I am glad to have walls basically so that I don't need to hear everything they shout outside, but I do think that it should be choosable basically. If I do want to hear it, I can just open a window. ;p

Originally posted by Mother Vain:

This community's culture is founded on straight, white, cisgender men and narrate the story.

You're disrespecting all the work women and people of color have put into the founding if this industry, which quite ironically I find to be hate speech.

This is satire, right? God I hope it's satire.

Originally posted by Visi:

This is satire, right? God I hope it's satire.

Getting harder and harder to tell these days

nah ♥♥♥♥ off ♥♥♥♥♥♥ lol

As long as *all* racism and sexism is covered and filters are opt in. Don't give a pass for some bad behavior amd crack down on others...all or nothing.

Uhm, if I were to take your sentance more literally, you probably want to forward that question and comment to the government, since in many places both of those acts are illegal.

If I were to take it less literally, then you're addressing those in control of the censoring and rules, question why you are being censored, feel bullied and want to use terms that others might call you out names for, for which you gave examples in caps, if I am correct.

Uh, at the very least, I don't recommend using the n-term since people will feel upset about it (triggered because it makes it personal, since they associate themselves within a group they feel they belong into that uses the word to describe they themselves or others use to describe then, or triggered because people think it makes it personal to a specific group of people or people associated within a group that uses the term to associate them or others that use the term to associate people within that group; a group which might ironically be imaginary.)

edit: I realize it is a confusing wall of text, but it should be very polically correct.