It is their own paper to do what they will. My personal feeling is they should allow the words in instances of quoting or in the case of references (such as the STFU website). As long as they aren't using it as a crutch for their high quality writing, it seems more clinical than profane.

Well, cant really disagree with the editor, but I wouldnt do that myself, as i take pride in forcing acceptance and toleration of others, no matter what happens. Makes a man out of ya

You mean, besides the fact no one reads the Effing newspaper any more?

fark

I was hoping the paper had banned all use of the word Facebook.

Nothing would destroy the stock value faster than having no one talk about social media in the corporate media anymore.

Well at least on FARK we can post images with swear words in them with a low probability of censorship.

If an organization can't get the coverage it wants in the NY Times because it has F in the name, that's no one's fault but their own.

unfortunately I couldn't read the article because it was behind their paywall

:)

In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

kidsizedcoffin: Well at least on FARK we can post images with swear words in them with a low probability of censorship.

Very well put.

Nicely offensive handle, by the way.

Must be gay?

Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Irony, right?

Fareed Zakaria?

The NYT doesn't owe your crappy blog anything.
Maybe something about not vomiting out profanity has something to do with how they could become a globally distributed newspaper. I guess that's a call you can make for yourself when your blog gains the readership of the NYT.

Also, your blog sucks.

We are The New York Times! Bow to our use of Words! (tm)

/dnrtfa

Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Don't forget coont!

Fark can relate to the irrational, inane fear of no-no naughty words.

Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

Earguy: Eh. Privately owned newspaper follows its own policies.

And is ridiculed by other privately owned companies in the same industry, its peers if you will, for having poor professional standards.

davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

I like the New York Times partly because there is little cursing. No more than 3 letters and no larger than 5 point.

_{/motherfarking goddamn elitist coonts and their sonofabiatch corksoaking socialism}

Carlin said all I'm ever going to want to say about so-called profane language.

So far as I'm concerned any hangups the rest of you pathetic primates have about it are strictly your problem.

Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

I seldom curse. If you use cursing in your everyday speach what do you use for those times when you really really need it.

// hammer meet thumb...

I think it's funny that NYTimes wants to be cutting edge enough to talk about "cool blogs" but can't get they're editors out of the Victorian Era to accurately cite the blog they discuss.

If they didn't like profanity, why steal from a profane blog and not give any credit?

/answer; nytimes sucks

Silly Jesus: Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

It's useless showing someone the fallacy of their logic when it comes to their beliefs. Once I got into a "discussion" about free will. "But, if god is all knowing and already knows the past, present, future (and when people die it's god's will), then you don't have free will because anything you do has already been chosen by god." f**k, I'm betting he's forcing me to write this right now.

Wait.. someone thinks the NYT is in some way related to journalism?

Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

It's silly, but if they don't want to limit their audience I can understand their motive at least. Just like on Fark.

As far as saying an alternate because God, doesn't the bible say something about the words you speak don't matter as much as what's in your heart?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Charlie Chingas: Silly Jesus: Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

It's useless showing someone the fallacy of their logic when it comes to their beliefs. Once I got into a "discussion" about free will. "But, if god is all knowing and already knows the past, present, future (and when people die it's god's will), then you don't have free will because anything you do has already been chosen by god." f**k, I'm betting he's forcing me t ...

The fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it false. If you see an ant walking towards an ant trap you know what's going to happen, but you're not causing anything. Man, that was pretty easy.

davidphogan: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

It's silly, but if they don't want to limit their audience I can understand their motive at least. Just like on Fark.

As far as saying an alternate because God, doesn't the bible say something about the words you speak don't matter as much as what's in your heart?

But aren't they only fooling themselves? Everyone out in the real world understands that "shiat" means the no-no naughty word.

andyfromfl: Charlie Chingas: Silly Jesus: Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

It's useless showing someone the fallacy of their logic when it comes to their beliefs. Once I got into a "discussion" about free will. "But, if god is all knowing and already knows the past, present, future (and when people die it's god's will), then you don't have free will because anything you do has already been chosen by god." f**k, I'm betting ...

Skr: It is their own paper to do what they will. My personal feeling is they should allow the words in instances of quoting or in the case of references (such as the STFU website). As long as they aren't using it as a crutch for their high quality writing, it seems more clinical than profane.

The Southern Tenant Farmers' Union?

Silly Jesus: andyfromfl: Charlie Chingas: Silly Jesus: Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

It's useless showing someone the fallacy of their logic when it comes to their beliefs. Once I got into a "discussion" about free will. "But, if god is all knowing and already knows the past, present, future (and when people die it's god's will), then you don't have free will because anything you do has already been chosen by god." f**k, ...

Exactly. -

andyfromfl: The fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it false. If you see an ant walking towards an ant trap you know what's going to happen, but you're not causing anything. Man, that was pretty easy.

What? Plus, you choosing an ant, who has a small brain and lives on instincts, shows who small-minded you are. Man, THAT was easy. Too easy. Then again, you're from Florida. S0 it's like me celebrating a debate win against someone with down's syndrome...

Silly Jesus: andyfromfl: Charlie Chingas: Silly Jesus: Agent Smiths Laugh: Silly Jesus: davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?

Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference? It's a silly, childish, pointless game.

I have a guy at work who says "freak" instead of F..k and "sheet" instead of s..t, because Jesus. I tried this line of reasoning with him once and it just blew his mind. Everyone hearing him knows what he's saying. When he says "sheet" I and everyone else hear s..t. He probably "hears" s..t in his mind. WTF is the GD point of this? If the word itself is what is so harmful then isn't it still doing harm when you "speak" it in your head? Or is it only harmful if it's in the form of sound waves?

Did you also point out that if his god exists and is indeed omniscient, it is most certainly not being fooled by his ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

Yeah, tried that too. He went off on some tangent about free will.

Even non-jesusy people do this though. Hell, take Fark as an example, they change all no-no naughty words into inane "words" too. Not sure what the reasoning is behind this. I'd imagine it's some sort of "your boss might see a no-no naughty word on your screen and get mad, but there's no way that he'll ever figure out what 'shiat' means...look how clever we are."

It's useless showing someone the fallacy of their logic when it comes to their beliefs. Once I got into a "discussion" about free will. "But, if god is all knowing and already knows the past, present, future (and when people die it's god's will), then you don't have free will because anything you do has already been chosen by god." f**k, ...

god's an arsehole, plain and simple.

Everybody from Florida is stupid, including me. We use expressions that others use rather than coming up with our own. We use arguments that don't relate to the point but point out the fact that analogies aren't exact (I think there's a term for that) and we all have downs syndrome. Also we think 'what' is a response when presented with a clear point.

Several people are reading this and are laughing at your expense, so it'd be awesome if you'd say something back in your 12 year old voice.

Also we apparently misuse the quote button, despite being web programmers.

How do they cover the trial of Pu**y Riot in Moscow?

Silly Jesus: When I referred to limiting the audience I meant by automated filters. Some are designed within workplaces/schools to block "profane" sites, so a workaround is to replace the offending words with ones that make sense but don't trigger the filter.

I've been told this is why Fark allows images with swearing, but not swearing in the text of the post.

Silly Jesus
davidphogan: Psychohazard: In this day and age, who's afraid of showing words like fark, shiat, and biatch?
Unfortunately the workplace safe aspect is a reason to censor, but it seems excessive they can't include even STFU or F..k instead of removing the entire work.

But that gets to the asinine idea that somehow F..k is different from the entire word. You read F..k and "say" the actual word in your head. What the F..k is the difference?

Regarding websites one difference would be that simple word-based filters are more likely to flag the one than th
e other.

/penismightier