this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
58 points (75.4% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7914 readers
60 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Censorship is bad" yeah, sure, I agree. But the fact that you still know it's a curse word means it's not really censoring anything.

Curse words are so common now that they've lost a bit of their oomph. They're supposed to convey intensity, but they're used so casually that they're basically lazy filler.

A strike through line, or a box that doesn't quite cover, reintroduces a bit of the taboo. This is a bad, naughty word, you shouldn't be reading it. You know what it is, but attempting to cover it draws attention to the fact that it's something some people want to cover, which reintroduces some of the oomph.

It's kinda like sequined pasties at a nudist colony; it turns something that was once taboo, but had since been normalized, back to taboo again to reclaim some of the intensity.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 day ago

Kudos for a really unpopular opinion, and your rationale is great. I don't know if I'm into it but it's a cool thought.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is a bad, naughty word, you shouldn’t be reading it.

Can't wait till I'm all grown up, so I can decide for myself.

[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 day ago

I absolutely despise it. It feels like I got interrupted while reading it, it feels like screeching (or an interruption depending on how it's done) while hearing it.

imo curse words don't need oomph and they don't need to be taboo, but if they absolutely have to then I prefer they don't exist and the sentences have good flow instead of potholes, bumps and sirens.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

South Park is infinitely funnier to me with the curse words bleeped out. I dunno why.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's definitely a context where the bleeps are more comedic than the words themselves. I agree that South Park is one of the times when it is funnier censored.

And then there is this absolute comedy brilliance: https://youtu.be/KUkjrWDv200

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

I don't think this scene in Brooklyn Nine Nine could ever have hit the same with literal swears as it did with bleeps.

My favorite bleeps are the pinch harmonics in Metalocalypse

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 10 points 1 day ago

Or - and hear me out on this - if you don't want people to read a curse word, don't write it. There's any number of non-curse alternatives to use, depending on how creative you want to be.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago

Even better are the censored "curses" (and also slurs) in the subtitles of MeTV etc. where you get people drinking ****tails and a kid moaning about his homework ***ignment, because the censor bot is about as stupid as the DOGE boys cutting everything with "trans" in it. When I have the sound off, it sometimes takes me a few seconds to figure it out, like "there's a ***** in that wall" made sense once I saw the guy tuck the dynamite stick into it.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess they finally managed to condition people into supporting their hypocritical censorship.

Not really, I'm just bored by casual swearing.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's funny as hell when they bleep a "fuck" and you hear "F-bleep-ck." Like you heard the whole fucking word still but the U was simply higher pitched. 🤣

It's also funny bleeping regular words that weren't swear words to begin with because then even an innocent phrase sounds dirty.

[–] kratoz29@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I only hate it because most of the time the reason for censoring them is monetization, and that reminds me that the Internet nowadays is not authentic but driven by that and algorithms (not here thankfully).

One stupid trend word that I see on social media (LATAM) that replaced the word "sex" is "detonate" I feel like everyone is talking like a stupid LMAO.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think this opinion is objectively bad. More up votes for you

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean, define "objectively".

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Objectively, "objectively" only has one meaning. Otherwise it wouldn't be objective.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Fully agree, absolutely. Very sensible take!

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

I agree with OP. Anyone remember Adam Sandler's "Ode to My Car" song, for example? The radio edit is so much funnier than the straight version. Swearing is boring and gauche, but a little bleep over the obvious course word adds a bit of silliness or maybe a hint of taboo depending on the execution.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I like it, but not for the same reason. I like it because every time it's done is a big "screw you" to the big American tech's pearl clutching censors. Because every time it's done, as you say, we know what is meant regardless, and it's being said despite the censors' wishes.

I feel like that's kinda the same thing really. I was talking more about reposted twitter memes and stuff, but your perspective is also valid from a corporate media angle.

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 4 points 2 days ago

This reminds me of growing up with my older and younger sibiling, when my younger sib started swearing they had to get a feel for when It was necessary. Me and the older would just look at them with an eyebrow up when theyd swear in situations that did not call for it.

I feel like when someone cant talk without using swears and they are just filler words. censor them why not? Ive seen southpark and metalocolypse referenced and those are good examples of what i mean. If the swears arent necessary to convey the message then they were useless to begin with, and as you said we allready pretty much know what they were from context, I find this pretty funny aswell since it chops up what they are trying to say.

I feel the same way here on lemmy or on youtube etc. If youre a person who swears alot and it has "lost all meaning" just censor it to reach a wider audience. Some people just dont want to hear/read that type of vulgarity and it might even be an issue if there are children in the room or over their shoulder.

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

only silly and/or half-assed censorship (like when you can clearly hear the beginning and end of the word) are funny to me but in these cases I agree

That's why I like strikethroughs best

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Very Freudian.

Have you considered that swearing is a marker of emotional deregulation, emotion overcoming taboo, and so the increased use might be effect rather than cause, that people are less inhibited by taboo in general, and so their swearing is an accurate indicator of their relationship between social alignment with taboo and individual emotion, and thus your desire to reduce swearing is a desire to see a move away from an emotional individualism and toward a normative social cohesion?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I didn't say I have a desire to reduce swearing, I said that censorship in the form of strikethroughs, bleeps, etc. restores the emotional intensity of the swear.

"I don't give a fuck" reads as dull and apathetic. The swear isn't really conveying anything, it's just lazy filler.

"I don't give a ~~fuck~~" reads as aggressive and emotional. The swear has impact, it conveys intensity.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

I'm down with this. Sometimes I'll just smash @$*#&% if none of the real swears are strong enough too. It's like the string of beeps on tv, the specific words don't matter, it's about how it conveys a mood.

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I agree. It's always struck me as odd that such a mass of mouthbreathers on this platform congeals every time somebody posts a slightly obscured version of the word "fuck" or whatever else. Like, youre literally attacking the method people use to nullify censorship. You've been presented with malicious compliance to censorship and decided that for some inane reason you need to attack that. Do you really think even a single person reading it is confused about what f~~uc~~k means? Do you think youre harming the cause of censorship by attacking people who have found ways to say what they want to say on other platforms in spite of the lazy corporate attempts at censorship that are confused as to what f~~uc~~k means?