I don't know if you've noticed, but the polar-themed wordfilters don't seem to have ever stopped the discussions they're filtering.

I also can't think of anything funny enough to change it to.

>>15823
If trannies got brought up as infrequently as the Joe's I think I could live with that.

When has a wordfilter being unfunny or unimaginative ever stopped you before?

>>15824

>When has a wordfilter being unfunny or unimaginative ever stopped you before?

I set you up for that one, really.

>>15825
You set them up, I'll knock them down.

Whilst we're at it, I'd like the removal of the wordfilter for nonce. I know the rise of /sfw/*/ has eliminated the usage of "only a nonce needs a quick response", but it's still such a good word.

I was thinking recently.

It's been long enough that I have legitimately put "eskimo" away in the corner of my brain for offensive slurs not to be used in polite company, even though it is nothing more than a daft wordfilter on an obscure image board. Have our wordfilters reached the turning point where they become the thing they were created to prevent, like other antiquated offensive terms ("coloured", etc) that were originally intended to sanitise offense?

>>15827

Apparently "eskimo" is considered by some derogatory towards inuit people, I only learned that recently.

But, yeah, you might be right. I find myself typing the world filter sometimes rather than the actual word, because I'm so used to reading the filters. It's only a matter of time before I refer to "daft militant woggery" in polite company.

Just a friendly reminder that this website itself has a domain based on calling people fags. It's okay to be slightly offensive.

>>15827
>I was thinking recently.
Careful you don't get thunk.

>>15829
But I'm special, why can't I be an exception?

>>15829

Isn't that about cigarettes?

>>15829
It's nothing to do with whether the discussions about trannies are offensive or not, it's just so fucking tiresome to see it happening almost every week.

>>15833

Is it? I mean we have a dedicated tranny discussion thread that's been going for a long while, and it's clearly escaped the confines of that thread today, but does it really happen any more often than the rest of our tedious discussions?

No wordfilter would successfully stop the arguments. It would just replace the words and make the arguments harder to understand. So there won't be any censorship or change in discussion topics, and therefore I say we just pick a favourite filter and get on with it. Personally, I would like to propose "salami slicers", because it is simultaneously ludicrous, and facetiously offensive but only to sensitive people. It unfortunately excludes the female-to-male transgender community (the "sausage rollers" if it was up to me), but these discussions always do and people tend to just let that slide.

>Can we have a wordfilter for trannies?

This can only end in more tedium.

>>15835

Doesn't fit the theme m8. I'd go with "angler fish" for tranny and "the Marianas Trench" for trans rights.

It's potentially offensive, but only if you think about it for a bit, and then that's on you, isn't it.

>>15834
>it's clearly escaped the confines of that thread today, but does it really happen any more often than the rest of our tedious discussions?

Yes. It escaped that thread a long time ago and has been continually shitting up the rest of the site, just like XR tedium has long since left the Greta containment thread.

>>15837
>Doesn't fit the theme m8

The whole fishwife slurs are tangentially related to feminism. I don't think there's such a link between trannies and the sea, plus I'm not sure if fisherpersons and trannies would want to be grouper together.

>>15838

>fisherpersons
>angler fish

C'mon lad, I know it's subtle but I'm sure you can make the connection.

Besides, there's the Great White Whale and he's hardly a fisherperson.

>>15839
Eskimos do love to hunt whales.

>>15838
>and has been continually shitting up the rest of the site
Citation very much needed there, old chap.

>>15841
http://britfa.gs/

>>15842

I looked, but not counting the containment megathread, could only find one thread, the /101/ we're currently discussing, which was shitted up, for one evening. Please show us other examples.

>>15843
From a quick look, shitting up the weekend thread last month (>>/b/444177). It's a regular cycle of cunt-offs about trannies or XR.

>>15844
So that's one from last night and one from a month ago.

I'm sure Bojo cheats on his wives more frequently than that.

There are some new wordfilters now.

The feminism -> fishing thing was an arbitrary decision, any connection to "fishwife" is a coincidence.

>>15846
>The feminism -> fishing thing was an arbitrary decision, any connection to "fishwife" is a coincidence

I believe they call that 'unconscious bias'.

>>15847

That or the English language is broad enough that it's functionally impossible to escape some sort of connection to a derogatory word no matter the subject. It took you ten years to find this one.

>>15848
It's okay, lad. We believe you.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>15849

Reaction face images have never been acceptable.

>>15850
It's funny you say that, because if you look at the archive about a decade ago the likes of reaction images were used all the time. I suppose that was before we started taking ourselves super seriously and had to show we were much more mature than 4chan.

http://britfa.gs/b/arch/res/

>>15851
It's astonishing how busy this place used to be when it was the four of us.

If a wordfilter is introduced, it should be a bit more organic and a bit less crowdsourced. Frankly I'm surprised none of you went down the 'Alternating current' transistor route, but that's just me and now I've said it it's no longer funny.

>>15851
Is /b/ the only accessible board on archive? I'm trying to find the search/storm stuff on pol and see if it was remotely as engaging as I've built it up to be in my memory.

>>15853
The wordfilters aren't just puns on the things they're filtering, or meant to be easily understood as the thing they are.

>>15854
Aye, I appreciate that, but since everyone was throwing their hat in the ring I wanted to make a tranny joke too.

>>15852
Yeah, did we have a coldsnap in 2017 or something? Jesus, the drop off is bonkers.

>>15853
As far as I'm aware it's just /b/. I believe this is the origin of revengelad, which itself was pretty shitty but led to the running joke of him repeatedly attempting to bring us down.

http://britfa.gs/b/arch/res/379784.html

Oh my god this thread is about ten times as tedious as any discussion we've ever had about trans people.

>>15858
Don't you like it when we go meta?

>>15858
Why do you think my people are tedious?

For a hot take on this. Isn't OPs attitude the problem. "People discussed a topic I don't like, punish them please". Isn't this the cancel culture and thought policing I've heard so much about? Other replies seemed to indicate the problem was only in their head anyway.

>>15861
>hot take
>cancel culture
>thought policing
Go boil your head.

>>15861

There's always been one or two lads around here with this attitude, but they always seem to play is as "urgh it's just such a tedious topic" eye roll which honestly, I don't really buy. I think they have a personal issue with it and just don't like to see opposing opinions to their own.

Now, I don't have a problem with that, people are free to think what they like and undoubtedly we do have some folks around here with pretty questionable views on people like angler fish and eskimos. But it's never really a solution to just try have that topic banned.

The gist of my feeling here is just that censorship doesn't work and it has never worked, it is only the fastest way to further cement someone in their views. We should have learned that in this country, considering the most important political events of recent years.

>>15861
Not at all. I've no issue with trannies whatsoever, I'd just rather people used the 'tranny thread' rather than derailing other threads almost every other week because it's tiresome and it's generally repeating almost verbatim the debate from the previous time it was brought up. The same goes for XR getting shoehorned into threads when there's a perfectly good thread already for that purpose.

In short, keep discussing them but stay within the containment zones.

>>15864

>derailing other threads almost every other week

I keep hearing this but have yet to see examples, other than a thread from a month ago.

>>15865
Doesn't that make it one of the most recent threads?

>>15865
Two examples in a month = every other week.

Can't you lads just vary up your cunt-offs a bit more?

>>15867

Then where are the examples from last month, or the month before last, and so on?

>>15868
They'll be around.

>>15865
My post here >>/v/23708 might be an example? I said I enjoy the work of Graham Linehan despite him turning out to be totally unhinged; someone asked what I meant; someone else explained; and then yet another lad showed how little he cares but ranting about how little he cares, and the thread went into a mini cunt-off.

That being said, I don't support wordfiltering and don't recognise the OP's depiction of the boards.