LOGOS: Please censor the language

In a beautiful Sunday Bible morning study on the Book of Micah, I got disturbed with profanity. Logos, it is not pleasant and inspiring to study the Bible with Bible software which contains F*CK language. Is it possible to place stars, or "replace" words, or remove such articles.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

In a beautiful Sunday Bible morning study on the Book of Micah, I got disturbed with profanity. Logos, it is not pleasant and inspiring to study the Bible with "Bible"software which contains F*CK language. Is it possible to place stars, or "replace" words, or remove such articles.

I understand your concern since obscene language also offends me, but I do not wish to see Logos edit out what many (most?) would consider to be offensive language. Where does it stop? The books are no longer the books as they were written. While I would prefer to not see or hear such language, neither my eyes nor my ears are virgin. I'm a big boy now (especially if you're measuring girth) so I can endure it. This happens to be in the Semeia series so I am somewhat surprised that SBL let it pass.

BTW: The word is "censor", "sensor" is a detection device.

Wild Eagle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697201#Comment_697201

BTW: The word is "censor", "sensor" is a detection device.

I changed the topic. Thanks George for the correction

Erwin Stull, Sr.

In a beautiful Sunday Bible morning study on the Book of Micah, I got disturbed with profanity. Logos, it is not pleasant and inspiring to study the Bible with "Bible"software which contains F*CK language. Is it possible to place stars, or "replace" words, or remove such articles.

Wow! I am shocked to see this as well, especially in a Biblical Journal. I am more shocked that the publisher allowed such an article with worldly profanity to be published in that Journal. I am disturbed as well, but not to the extent that the wording or the original articles are changed. Of cousre, I will definitely not be quoting from an article as this.

Dan Francis

PLEASE DO NOT SENSOR. This is indeed a harsh title. But to sensor it would most likely leave Logos unable to publish it if there is any integrity at the publishers end. Are we next going to ask Faithlife to remove p-i-s-s and b-a-s-t-a-r-d from the King James Version because they are words we personally may never wish to use? She uses a harsh violent word to illicit the mood and horror she is trying to convey. Indeed I am more concerned that entering F#@% I am told it never appears in my Library, even though I do own the work. (it does come up in a personal Book, Mark Barnes dictionary based on Wikipedia). While I had never considered searching for this in my Library to know it is there and Logos cannot find it makes Logos seem like a pretty poor search engine.

-Dan

PS:Various forms of F#@%are in Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary.11th Edition too.

PPS: I would avoid Martin Luther in it's original language if you want to avoid salty language too.

Robert M. Warren

There is no excuse.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697205#Comment_697205

PLEASE DO NOT SENSOR. This is indeed a harsh title. But to sensor it would most likely leave Logos unable to publish it if there is any integrity at the publishers end. Are we next going to ask Faithlife to remove p-i-s-s and b-a-s-t-a-r-d from the King James Version because they are words we personally may never wish to use? She uses a harsh violent word to illicit the mood and horror she is trying to convey. Indeed I am more concerned that entering F#@% I am told it never appears in my Library, even though I do own the work. (it does come up in a personal Book, Mark Barnes dictionary based on Wikipedia). While I had never considered searching for this in my Library to know it is there and Logos cannot find it makes Logos seem like a pretty poor search engine.

-Dan

PS:Various forms of F#@%are in Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary.11th Edition too.

PPS: I would avoid Martin Luther in it's original language if you want to avoid salty language too.

That's strange since I find 29 results in 16 articles in 4 resources (only searching Semeia).

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697205#Comment_697205

Indeed I am more concerned that entering F#@% I am told it never appears in my Library, even though I do own the work.

Very strange. I'd reindex the Semeia 82 resource. It seems, Semeia Journal has no editorial policy against using this word and Logos does indeed find it (also in Semeia 74 in a citation from the film "Pulp Fiction" and in Semeia 90/91 in the title of a referenced article).

Randy W. Sims

It's actually a proper term which is why it is quoted in the first instance. Normally seen without the space, genderf**k or genderbender. I don't like the term either but it is what it is. Try creating a visual filter to hide or disguise the profanity if you prefer. I'm sure others would appreciate such a filter. Note though that there is an author with the name, Fück, and I'm not sure if Logos can differentiate.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697201#Comment_697201

I understand your concern since obscene language also offends me, but I do not wish to see Logos edit out what many (most?) would consider to be offensive language. Where does it stop? The books are no longer the books as they were written. While I would prefer to not see or hear such language, neither my eyes nor my ears are virgin. I'm a big boy now (especially if you're measuring girth) so I can endure it. This happens to be in the Semeia series so I am somewhat surprised that SBL let it pass.

BTW: The word is "censor", "sensor" is a detection device.

My feelings are similar. I don't expect Logos to censor the materials it sells. I can imagine circumstances where such terms might appropriately be discussed in a scholarly context. For instance, I read something a while back that suggested the terms that English treats as profanity are typically related to bodily functions (but English speakers are relatively casual about blasphemy), while other languages - I believe the French of Quebec was one example - treat terms related to blasphemy as profanity (and are relatively casual about words relating to bodily functions). Several examples were given in each language. That's an interesting insight, and may tell us something we need to know about our culture.

That does not appear to be the case in this instance, though. Instead, the author seems to have dropped profanity into a title for the shock value. In my mind that suggests a lack of seriousness, and dramatically lessens the likelihood that I'll ever bother to read what they have to say. What would give me serious concern would be if Logos chose to publish a significant amount of material that used profanity freely - I would see that as a marker for their publishing poor quality resources.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697216#Comment_697216

MY fault.... I did not go low enough I was expecting it under Library Resources... it was far lower under Library results. I was surprised to see it used in the Talmud translation. It at first appears to be used a lot... Because of Johhan Fück who seems to be quoted often.

-Dan

GregW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697226#Comment_697226

MY fault.... I did not go low enough I was expecting it under Library Resources... it was far lower under Library results. I was surprised to see it used in the Talmud translation. It at first appears to be used a lot... Because of Johhan Fück who seems to be quoted often.

-Dan

Someone at Logos/FL is going to be scratching their head next week when they analyse the most commonly-searched words terms[:O]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697226#Comment_697226

I personally wish that this offensive language was not in my library, especially in journals that I appreciate like Semeia. We have to wade through this type of language in our interactions with the world which is more than enough for me.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697205#Comment_697205

Are we next going to ask Faithlife to remove p-i-s-s and b-a-s-t-a-r-d from the King James Version because they are words we personally may never wish to use?

Come on, people: what kind of arguments are these? Why not say while you're at it that you're afraid that Song of Songs would be censored because of sexual allusions? Let's not compare apples with oranges here. It is TOTALLY inappropriate for that word to appear in a biblical study resource. It is inappropriate (and unprofessional) that Semeia allowed it in the first place. They are the ones who have led to this mess, but the problem is real. But you could formulate the question the other way: should we have no censure at all? Is any material fair game for publication in Logos regardless of how obscene* the material or language may be in it?

* offensive = thankfully, to avoid getting sidetracked into beside the point discussions of what's obscene for you might not be for me and vice-versa, all one needs to do is turned to a standard English dictionary (e.g., Webster) and look up the word. It will tell you whether it is considered obscene in the common sense of the term and not solely based on idiosyncratic sensibilities.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697226#Comment_697226

I hope we remember our Logos library is not only useful for Bible study. We can also study the classics and theology with it, If we want a truly in depth study from a feminist perspective, we must be prepared to face the hyperbolic expressions of feminist rage against the patriarchal society of the Old Testament.

The offensive word is only an acronym for the legal charge against fornication; "You are under arrest "for unlawful carnal knowledge." The colloquial use of the acronym as a curse word is similar to the "s" word. It is unfortunate to see "scholars" have to resort to shock methods to make a point. It makes me dismiss their theology from the git-go.

Randy W. Sims

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697244#Comment_697244

The offensive word is only an acronym for the legal charge against fornication; "You are under arrest "for unlawful carnal knowledge."

I had always been taught that also, but

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck#Etymology

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697246#Comment_697246

Would it be possible to use a visual filter to replace the offensive word with asterisks? Or perhaps could someone just overlay an image of a solid rectangle over the word, similar to the way that the inductive highlighting palette uses different motifs and symbols?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697226#Comment_697226

It at first appears to be used a lot... Because of Johhan Fück who seems to be quoted often.

I put a Community Tag "Johann Fück" to where he was cited in my library. Unfortunately, the current implementation of this feature doesn't allow a basic search for xyz ANDNOT <Freebase = Johann Fück [010gqgnc]> against all resources which could be used fo a beep-over visual filter.

Rayner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697250#Comment_697250

I do not want original sources to be edited or filtered, but would support Logos implementing a profanity filter for those that do not wish to read a list of user-editable words.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697249#Comment_697249

Would it be possible to use a visual filter to replace the offensive word with asterisks?

I shared one called Nanny with groups Faithlife Beta and Logos Visual Filters. You can try it (hope the highlighting palette comes through). It's q&d and it won't be able to differentiate the word and the umlaut-spelled name.

EDIT:

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697255#Comment_697255

I do not want original sources to be edited or filtered, but would support Logos implementing a profanity filter for those that do not wish to read a list of user-editable words.

That would be nice.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697233#Comment_697233

Someone at Logos/FL is going to be scratching their head next week when they analyse the most commonly-searched words terms

Used to be that folks would occasionally search for "modem" in OCR'd Puritan works. Now they're searching for the Mother-of-All-Bad-Words in journal articles written by unbelievers.

BTW folks, it ain't censorship when you own the "press"; it's editorial control. I had one or more posts deleted from this forum a few years ago, not for foul language, but because someone didn't like my opinion and/or my brand of satire. But Logos owns the servers; it's their right. I suspect that Logos has an out for something like this mess in their standard contract; whether they use it is a different matter. Think about that the next time someone in the Suggestions subforum clamors for something weird by an unbeliever like, say, Fred Phelps.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697271#Comment_697271

Look, the Bible itself uses crude explicit and harsh language. Check out the Anchor Bible Dictionary articles on Euphemism/Dysphemism, for example. Or read Ezekiel. Or Bible Review 5:02 "Coarse Language in the Bible? It's Culture Shocking!" Paul uses a cultural slur, and skubalon, likely a 4-letter word for excrement.

“If you do not wish to be shocked and disgusted, then stay away from reading the prophetic texts.” - Robert P. Carroll, “YHWH’s Sour Grapes: Images of Food and Drink in the Prophetic Discourses of the Hebrew Bible,” in Semeia 86: Food and Drink in the Biblical World, ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 122n10.

“The Hebrew Bible regularly uses the root ŠKB . . . ‘lie (with)’ as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. But on four occasions the more direct verb ŠGL . . . occurs. Scholars agree that ŠGL was a word for sexual intercourse, but it may or may not have been vul- gar (therefore, we cannot supply an exact English translation). In each of the four instances, ŠGL appears as part of a threat or condemnation, and always with the clear intention of shocking the audience . . . Obviously, the authors of these lines [in Deuteronomy 28:30, Isaiah 13:16, Jeremiah 3:1–2 and Zechariah 14:2] deliberately chose strong language—if not actual vulgarity— in order to horrify, upset and rattle their audience.” - From the Bible Review article above.

The problem is with differing cultural expectations and genres, I think.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697273#Comment_697273

Look, the Bible itself uses crude explicit and harsh language

I wondered how long it would take for that old saw to be trotted out.

News flash: Erin Runions (whoever she is) is not Paul nor Ezekiel.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697275#Comment_697275

It may be an "old saw," but it also has the characteristic of being true. Of course, you have to be reading the original languages, since many translations bowdlerize and censor out of deference to their sensitive audiences.

I have no idea who Erin Runions is.

Rayner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697273#Comment_697273

The problem is with differing cultural expectations and genres, I think.

Precisely. That's why censorship is not a good plan, but why I think a user-editable list of key words (that could be a visual filter triggered from settings) might be handy for those that would want to self-censor against the language in Song of Songs or Semeia.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697271#Comment_697271

Someone at Logos/FL is going to be scratching their head next week when they analyse the most commonly-searched words terms

Used to be that folks would occasionally search for "modem" in OCR'd Puritan works. Now they're searching for the Mother-of-All-Bad-Words in journal articles written by unbelievers.

BTW folks, it ain't censorship when you own the "press"; it's editorial control. I had one or more posts deleted from this forum a few years ago, not for foul language, but because someone didn't like my opinion and/or my brand of satire. But Logos owns the servers; it's their right. I suspect that Logos has an out for something like this mess in their standard contract; whether they use it is a different matter. Think about that the next time someone in the Suggestions subforum clamors for something weird by an unbeliever like, say, Fred Phelps.

Who are we to judge who is an unbeliever?

4　Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Rom 14.4

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697275#Comment_697275

Look, the Bible itself uses crude explicit and harsh language

I wondered how long it would take for that old saw to be trotted out.

News flash: Erin Runions (whoever she is) is not Paul nor Ezekiel.

No sh*t ?!

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697288#Comment_697288

Rom 14.4

I'll see your Romans 14:4 and raise you Matthew 7:20 [;)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697293#Comment_697293

Rom 14.4

I'll see your Romans 14:4 and raise you Matthew 7:20

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged."

Mt 7.1

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697233#Comment_697233

Someone at Logos/FL is going to be scratching their head next week when they analyse the most commonly-searched words terms

Could not stop laughing. Thanks. I needed the chuckle. Will be smiling for the rest of the night.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697259#Comment_697259

Would it be possible to use a visual filter to replace the offensive word with asterisks?

I shared one called Nanny with groups Faithlife Beta and Logos Visual Filters. You can try it (hope the highlighting palette comes through). It's q&d and it won't be able to differentiate the word and the umlaut-spelled name.

Shared * Bleep * with Faithlife Group Logos Visual Filters. Visual Filter has Match Case checked so Author names are unaffected:

Caveat: visual filter does not affect Table of Contents nor location. Also, right click on *_* shows bleeped text.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Wild Eagle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697333#Comment_697333

Shared * Bleep * with Faithlife Group Logos Visual Filters. Visual Filter has Match Case checked so Author names are unaffected:

Keep Smiling

EDIT: Thank you so much KS4J and NB.Mick!!! I think Logos should do this by default.

Eph 4:29 "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth (software), but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear."

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697333#Comment_697333

Would it be possible to use a visual filter to replace the offensive word with asterisks?

I shared one called Nanny with groups Faithlife Beta and Logos Visual Filters. You can try it (hope the highlighting palette comes through). It's q&d and it won't be able to differentiate the word and the umlaut-spelled name.

Shared * Bleep * with Faithlife Group Logos Visual Filters. Visual Filter has Match Case checked so Author names are unaffected:

Caveat: visual filter does not affect Table of Contents nor location. Also, right click on *_* shows bleeped text.

Keep Smiling

That has got to be the funniest Logos screen shot ever created. The Pulp Fiction dialogue nestled in the midst of the layout made me LOL. Thanks NB.Mick and KS4J for the Visual Filters. I'm always impressed by the power of searches and visual filters in the hands of experienced Logos users.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697244#Comment_697244

The offensive word is only an acronym for the legal charge against fornication;

I think this is an example of false etymology. I believe it is another case of a lesson I had to teach a teen who was always saying "pardon my French" ... I made sure she was more accurate and said "pardon my Germanic" [8-|]

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697291#Comment_697291

No sh*t ?!

Now, that was stup*d.

Kosher rule # 1 - use "that" instead of a personal pronoun (or the person's name). You know and everybody knows exactly what you mean. But the former is kosher, the latter is not.

Kosher rule # 2 - use the asterix. Alternatively you use different phonetizations, such as stupish or stupidge, or an acronym "Shake That Up Poor Intellectual Dude!". You know and everybody knows exactly what you mean. But what's important is that you have not said it and that makes it kosher, and that's all good.

Kosher rule # 3 - It is perfectly fine to call someone stupid (I mean, stup*d of course), as long as it is a shock tactic (this word hardly does the trick though, something more colorful may be needed) that has a good educational purpose. That's kosher too. I suggest we start doing this more and more on the forums. It will be quite educational and will serve nothing but good purposes, I'm sure. In fact, why keep it to the forums? I suggest we start using it in church too... for educational purposes, of course. Then there is home: a bit of shock tactic could do the trick in marriages and with our children.

Kosher rule # 4 - It is perfectly fine to enter beyond the veil and use our lips to bless the Holy One, as long as we have kept all the other kosher rules.