Acronym junction, what's your function?

[Drunk Clown]

I have no issue with people using WTF as the only time I have seen it being employed is to express moments of disbelief as to what is occurring in a game. As a user of the EB forum I can honestly say I have never seen MILF being employed and can't imagine a scenario in the EB forum where it could be employed.

This is exactly what I wanted to say. I've never heard/read MILF on this forum, and I think it's is totally out of place to use.

WTF on the other hand, I don't mind. What's wrong with it? It's a so much used expression that it has become normal. F--- is just a word; in WTF it isn't even related to sexual intercourse. I really don't get what's the hassle about the word f--- in that particular context. If you say c--- (this is an exeption thread, amirite?) for instance I get it, cos it's always pointed toward a person. But WTF is just as Brennus said, an expression of amazement or disbelief.

I don't think the will work. Everybody knows what you want to say, so why not just say so? Is it more harmful to have it written than interpret it like that?

The problem of the women and young children who would get exposed to this use of language is out of question. First of all children till the age of 12 (I think) wouldn't come here (then you won't be playing total war as it is probably too difficult). Unless you guys who are older, and have children let them read with you at this forum (highly unlikely). And children older than 9-10 already know the word f---.

Why would women be offended by the term MILF? It's not like they are going to cry when they read it. If a woman would call someone a d---; I won't feel disrespected cos I have a d---. It's not like they're weak and take everything personal.

My opinion is that this forum could loosen up a bit.

[Lord of Lent]

I cannot agree more, Beskar. Warman recently posted a thread about elitism. There's no elitism here, but the Org. is most elite of all TW forums or any other forums that deal with the stuff we discuss here.
That's because of discussions that actually make sense, but also because people here use clean and civilised speech instead of WTF or MILF.

We do not want to lose our high standards, do we?

So, NO to all of them. Keep it clean, keep it nice.

[Maeran]

I suppose you could see MILF in an AAR. But the mind boggles.

If you don't allow the F word, then you shouldn't allow a hidden version of it. If there is room for bending that rule because of context, then it isn't a proper rule.

You might show leniency in applying the rule, but "no use of swear words except when not directed at any one individual, but rather at the poster's own inability to find an alternative phrase" really muddies the water for when you have to apply that rule.

Oh, and if you use the daisy smiley, then not everyone knows what you meant to say. In particular, small children don't know. So it does work better than simply saying it.

[Drunk Clown]

Oh, and if you use the daisy smiley, then not everyone knows what you meant to say. In particular, small children don't know. So it does work better than simply saying it.

And how exactly do small children (I assume childrens less than 12 years) come to this forum? Would they read the civilised speech we use here? No an average small child wouldn't read the more sophisticated posts on this forum, it's beyond his limits.

[frogbeastegg]

On the matter of children and the org, there's two points:

How many here have younger children? How many of those people want their child to come visit when they're on the computer? Lots, I bet. Children show up frequently and often where you don't want them to; it's a defining feature. Most children begin to read at 5 years old.

Our youngest member was lisabeanie. She was 10 years old when she signed up an account to ask for help beating her Dad at TW. Naturally Dad was a member here too. She was quite active here for a time. There have been others a little older; it's rare but does happen.

Why would women be offended by the term MILF?

Better to ask, why wouldn't we?

It reduces a person into an object intended for another's gratification. The f-word has nothing but negative tones in a sexual context, especially when applied to women as it ties into that whole 'easy/slut/whore' thing and the whole 'I don't need to bother about them so long as I get my rocks off' thing.

Not comparable at all with calling someone a dick; that term is so mild it's practically a joke. There is no direct male comparison; culturally and historically men just do not have the same overtones applied to them in a sexual context. The double standard is alive and well.

I won't cry. I will think that whoever used it is a contemptible, crude idiot. Just as I think anyone who wants a f*** should go find themselves a blow up doll (or vibrator, if female) because that's the best they deserve for aiming so low. Huh, at least aim high enough to want sex. At least that has some ambition and mutuality to it, even if it's still a long away from making love. All the different labels exist for a reason; they all have different connotations.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I will think that whoever used [milf] is a contemptible, crude idiot.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

I say posters who describe women as 'milfy' are immature sex-starved attention seekers. In fact, I think it is perfectly obvious they aren't getting any and plEASE GOD ANYONE IF YOU'RE READING THIS I NEED A GIRLFRIEND I NEED ONE RIGHT NOW ANY WILL DO I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE

[Togakure]

TBH, I'd never heard of the acronym MIFL or the 'term' milfy until I read this thread. Knowing now what the acronym stands for, I'm surprised that anyone here would advocate/need to inquire about it's open use on this forum. Must be a Backroom thing?

Moderators at their discretion can always overlook expressions when the context is judged (by them) to be acceptable. I don't think a policy change is justified, but that's just me.

[athanaric]

TBH, I'd never heard of the acronym MIFL or the 'term' milfy until I read this thread. Knowing now what the acronym stands for, I'm surprised that anyone here would advocate/need to inquire about its open use on this forum. Must be a Backroom thing?

Moderators at their discretion can always overlook expressions when the context is judged (by them) to be acceptable. I don't think a policy change is justified, but that's just me.

I agree with this, basically. Some additional points:

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13. Now teenagers are unfortunately very well acquainted with all sorts of horrible words, regardless of how sheltered they've grown up. While a certain level of unpleasantness should of course not be tolerated (words like "milf", which I didn't know before, but somehow find deplorable), I think that sometimes moderators have been on the verge of overzealousness around here.
I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

[Hooahguy]

Even if this is a forum for older folks, not using such language makes the .Org a nicer place to be, as others have said.
I fail to see why this is even an issue.

[Drunk Clown]

I agree with this, basically. Some additional points:

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13.

Totally agree with you, children are out of the question. Eventhough that little girl called Isabell was here, this forum is in every way not for children.

I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

Agree again, how can WTF be negative? Not every word with F in it is negative (frogbeastegg), how could you even think that? How is WTF sexual? Please explain how this has anything to do with sexual activities?

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

THANK YOU, exactly what I wanted to say.

I won't cry. I will think that whoever used it is a contemptible, crude idiot. Just as I think anyone who wants a f*** should go find themselves a blow up doll (or vibrator, if female) because that's the best they deserve for aiming so low. Huh, at least aim high enough to want sex. At least that has some ambition and mutuality to it, even if it's still a long away from making love. All the different labels exist for a reason; they all have different connotations.

"the best they deserve for aiming so low?"

Okey I find this so disturbing. All what you wrote says so much more about you than why MILF is a wrong word. I mean I don't use it and don't find it necesary but this... this is just awful you have so much hatred.. about ...nothing.

[TosaInu]

..

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13. Now teenagers are unfortunately very well acquainted with all sorts of horrible words, regardless of how sheltered they've grown up. While a certain level of unpleasantness should of course not be tolerated (words like "milf", which I didn't know before, but somehow find deplorable), I think that sometimes moderators have been on the verge of overzealousness around here.
I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

Hello,

It's both (and maybe more). The 'rule'/'tradition' was already there, but since I'm dutch I normally need more than one excuse to keep or drop stuff.

I'm not sure about games not being for kids: too much of a good thing can (!) be bad. We all need water, but not too much please.

There are risks with too much (clueless whether that's 0.25 or 25 hours a day) games, mental and physical, both for kids and grown-ups. Recently however, a good thing was discovered by accident. People playing computergames develop the skill to make fast decisions. I'ld think that is useful for kids when playing on their bikes outside on the street.

There are probably other benefits too, I agree however that a computer can't cover all and there should be other complementing activities.

[Lemur]

It reduces a person into an object intended for another's gratification.

Here we wander into the whole "objectification" realm of rhetoric, which I have always found to be a misleading cul-de-sac of thought. People do objectify one another, pretty much on an hourly basis. Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"? Pshaw. Objectification is neither negative nor positive. It just is. If we tried to grok every human being we saw or heard during the day we'd be unable to get anything done, hence the brain's reflexive protective maneuver; treat some people like objects. They are outside the monkeysphere. Attempting to police our language to prevent objectification strikes me as exactly as productive as calling money "coconuts" to prevent greed.

The f-word has nothing but negative tones in a sexual context

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

[Beskar]

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Doesn't really work, since they are different but related things. Even then, if it was the same thing, there are like 10 very negative terms for the female body part in one episode of inbetweeners.

[frogbeastegg]

Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"?

No. I saw a human. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as I see when I look at anyone. And yes, I try to gain understanding of people, good and bad.

I'm not going to respond to the objectification thing. Suffice it to say I disagree completely, entirely, and fully. Also, the important part is the last part: intended for another's gratification.

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

[Lemur]

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

[frogbeastegg]

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

That's how the words and labels apply where I live. It's not personal. Someone wrote WTF as part of a memo intended only for their viewing at the office I work in. Someone else noticed. There was uproar. Not a single person thought it acceptable, funny or harmless. This in an office of 70+ people who do swear and make crude or lewd remarks.

It's not the crudity that's the problem. Much like a certain word used to describe black people, it's not the crudity that causes the outrage, it's the baggage and connotations which go with it. That particular word is viewed lightly in some areas and very gravely in others. For crudity I can think of several words for sex that are worse, none of which carry the same baggage and so are overall more acceptable.

The org's a global site. What's acceptable in one country isn't always in another. We have to strike the best balance. That's why I chimed in; I don't know how many others live in areas where it has the same meaning as mine. However many there are they deserve to be represented as much as those who live in areas which have it as no more than a crude word.