Talk:Swears

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Offensive content Warning: This shouldn't surprise you, since the purpose of this talk page is to discuss an article about swears, but language that may be considered offensive by some readers follows. Only mature, professional handling of the subject matter will be allowed.

Contents

[edit] Delete?

This information is only loosely related and really not that important.It's dot com 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has appeared quite a lot. I think it should stay. LePorello / T / C 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah. if it had only 2 or 3 apperances, I'd under stand, but it has 8+ references. That's why I created it. — Young Roy 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it really doesn't have that many appearances, because none of these items are that similar, and a lot of them are just abbreviations and such.It's dot com 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of these are not cusses to most people, many are common everyday speech. AOnly a few, like the Commandoes, are really intentional uses of cussing for humor. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyday speech or not, it's still cussing. And only CitC and no loafing only mention about cussing, the rest have references to cussing. — Young Roy 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. This just isn't an outstanding topic... --DorianGray
I don't care for this page. Swears don't bother me, it's just that keeping track of specific words that characters say (unless it's a running gag; which swearing isn't) just doesn't fly with me. I could be contradicting myself, though. Maybe there are some articles that I would like deleted given this reasoning. Or then again, maybe not. Totally don't want a list of characters who use superlatives... or prepositions... —BazookaJoe 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I now think it's a worthy topic. TBC have stated that they don't put swearing on the site, except sometimes they do. This is notable. — It's dot com 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If we're gonna keep this

And now we're gonna censor this? We have a page where we can't even discuss the subject matter? — It's dot com 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point for deletion. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. If this page can't exist in an uncensored form on this wiki, then it doesn't belong at all. — It's dot com 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What's weird is that all the cuss words were censored except for "damn." Weird. — Young Roy 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Roy, it had hope, but I hope you see it's flawed. We can't have a page with the f word and the a word, per our standards. And if they are censored properly it ruins this. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, "Maq," so we can't have a and f up there, but it's ruined if it's censored. Hmmmm... God, I don't want my page that I made the first draft of, one of my few major contributions, so I guess we'll just have to...sigh. I don't know. It's just hard to decide. I guess we have no choice to delete it, unless we bend the rules and leave a and f or ruin it and go ahead and censor it. Young Roy (In a hurry so no time thingy thing.)
This page is kind of interesting, but I would only support an uncensored version. — It's dot com 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Com's right. This is data, and if it's on Homestar Runner, we can use it. — Seriously (Talk) 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're gonna keep this, it should not be censored, but it should be limited to material found only on H*R.com (not the interviews (except for the relevant part in the introduction)). I have come to realize that this page has factual merit, given TBC's attitude expressed in the introduction. — It's dot com 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dot com, why'd you delete DorianGray's comment? That seems rude. — Seriously (Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
He didn't. He just moved it. --Jay (Talk) 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
While I question the use of this article, I feel that censoring the profanities aren't needed. However, use of the word f*** was unneeded in the article. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I'm not entirely sold on the utility of this page, but if we're going to have it could we at least give it a name that doesn't sound so juvenile ("Mom, Billy made a swear!")? My vote is for Profanity. Concerning the above discussion, I'm against censoring this page. The warning at the top is ample. — InterruptorJones 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I moved it is because TBC in interviews have consistently used the word "swears" ("But when we get our sketch comedy show, dude, there’s going to be so many swears!"), and even in things like cheat talk. Plus, it's kinda funny. BTW, I think they only called it "cussing" in Commandos in the Classroom so they could make the "cuss-mando" joke. — It's dot com 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I still vote for keeping, uncensoring, and "Profanity". SaltyTalk! 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

While I feel that this should be delorted, if we are going to keep this, I would rather that the title be Profanity instead of Swears. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Meh, "Profanity" sounds so formal and stuffy. "Swears" fits the mood better, methinks. — It's dot com 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you don't really hear teens today using Profanity. Actually, it's more of "cursing." We should make the title that. Cursing sounds better than swears and cussing, and way better than Profanity. — Young Roy
Do you have something against the TBC term? If not, then we should leave the title like it is. — It's dot com 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm up for moving it to that. — Seriously (Talk) 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, but profanity sounds more encyclopedic. — Seriously (Talk) 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
But "swears" sounds more H*R. More examples: "Tomkins made a swear!", "Why I can even swear a cuss myself! A-hem. Diaper biscuits." — It's dot com 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point (and my bad for not noting the TBCism). Taking that into consideration, I'm fine with whatever everybody else decides. — InterruptorJones 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The title of this article is really embarrassing. Qduk 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just begin the article with "Profanity, or Swears... I think that would be good. — Seriously (Talk) 12:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the current introduction (in which Matt says "swears" and is followed up with "swearing") is just fine. — It's dot com 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay—I just think that the actual word should come before what TBC calls it. — Seriously (Talk) 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the place?

Since words like "Hella, and Helluva" are considered swears, I added the one where old timey Strong Bad says "oh noes i've died and gone to hell".

Not to be Correction Dan, but it's actually, Curses! iv'e died and gone to hell!" — Young Roy
Actually, it's not really considered a swear if used to refer to the place. I think. --DorianGray
I agree, used in the right context it shouldn't be considered a swear, except in the case of their using the context as an excuse to swear. Thunderbird 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Dorian is right. The place is not a swear. — It's dot com 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Guess if we can't use the place, we might not be able to use Strong Sad's curse in The House That Gave Sucky Treats: "...if you get it wrong, you get eternal damnation..." — Young Roy

[edit] Crap

What is that doing on the list? I know crap is almost like "s---" but crap is not a curse word all that much.

Actually, it is. It's what's known in linguistics as a permissible expletive (or something along those lines). — It's dot com 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible swearing in flashback

flashback- After losing the ten-step footrace, The Homestar Runner responds by saying "WHAAAAT??!!?&,:;%${}". Random symbols usually mean censored swearing.

Disagree. I know that things like %^#$^@# are used to censor swears, but it's not being used for that in this case.

Random symbols are used to censor words in the sentence. These symbols have been attatched to the ??!!?, with no space between them. This suggests that this is an exaggeration often used on the Internet of an overuse of exclamation points. I'm talking about things like !!!!!!!11111, !!!!!111!1!11one!!1, and !!!!!fortyfive!!11!1omgwtfbbq111. Using random characters after a long string of exclamation points and question marks is just a cousin to these.

Secondly, you don't see a hint of Homestar opening his mouth to utter curses in the animation. There's no audio censorship either. Where is the swearing coming from?

This is what I would consider acceptable to say that Homestar was swearing:

  • &,:;%${} WHAT??!!?
  • WHAT &,:;%${}??!!?
  • WHAT??!!?  &,:;%${}!!
  • WHAT??!!?  &,:;%${} (even though the final exclamation doesn't end in an exclamation point, I would accept it if there were a space in there.)

What we are considering is none of the above. Again, the random symbols are attached to the ??!!?. It makes no sense to put censored swears there. —BazookaJoe 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (Args pending BazookaJoes args.) Switching to neutral for now. — It's dot com 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, not to disagree. I always took it like that. I mean, I think it should stay. SaltyTalk! 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed... Err, with the disagreement... By which I mean I disagree with the fact. It's obviously a relative of "T3H 1337 Sp33Kx0rz!!~!~@~!!#~!!1!!11@`2!eleventyfive!". --phlip TC 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with BazookaJoe. Disagree with the fact. Heimstern Läufer 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
don't know if my input matters, but i agree with the fact. --- Image:Videlectrix man.sig.gif Collin - (T/C) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not at least a common swear User:TwO 2 bReAdS iN a BiScUt

This is also a two years old discussion. --DorianGray 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yearbook signing- rhts

In the Yearbook Character Page on the autograph signing part, strong bad says RHTS meaning "raise hell this summer" and since lmao is mentioned, does anyone else think this may have a place on the page?--- Image:Videlectrix man.sig.gif Collin - (T/C) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be raise heck this Summer.

It could also be rock hard this summer.

[edit] To do

Organize the list in chronological order and by toon category (SBEmails separate from toons and games). — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sbemail: the bird

how about the sbemail "the bird" its all about giving the finger... which isnt really SAYING a swear. but it definatly is considered profanity and gets blurred out on TV. and it would go against TBC thing of keeping the site clean. Del Taco? 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. — It's dot com 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure on this one. It's a bit of a gray area. The email itself is about giving the finger, but Strong Bad never specifically mentions "the middle finger," so he's not giving kids any instruction on how to "give somebody the finger," and none of the characters in said email actually did it properly: Strong Bad can't do it because of his boxing gloves (even if he says he can), Homestar can't do it properly given his lack of (or at least invisible) hands, and Pom Pom only has one "finger" (his entire hand)... there's really no objectionable content in the email at all, save for the reference to "the finger" or "the bird," and I don't think, taken alone, such a reference constitutes anything objectionable. ~ Bruce 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pervert?

Is this considered a swear? Or is it just a rude thing to say? It was said by The Baby Lady in Peasan't Quest if you ask her about Naked Ned. Maggot Man (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pervert's not really a swear... Just an insult, I think. --DorianGray
Well, it's a bad word kind of like Prick. --TheThin 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with you, The thing. It's a word with a cache, but not a "bad" word in the same category as your other example, which in some contexts is a "bad" word, as it names an unmentionable piece of anatomy. "Pervert" merely describes a person with socially unacceptable sexual principles and behaviors. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
They say it on Naruto a whole buncha times.

[edit] autobiography

  • I've noticed that there isn't a mention of autobiography on this page. Strong Bad doesn't actually say a swear word on the "Words I Probably Said" tape, but it is implied, as Strong Bad does have to fast-forward. Is it worth adding that to this page? Frickinsellout 09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you refering to the "the Deke accidentally shoved me to the ground and called me a—" part? If so, I don't think we could really guess what he called him. He might as well said "a crap for brains" which is already covered under Crap. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really have to mention "butt"?

I hardly consider "butt" a swearword. I mean, 5-year-olds say "butt." I think we're only supporting the ridiculous existance of the euphemism treadmill here by mentioning a relatively non-offensive word in an article about swearwords. ~ Bruce 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do we say "butt"? --DorianGray
Under See Also:. In addition to the above, the words "crap" and "butt" both appear frequently. ~ Bruce 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah... Personally, I don't see a need to mention either of those, but I'm okay with keeping "crap" on there, as it has a (pretty massive) page. "Butt", on the other hand, is so minor a word it doesn't even need to be mentioned. You'd have to be some kinda freak to be offended by "butt". (No offense to anyone who is. You're still weird, though.) --DorianGray
Dorian, thanks so much for calling my grandmother a freak. My grandmother happens to be a very nice old lady. (This is a joke, I'm not really ticked off. ;-) ) But just so you know, I've observed that it is a bit of a generation thing: the older people are more likely to be offended by "butt" (and likewise with "crap" and "freaking"). That's my two cents. Heimstern Läufer 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that "butt" can be used in many different ways (the original meaning was "end"):
  • End/edge butt (something I learned in Tech Ed.)
  • Cigarrette butt
  • Rifle butt
  • Etc.
Anyways, we shouldn't mention "butt". ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Even though it is considered a bona fide swear at my aunt and uncle's house, I don't think it belongs on this page. — It's dot com 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. My grandparents have no problem with "butt." In fact, I've heard my grandmother use said word on many occasions. I honestly can't see how anyone would consider "butt" a swearword. It's just a synonym for "rear end," after all. And of course, you have things like butt joints, etc. ~ Bruce 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sucks"?

I'm not sure what others' thoughts are on this, but I generally consider "sucks" a vulgar word; I'm not offended by it, but I was surprised by its presence in a couple places on the site, probably on roughly the same level as "hella." Should it also be mentioned? — LuigiHann (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned)

I wouldn't consider it vulgar enough to be listed here or considered a swear. SaltyTalk! 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the phrase used to be considered extremely vulgar, but over the years it has progressed on the dysphemism treadmill to the point that it is acceptable even in mainstream contexts. — It's dot com 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alternate universe

Shouldn't we add the part where Strong bad says "flippin' off rainbows" from sbemail 150? (it's in the song) » c u t e p e t s r u s « T/C 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the swear? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If the bird is in this list, alternate universe should be too. Or they can both be removed; it's fine with me. —BazookaJoe 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it falls into the "implied" category. Sigh... (you can guess I'm not fond of it, but it is acceptable for the page). Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So... want me to add it?
Couldn't it also (and more realistically, based on the context of the song) be interpreted as actually flipping, as in turning in midair? ~ CoachZ(talk · contribs)~ 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you think it's better without Swearing except for Crap?

I do, because i sick of cartoons that aren't cartoons, if you get my meaning? Well? Nikolce Kocovski 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I get your meaning. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

well, what i'm trying to say is that cartoons are meant to be enjoyable for any age, not to filled with swearing,gore, etc. That's what i think. Nikolce Kocovski 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a large part of the charm of H*R is that it's funny without resorting to typical devices other animated entertainments rely on for shock laughs, such as potty language and excessive violent imagery. That said, I don't necessarily feel that a cartoon (for example, South park) which does employ potty language and extreme violence in its humor is less good, just different. In other words, I see it less as an issue of quality an an issue of broadest audience. So it's not "better", but it's quite an accomplishment that the 12 year olds and the old geezers like me alike can enjoy this and not be subjected to imagery or dialogue which might be seen as inappropriate. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better because it's much easier to be "funny" with swearing. The fact that H*R can be at times, hillarious without vulgarity... to the extent of swearing or cursing... proves that TBC are very intelligent.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But that logic would suggest that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not as intelligent, when in fact it's pretty clear from their work they're geniuses (as are TBC). They use a different set of rules and tools than TBC, so it's different, but does it necessarily mean TBC are more intelligent than TP+MS? It's like comparing apples and chainsaws, their approaches differ too vastly to effectively compare. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer this way of doing things, the without swearing way, because all it does is enable people of younger ages to enjoy the content. SaltyTalk! 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is about the upkeep of the wiki article. May I recommend our companion forum for discussion of the subject itself. — It's dot com 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While you are of course correct, I can also see an argument for exploring the utility of swears in animation as essential to the understanding of why both this page and its contents exist. Are the swears and swear-like items we document here to be seen as a deviation from the standards we've come to expect from TBC? Are they intentional references to the tradition in modern animation of employing naughty words for comic effect? Are they not references at all, but instances of the use of naughty words for comic effect? Yes, a generic discussion of whether SP or H*R is better because of the extent of the use of swearing is Forum fodder, but other points are, IMO, germane to the upkeep of this page. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I oughtn't, but since Qermaq opened the discussion loophole again briefly, I'll jump in. I hesitate at the first question there, Qermaq, which hints at the perennial has-H*R-jumped-the-shark questions that come up often and are almost always unanswerable and unnecessary. One interesting thing you hint at, though, is that the significance of this page is not the way they don't swear, but the way they represent, replace, or suggest swears. Which suggests questions of the history of doing so in other cartoon genres, like comic strips. Which gets back to Nik's starting supposition: although technically what defines a cartoon is that it's animated instead of filmed, you identify an assumption that they're intended for, or at least suitable for, kids. (And the previous two links could be taken as H*R weighing in with meta-commentary on its own role in these dynamics.) Which of course leads to the question of why we connect cartoons with kids—what about their origins, political cartoons, etc.—by which point it's definitely ready for the forum. —AbdiViklas 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Program

In space program, Strong Bad says "we spent all our money on this kick awesome logo". This could be a reference to kick ass, but, it's another one of those that might not really be nessicary to include. » c u t e p e t s r u s « T/C 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a stretch to me. And besides, I've never heard "kick ass" used as an adjective. ~ CoachZ(talk · contribs)~ 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have heard it used, and i think it IS a ref. — Defender1031*Talk 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it's not. And both of us would need more agreements before anything was placed in the article. And I have somehow managed to live my whole life and never hear someone use is as an adjective. I mean the usage, "Man, I kick ass at tennis!" is common, but I've never heard anything like, "Man, my tennis abilities are kick ass!" ~ CoachZ(talk · contribs)~ 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Kick-ass, used as an adjective, is extremely common. I'm pretty sure that kick-awesome is indeed an allusion to kick-ass. — It's dot com 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's clearly a take-off of "kick-ass", but only in the sense that phrases like "gosh darn it!", "flipping", and the like are taken from harsher words — they're mild derivatives chosen purposefully to be more socially acceptable. I don't think we need to note every instance of these types of words, though. Trey56 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fo' Shizzle?

...Another one reads, "SB is the shizzle", which in this context means "Strong Bad is the shit".

I think that one's being read a bit too much into. We can't be sure of his context, he may have just thought "shizzle" is a funny word, and didn't realize it is sometimes attributed to profanity. In fact, Wikipedia gives the meaning of shizzle as "...rap slang word for 'sure'", which is also the general meaning that I have understood in the past. Though the context of "Strong Bad is the sure" admittedly does not make sense, it seems to me that this comment is simply an abstract comment of "Strong Bad is the shizzle" without the "meaning" of shizzle being obviously clear, if there in fact is one. In short, I think we're reading much too much into a word that doesn't have a specific meaning. Thunderbird 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See izzle.urbanup.com/625718. "Fo' shizzle" means "for sure", but any other use of "shizzle" means "shit". In this case "SB is the shizzle" makes sense, as calling someone "the shit" is an (admittedly weird) way of saying that they're good or cool. — It's dot com 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but my problem with it is other quotes such as "Curses! I've gone to Hell! How unfortunate!". In this context, that would mean "Curses! I've been damned! How unfortunate!". However since they didn't choose to use the swear word, it doesn't constitute a swear word any more than "freaking" or "dang". Thunderbird 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think they meant it. Even if they didn't, though, it's still notable that that's what it can mean. — It's dot com 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TBC/Others Swearing?

Should this article cover TBC and other people connected to H*R swearing? TBC swore in a couple of interviews, and the end of the BOTS commentary is vulgar. Suggestions? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 01:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. This article is about swearing and references to swearing on H*R.com. It's really not notable that they swear in real life, as (given their humor) they don't seem like the kind of people who wouldn't. — It's dot com 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we should include swears in commentaries. Those are still part of the H*R universe, even though they are somewhat removed. Loafing 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Part of the H*R body of work, perhaps, but not part of the H*R universe. ;) — It's dot com 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. They sometimes cross over though, when one of the characters suddenly joins in ;-)  Loafing 02:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Is "pissed off" a swear? I don't think so. It might be less than Grandma-and-Grandpa's-house etiquette, but that's not what defines a swear. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as vulgar slang in most dictionaries. I don't know whether that actually answers your question. I would tend to think that it is a mild swear, given that it is censored on TV (more so in the past) and has a permissable form ("ticked off"). — It's dot com 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to m-w.com, a swearword is vulgar or profane. Vulgarity is essentially lower-class speech (which is relative to your class); profanity is language that insults one's belief of what's right and wrong in the world (which is relative to your beliefs). BTW, "pissed off" is condidered "sometimes vulgar" by m-w. Of course, dictionaries merely chronicle usage, and as such should not be seen as prescriptive, so multiple sources should be consulted. It remains that "pissed off"'s swear-ness may or may not have a concensus among lexicographers. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"Pissed off" comes from the root "piss", which is unacceptable in any circumstance (at least for me). ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trevor the vampire

Alright. I hate to challange one of the most-used examples of profanity on H*R.com, but why do you guys automatically assume that Strong Bad was going to say "what the f**k"? He could have just as well said "what the freak", which would be covered under Freakin'. Peoples? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I posed the same question long ago, either in talk someplace or in a edit summary. The response I got was that "freak" didn't make any sense. Wish I could find that conversation. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's entry on "WTF" says that "freak" is just as likely. Hmmm... ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait... nevermind. But it is still just as likely. ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing else makes as much sense as F*** (unless, maybe, it's some odd-spelling variant, like what my friends use. Fark, fawk, fook, and so forth). --DorianGray
In your opinion. Look at how many times Strong Bad has used the word "freakin'". Does the situation here merit that he would say "f**k"? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Mu, first off, of course it's his opinion, this is a talk page. Second, while he has said "freak" a lot, he has never said it after "What the". What the crap, just plain what the, but never "What the freak". So "freak"'s suddenly no likelier than any other f word, after all. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KF'nC

I personally think that the KF'nC basket should be listed here, but I wanted to get other people's opinions first.

I think it's quite likely that the "f'n" stands for f***in'. After all, if it was KFreakinC or KFrigginC, TBC would most likely just call it KFreakinC... Raised by Coffee Image:Rbcsig.png AAaAaaAaaAAa 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't F stands for "fried"? Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the F does stand for freakin', but KFreakinC doesn't look as good as KF'nC. To me it's too speculative. And yes F does stand for Fried. Kentucky Fried Chicken. -Jeppo (TLC) 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My first thought was K,F, and C, although that should be KF'n'C. - Unregistered

[edit] British swears

Do we really need to censor the british word for male genetalia? In my experience it tends to be used at a similar (possibly slightly higher) level of profanity than crap, and is also mentioned in the article for sb email 22 -- DumbMuscle 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which word are you talking about, and where is it being censored? — It's dot com 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about bullocks. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, censor was probably the wrong word, but the question still stands, dont really want to change this without at least some agreement to attempt to avoid any offence DumbMuscle 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not really censored anyway. All people have to do is hover their mouse over 'English slang term' and see 'Wikipedia:Bollocks' magically appear underneath their mouse pointer. I'm British, yet I'm not offended by the word. I've heard much worse. There's a warning on the top of the article anyway so I can't see why it should be 'censored'. -Jeppo (TLC) 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Screw All Y'all!"

Should we include that? because "Screw" is slang for "f**k" - Young Roy

Actually, both are slang for "copulate". But I don't think "screw" in this context rises to "swear" level. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree — it's too mild, and I think that "screw you" is used by plenty of people who aren't consciously substituting it for something else. Trey56 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, it just means mess them up. if Nintendo are allowed to give Samus a screw attack, this should be acceptable.
I don't get it. How come "screw" is perfectly acceptable, yet "damn" is considered a swear and is mentioned? Things may be different where I come from (England) but I always thought "screw" was worse than "damn" but better than "f***". I was pretty shocked when Strong Bad used that word, since he could have easily have said "F*** all y'all!". But then again, I WAS on the recieving end of his abuse. – The Chort 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Around here, if you look at someone with a straight face and tell him "screw you", you're asking for a fight. I think it deserves mention on the page. — It's dot com 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ass

I understand many people think that Ass is a terrible word, but over here in the UK, it's hardly a swear at all. It's in the same boat as hell. Does this still count? --Gerkuman 17:54, 7 October 2006

As the Brothers Chaps aren't in the UK, yes. --DorianGray
Well, "ass" is hardly a swear on the level of many others on this side of the pond, either. "Asshole" is a pretty offensive word, though. "Smartass" and "horse's ass" - not so much swears as mild insults, but they do contain "ass", and as such are crude to many. Thing is, what's a swear to me might not be a swear to another person, it's a bit relative. Anyway, to address one point you made, if there's a difference between UK and US reasoning in any given case here, we normally default to the US thinking as H*R's a US-based website. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And yet, "Bugger" merits a PG rating in the UK, but it's G material here. --Jnelson09 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Think I found two more

In the email different town, Strong Sad says "Calm down, spaz!". Doesn't this shorten to "spastic", which is sometimes considered politically incorrect?

Also, in Shopping for Danger, Gunhaver says "screw with the weather!", which is a variant of f**k. Am I right? (I'm probably not, but meh) -Jimmy91 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone finding "spaz" insulting, and "screw with the weather" just means "mess the weather up weird". --DorianGray
"Spastic" might be insulting, but is not a swear. And "screw" is a more acceptable term than the one you allude to, so it's not a "variation" at even swearness. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit Conflict'd: "Spaz" is indeed short for "spastic" [1], but I don't think it's a swear. An indirect insult of disabled people probably, but not a swear. Loafing 20:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gunhaver could still have said "f**k with the weather", though, couldn't he? I mean, if H*R.com was M-rated. It would mean the same thing. -Jimmy91 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Both would mean "mess the weather up weird", yes. --DorianGray

[edit] Homestar Talker on Second games Menu

On the Second Games Menu, the description for Homestar Talker is: "Homestar says the darndest things. You want to make him swear, don't you? Shame on you! Call your mother!" or something like that, but it mentions swearing. --Y. Roy 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Next time, feel free to go ahead and edit the article yourself. (If you're concerned about getting the formatting right, just do your best and someone will help you fix it.) — It's dot com 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Swear That This Is Not What The Article Is About

I always assumed that the swears listed on the article are meant to be curses, not oaths. This would mean that "honest to God" should not be listed here. Loafing 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Trogga 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Sure, an oath is ONE definition of a Swear. But this article is about the curses used (or almost used) on H*R, profanity, not oath's. Perhaps this article would better be suited as "Curses" instead as it's title? --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Swears" is more the TBC term, though. See also Talk:Swears#Title. --DorianGray
What you call it is merely personal preference since it can mean more than one thing. But obviously what it DOES mean for this page is profanity type usage. Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that "honest to God" seems inapropriate for this page. So the page can remain as Swears, but maybe a disclaimer for what definition of it at the top of the page? Makes sense to me. --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Honest to God" is not a swear the page's sense of the word. I'm removing it. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this thread. Since the phrase in question was literally a swear, I felt it deserved a hearing on the talk page before being removed. There does not need to be an additional disclaimer; this talk page does the job fine. — It's dot com 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there DOES need to be a disclaimer. Why? Because it would shoot down something immediately if it didn't meet the criteria the page is looking for. Let's say somebody else comes to the page wanting to put something on there that meets the definition of Swear, but the wrong one. Another oath or something similar. Now, MAYBE they'll see this on the talk page. Or MAYBE we'll have to go through another discussion on the talk page. OR! We could have this nice little message that tells you that this page is for Swears that meet this definition: etc. So they know right away that it's geared towards profanity. But what do I know? I'm just making total sense here. --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah. Consensus was reached here. If such oaths are posted, we can remove and point to this talk. No need to clutter the page, and everything's easily removable with adequate explanation. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly when was Consensus reached? When one person shot down the idea? Sure you count as two but I don't see how a single line (which is what the disclaimer would be) constitutes as "cluttering the page." I don't mean to make a big deal out of it, but I think it makes perfect sense.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus reached that I was describing was that oaths need not appear on this article, not that a disclaimer is or is not necessary. My post was using the clear consensus on this talk that oaths don't belong here as an argument against needing a disclaimer, as we can simply refer to this consensus when reverting any oaths added. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what your saying now. I didn't before because of the finality in your statement. "Nah, Consensus was reached... end of discussion," is how I took it. I mean, the only arguement I made above yours was about the disclaimer. However, I still think it would save valuable time in some respects if that consensus was just right there in a single line on the page. I mean, then people already know. Or we can wait until they just post something that is an oath and say "That doesn't go there because it doesn't meet the right criteria --- read this" and post a link to this discussion, or however you decide to do it. I mean, if the disclaimer was there they'd already know. And if they did it anyway, just say "read disclaimer." I mean that IS what the page is about right? Profanity type swears. Gesturing included (such as giving the finger). --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reason I tried moving this to "Vulgarism"

Why I did that is because I've never heard of such thing as a non-verbal swear, if the finger counts as one. --Y2K (15px-Crystal_Clear_app_xchat.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_email.png) 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. Maybe Vulgarisms would be a good choice. Loafing 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This has already been discussed before. We have called it Swears because it's kinda funny and because it's a term TBC use themselves. Incidentally, if you really wanted to be a strict grammarian, "swear" is a verb but not a noun. Good thing we don't all the times have to be; I am all up ons leaving this article right where it is. — It's dot com 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Strong Profanity?

Whats the "Strong Profanity" or whatever, that it talks about in the green box? --Jangles5150 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Look under Peasant's Quest. — It's dot com 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a comment on the warning

I think we need to switch back to the more official, less Homestar related warning. Yes, it's more boring, and yes, we ARE the Homestar Runner Wiki and it makes sense to have Homestar Runner themed templates, but this one seems more like an appearance or a joke than an official warning. Therefore, we'll probably get people (read: kids) reading it who aren't supposed to/don't want to. Bluebry 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I was looking for the warning at first until I read the green thing. At the very least the template should be red and not a friendly green. In any case it is easy to miss the "seriousness" of the notice. --Stux 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The current warning is lukewarm at best, we need it fire-hot. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
C'mon. The warning is perfectly fine. There is no one who visits our wiki who, when finding this page, is not gonna read it, no matter what kind of warning is there. The entries on this page are extremely tame by most standards, except for that one, and even that one's presence in a movie would not earn an R rating. No one is coming out of the woodwork to complain that they weren't adequately warned or were offended by the content. In fact, all you have to do is read the introduction to the page or the first couple of entries to understand what it's all about. — It's dot com 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The goal here, however, is not to be reactive but to be proactive. You know what kind of world we live in. The warning should be less "entertaining" and more "warning", in my opinion. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 05:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How about putting a big red border around it? That would draw more attention to it as a warning. --Stux 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think it would be too much of an eyesore (lime green and red don't mix). I think everything should just be a light reddish kind of color. Like, uh...
Something like this. (background is #de8787, border is #f00)

Thoughts? Bluebry 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The MAJOR problem: When I first saw that green box, I wasn't really aware it was a warning until I had read it properly. It's not effective. Yes, it's funny but that's not the point; it's supposed to warn the reader of the strong language. I propose we cut the wishy-washy and change to a more direct and straightforward warning. You could use one of those exclamation marks, like the one at the top of this page. – The Chort 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment that the article had no warning at all at the top. Would that really be a problem? The article title, interview snippet, introduction, and first couple of examples should be enough to clue someone in on what they're in for. The article itself is treated encyclopedically; it's not like it's a long interview or toon with sudden strong language—the whole thing is a list of swearing within H*R. A cursory warning is all that is needed at most, and one adapted from Cheat Commandos is in the spirit of a wiki about Homestar Runner. In other words, there is no problem here, and we don't need to fix something that's not broken out of some vague sense that someone, somewhere will someday be offended because they don't read the whole page. — It's dot com 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I used to think "swears" just meant "Do you swear you'd do blah blah blah?" "I swear!". Now, a lot of visitors/users here are kids. And, even if a kid DID know it was about cursing, they still might have not stopped with that green joke warning. For example, they might be used to the swears the use on homestarrunner.com, which are just things like crap or the occasional freakin'. They also use acronyms and other ways to hide the words. But WE explain WHAT the words are. On Homestar, it's "shizzle". Here, it's "shit" (yes, I'm saying it but it's for the sake of discussion). Plus, we even say:
Peasant's Quest — Typing "What the fuck" yields the response, "Come now. Don't get discouraged."
Not homestarrunner.com, US. And, I know it sounds crazy, I'd also be a little worried about liability (crazy parents and the like). It's better we include a serious, easily-seen warning with content that may make people uncomfortable than a green box that looks more like an appearance of swearing than a warning. Bluebry 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Re "Imagine for a moment that the article had no warning at all at the top. Would that really be a problem?": Yes, I really think it would. Seems we disagree on that point, which is fine, but I really don't personally want to assume that since no one has complained so far that it will never happen. Some parent of a 12-year-old kid sees this page with either no warning or a poorly-identifiable one, and we have the potential for an uproar, affecting not just the wiki, but TBC as well. They enjoy a reputation for being kid-safe, and it's just that sort of overblown drama that one parent starts that'll tear down that house of cards. Having worked in public schools and having talked to hundreds of parents, I assure you they are out there.
Now, will a warning ever prevent a kid from reading the content? Of course not, but the point is we can say "hey, we had a clear and unmistakeable warning on the page". We tried to keep a person from being shocked to see naughty language on this otherwise squeaky-clean wiki. It's my view that the current "warning" does not try to do anything but be funny, literally making light of the concerns many parents have with the content they want their child to be able to avoid.
Dot com, one thing I know we agree on is we as editors have a responsibility toward stewardship of this wiki and the creators of the work we document. We need to make our decisions based, first and primarily, on what's right for TBC and HRWiki. In light of that, I'm a little perplexed you don't see the importance in this. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bluebry: "Fuck" does not do anything in Peasant's Quest, but "what the fuck" does. TBC made a conscious decision to include that phrase as part of the game (another indicator that H*R is not a kids' site). If they didn't want us to note it (knowing that we note everything), they shouldn't include it.
Qermaq: On the contrary, I see great importance in those things. I simply think it would be very difficult not to realize what this page is actually about. I'm not actually proposing that we remove the warning, simply that there's nothing wrong with keeping a sense of humor. In the interest of making the warning more recognizable as a warning, I propose the following TSoND compromise version (some wording borrowed from a version by Qermaq):

NOOh, Child!Warning!
This article is about swearing. It contains bad words that will get your mouth washed out, cost you friends, and probably get you suspended.

Please, if you are not mature enough to handle an adult discussion of some very naughty language, read no further.

It has the advantage of being unambiguous with big, unmistakeable warning symbols, while still retaining the H*R flair. — It's dot com 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you made it red. Anyway, I've proposed an alternative as well, as you're aware, in the Sandbox. Maybe that could be redder too. Green means go. I don't want us to say "go" here.
Regarding the sense of humor - and this is coming from me - this is a time to dispense of it. Mostly. We need to be serious and say thiat this article contains language a lot of people would not only be offended by, but more importantly, would be surprised to encounter in this wiki. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the Teal Screen of Near Death should be teal because otherwise it wouldn't be teal. The NO and warning symbols can speak for themselves. If someone doesn't read that, then they only have themselves to blame. — It's dot com 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we HAVE to go for the in-joke here? Ok, if you make "bad words" red, I will go for it. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. And no, we don't have to; that's what makes us interesting. — It's dot com 03:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I think the new sign is a very reasonable compromise. It's both funny and much more functional than what we have now. As a matter of fact, the big red no, the exclamation point and the red "bad words" are adequate enough to garner the proper level of attention to it. Too bad we can't have blinking stuff (like "bad words") in the sign that would work on all browsers. Anywho. On a different matter, would a "censorship policy page" (say HRWiki:Censoring) be appropriate/useful? I can move this to Da Basement if need be. --Stux 05:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, I like it. It's much more noticeable. And less... lime green. And I think we should have a more detailed censoring policy. As Dot com said, TBC were technically using the words "what the fuck" in Peasant's Quest. And technically, that means it's used on the site. And under the policy we have now, we're not allowed to use words not used on homestarrunner.com. However, the phrase would TECHNICALLY be allowed because it's used on homestarrunner.com. Now, this might sound very stupid, but, TBC have also used plenty of other swears. Therefore, I think we need a more detailed censoring policy. Bluebry 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that we've gotten this far without such a policy, and given that we don't currently have any concerns regarding toons or the like in front of us, I see no need to create a policy just because we don't have anything else to do right now. No one is seriously suggesting that because TBC made that phrase be part of the game, then we should suddenly allow it outside of this page. I think we should just continue to use good common sense as we have to this point. — It's dot com 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to mention to those that think TBC's use of the phrase "what the fuck" in the game would imply that they are "condoning" cuss words in their toons (and via our rule of thumb perhaps in our wiki) is an incorrect assumption. TBC have always been careful in what language they explicitly include in their toons. However their inclusion of the phrase WTF is a very subtly hidden one, one I don't believe is meant to be found by any means (even though we've had evidence of the contrary in other toons). There are only three ways to find this "egg": 1. type it yourself 2. read it on the wiki (once you get past the censorship warnings) or 3. decompile the program and examine the code in detail. All but the third one (maybe even that one) imply a mature audience that knows what they're typing or trying to type. This is in no way some hidden concession allowing cuss words explicitly in their work. I just wanted to get that out of my chest. --Stux 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CANNOT be validated

I discovered that, on the page, the following code is present in the green alert box:


<div style="margin: 0 auto; background:#0C0; color:#FFF; padding:1em; width:500px; border:none; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:125%;line-height:160%;">THE FOLLOWING <span style="font-size:140%;">ARTICLE</span> HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR<br /> <p><span style="font-size:140%;"><i>CERTAIN</i> AUDIENCES</span> <br />BY SOME PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT'S BEST</span> <br /> IT BE RATED </p>

Now, if you can sort through this, anyone with knowledge of HTML can see that something is wrong: a block level tag, <p>, is inside another block level tag, <div>. This is not something I can simply overwrite; WikiMedia's code automatically installs a paragraph element. I have discovered no way to remove it. If it is truly irremovable, the only valid solution is to make an image of the warning label and upload it. If, however, someone else knows how to rectify this, please do so. I'd appreciate it greatly.· · T2|Things 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got it to validate, though the code is certainly sloppy. However, I don't know how else to fix it, so it'll have to do.· · T2|Things 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
<p> within <div> should not be a problem, that's done all the time. Let me look at it. UPDATE - well, now that it validates there's nothing to see. But the nested paragraph was not the issue, I'm sure. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 13:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freakin

Seeing as how "freakin" is widely used on the website, TBC must not consider it swearing any worse than crap. --Jnelson09 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's listed in one place as an example of Homestar's "foul mouth", but I believe TBC were being their good ol' tongue-in-cheek selves when they labeled that part of the particular toon. (That is, it's listed on the page because they're talking about his foul mouth, not for the words that he actually says.) — It's dot com 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Trey56 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thing in a bag

Bubs and homestar say "friggin' awesome" in lookin' at a thing in a bag

[edit] Is "frig" a swear?

I was looking over this page, and I found the following two entries:

  • In Strong Sad's Lament one of his emotions is "the frig?", as in "what the frig?".
  • Email hygiene — Gene's refrigerator's brand name is "Fridgin' A" - a euphemism of the phrase "Frigging A".

I don't think either one should be on this page, since "frig" is hardly a swear. Yes, it's a very mild substitute for "fuck", but if we note mild euphemisms like this, why shouldn't we note every appearance of or reference to "darn", etc.? It's just not notable, in my opinion. Trey56 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If 'darn' isn't listed, neither should 'frig' (or any variant thereof) be. ~ CoachZ(talk · contribs)~ 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hell

Erm... I never considered "Hell" to be a swear... but it clearly states, "Bubs makes a helluva snowcone." Um... user:haldo

Where hell is not used to refer to the place of fire and brimstone, it is often considered swearing. Thus, the line you've mentioned can be considered a swear, but Old-Timey SB's "I've gone to hell" should not be considered one. Heimstern Läufer 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SBCG4AP

Kicking The Cheat into the dryer, then talking to him will result in a long string of The Cheat noises, to which Strong Bad replies, "Do you kiss your hot mom with that mouth?!"

While I don't think that could specifically mean a swear, the Nuisance Trophy is in the shape of a cartoon swear. Additionally, at one point, when talking to (and annoying) Homestar, he will spout gibberish that the subtitles will render as cartoon swears. --DorianGray 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
the correct link would be to hot moms... — Defender1031*Talk 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Although it could just refer to really ugly speech (but not profanity), I think it's reasonable to go ahead and include it on the page. — It's dot com 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I always thought SB's "AK" was his ass kicker. 68.73.102.185 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The House that Gave Sucky Treats

I can't believe they forgot the most obvious swear appearance. At the end of THTGST, Strong Sad talks about an emo house yadda yadda yadda, and says d**nation. Why hasn't anyone put this up? I would put it up, but I'm not sure how to word it...

"When the characters are talking at the end, Strong Sad mentions a house of 'd**nation'"? I'm not sure... --Pretztailfan95 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnation, in that context, is not a swear. --DorianGray 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I consider it a swear. ^_^;; Heh, I guess it's not the same for everyone else lol. --Pretztailfan95 05:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. it's about context. If i say "go to hell", that's a swear. If i say "Hell is a place where dead people go" it's not. — Defender1031*Talk 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean I misunderstood? --Pretztailfan95 15:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That's what i just said. — Defender1031*Talk 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] strong swear lament

When he posted about so good about tuesdays he said thank god it's tuesday User:TwO 2 bReAdS iN a BiScUt

Um, what? JCM 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain to us all why the phrase, "Thank God It's Tuesday at Three-Oh-Two" would be considered an instance swearing. It's not even blasphemy. Are we going to start stoning anyone who says the word "Jehovah" now? – The Chort 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've seen at least one other instance that has been used. JCM 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crudfully

Is it notable that SB makes a big deal of the latest emailer using crud as a substitute for crap, even though crap is a relatively mild word? -132.183.138.174 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete? Again?

I really dont see the purpose of this page. Plus it kinda violates policy right? Yes this has happened before. Espemon333 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what the disclaimer's for. As for the purpose of this page: to document the usages of profanity, which is of particular interest on a site that doesn't typically use it. Keep. Heimstern Läufer 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is obvious. The policy violation is an exception. The opinion is keep. The Homestar Runner is a terrific athlete. — Defender1031*Talk 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Many of the uses of profanity are unusual or indirect. Keep. StarFox 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
What they said. Poughkeepsie. --DorianGray 03:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Swears are unusual for the site, and should be listed where they do occur. Keep. That'sBupkis! 10:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Intentional or not, it is notable for there to be swears in a body of work that usually avoids them. .llikskeeP DEI DAT VMdatvm center\super contra 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has become entrenched over the last three years. Its inclusion was settled long ago. The wiki has not changed such that the question needs to be revisited at this time. (If anything, we're more permissive than we were back then.) I'm removing the TBD. — It's dot com 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another thing

I thought Homestar Runner was supposed to be for all ages. - Black Homestar

It is for all ages. Most of the items on this page are allusion to swears, not the real thing themselves. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a common misconception that it's for all ages. The humor seems geared more toward college kids, especially the earlier Strong Bad stuff. For whatever reason TBC just keep it mostly—but not completely—clean. — It's dot com
I think it comes down to what you mean by "for all ages". It's not geared for all ages; it's mainly targetted at the young adult demographic. It is, however, appropriate for pretty much all ages, which is what we're generally getting at when we discuss swears. Heimstern Läufer 08:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised they got away with that stuff.
They put those swears in the toons as "subliminal messages". If they said it's for all ages, there was no need of them to put swears in cartoons. Black Homestar 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally think the series is aimed toward guys of college age and above. A toon like South Park would seem like something for that demographic. HSR's humor seems more comparable to that of an average Cartoon Network show, for enjoyment by teens and such, but it probably isn't appropriate for young children. JCM 22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] frickin sellout

Does Strong Sad calling the Geddup Noise a "frickin sellout" count? StarFox 03:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a euphemism. It might deserve a mention on Freaking. — It's dot com 04:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools