Parents’ Guide - Profanity

@Bethanny​  I appreciate your effort, but I feel this has become an unnecessary battle.

My recent experience suggests there are two things being rejected repeatedly. The word ‘nigger’ and the idea of paedophile priests.

These are two of the most offensive things we can encounter. It is one of the nastiest words when used as an insult, and should be gradually disappearing from our language as more enlightened children come along, and sexual abuse of children is one of the worst things for a parent to have to contemplate.

Let’s not forget, this is a “Parents’ Guide” - parents should be front and centre of the target audience. I have felt for some time that IMDb has list its way, but to refuse to warn parents of something so offensive (truly ‘profane’ in the case of abusive priests) is shameful.

@silvio_mitsubishi​ I understand. In any case I feel f-word or n-word is something easy for anyone to understand, if it stays as is it is still useful.

Thanks!

@Bethanny​ But it us simply not true. At no point in the script does “… the ‘f-word’” appear. Characters simply do not say it. And when the ‘b-word’ is the subject…? Bitch, bum, bollocks, bugger, bastard, …? (Apologies, but this has my hackles raised).

There is a chance that euphemisms do not register with viewers scanning for words they find offensive - even creating associations with family films where the euphemisms are actually used - which risks parents inadvertently exposing children to material they find offensive or corrupting. If I deliberately expose my child to unsuitable material, it can be an arrestable offence here in UK, and often leads to child protection investigations. Introducing children to adult material is a method used by child groomers to prepare them for worse.

…. yet IMDb are willing to hide seriously nasty material, for what? Who benefits?

And I don’t need to ask who benefits from paedophile priests being protected from exposure. I know this is not about ignoring genuine abuse, but removing references to it help hide the existence of dangerous adults, usually with privileged access to children. 

It's a "guide" though, not a transcript.

@mbmb​  That suggests there is no reason to allow free text to be submitted; the guide could simply consist of yes / no tickboxes.

The problem with this is that some things are only offensive to certain groups. Religious terms are one example. I have no problem whatsoever with teenagers saying ‘OMG’, while some consider it blasphemous.

Other words have specific meanings according to context. In a documentary about dog-breeding, for example, the word ‘bitch’ would not have abusive connotations; indeed, it would be extremely odd if it did NOT appear. Imagine if the only option here were “Profanity: yes / no”?

I you want to see how subjective parents’ guide is, take a look at entries for films aimed at young children. Yesterday I read the guide for the animated Anastasia. It us longer and fuller than the entry for many ‘adult’ films, a nod to its intended audience’s sensitivities.

if I bought a guide to a city I was visiting for the first time and needed to find emergency services, I would be extremely dissatisfied to find an entry that simply said “Fire, police and ambulance services can be found”.

Finally (for now), try to think how you might feel if you missed out on a great storyteller it later found the ‘violence’ you chose to avoid was this: