What happened to the "-slur" keywords?

That thread was about keywords that are in themselves slurs. Bradley is referring to keywords that end in -slur.

But Bradley should specify which keywords he is missing. I currently see these keywords in a search:

Perhaps the contributor(s) in question think it is better to be more precise. There are plenty of keywords like calling-someone-a-piece-of-shit, etc.

BUT... the "calling-someone-" or "character-says-" keywords were supposed to all be eliminated. I remember submitting deletions of thousands of these kinds of bad keywords (some that I had even originally submitted), which possible belonged in the Quotations section and not Keywords. The administration of keywords has become very weird.

@bradley_kent 

To mention just a few: vagina-slur, penis-slur, feces-slur (now, only one title), urine-slur (also, now, only one title), breasts-slur, testicles-slur, fellatio-slur, etc.

Can you provide specific examples of how those might qualify as "slurs?"

I will post all the definitions of the word "slur" below:

1. to pass over lightly or without due mention or consideration (often fol. by over): The report slurred over her contribution to the enterprise.
2. to pronounce (a syllable, word, etc.) indistinctly by combining, reducing, or omitting sounds, as in hurried or careless utterance.
3. to cast aspersions on; calumniate; disparage; depreciate: The candidate was viciously slurred by his opponent.
4. Music.
 a. to sing to a single syllable or play without a break (two or more tones of different pitch).
 b. to mark with a slur.
5. Chiefly Brit. Dial. to smirch, sully, or stain.
–v.i.
6. to read, speak, or sing hurriedly and carelessly.
–n.
7. a slurred utterance or sound.
8. a disparaging remark or a slight: quick to take offense at a slur.
9. a blot or stain, as upon reputation: a slur on his good name.
10. Music.
 a. the combination of two or more tones of different pitch, sung to a single syllable or played without a break.
 b. a curved mark indicating this.
11. Print. a spot that is blurred or unclear as a result of paper, plate, or blanket slippage.

It might be argued that those keywords you mention could fit the above-quoted definitions #3, #5, and #8 of "slur."

But I believe in the vast majority of cases they will not fit any of these definitions.

When a character uses the word "tits" in a movie to refer to breasts, they are not slurring (disparaging) someone's breasts. 

Same with the word "balls" for "testicles." That is almost never a slur.

These could qualify as profanities/cuss words/swear words, yes. They might be called euphemisms. And they would definitely qualify as slang. But they are not slurs.

In contrast, I assume that most of the other keywords on @Peter_pbn's list actually are slurs within the contexts of those titles.

For example, in America and other countries, certain words like "faggot" and "fruitcake" (and in an earlier era, "queer") are often used by characters as homophobic slurs. Hence the accurate keywords "gay-slur" and "homophobic-slur." 

And to provide another example that you and I have both discussed on this board, the term "chinaman" can be used as a slur against people of Asian heritage. If a character uses that word in a derogatory manner against another character, that would be an "asian-slur."

(In such contexts, these words are more likely to actually be relevant to the plot -- let's not forget that keywords are intended to primarily be plot keywords.)

But I'm just not seeing the same thing for words like "balls" and "tits" (assuming those would be examples of what the keywords "testicles-slur" and "breasts-slur" were intended to refer to). Same goes for words like "boobies," "jugs," "nuts," "cojones," etc.

To use another offensive term that you and I have previously discussed on this board, if a character says to a person of Asian heritage, "you have slit eyes," then that would be both an "eye-slur" and an "asian-slur."

Or maybe if a character says to another character "your balls are so tiny they're like Grape-Nuts," then that might qualify for the "testicles-slur" keyword. But the term would have to be used in a disparaging or pejorative sense for it to qualify as a "slur." (Here is an example of a character analogizing testicles to Grape-Nuts cereal in a non-disparaging way -- it is at about the 30-second mark on the video. In this example, "nuts" and "Grape-Nuts" are not slurs.) 

The bottom line is most of those keywords were probably being very much overused on IMDb. Not to mention the fact that there are other, more accurate and descriptive keywords for some of these, like "s-word" instead of "feces-slur."

And just to editorialize a bit, the mere fact that a certain word ("shit" or "shitty," for example) happens to be used by a character in a film is probably not, in and of itself, enough to make it worthy of adding it as a plot keyword. It might technically be within the guidelines to add such a keyword, but is it really a good idea to bog down the keyword section with practically every single word uttered by every character? There is a fine line between documenting words used in films and overdoing it to the point where it's spamming.

If a specific word is critical to the plot -- like if there is a specific discussion or argument within a movie about why a character said that word, or if a cuss word is repeated to hilarious effect, then it would absolutely be relevant as a plot keyword.

Other than that, most titles on IMDb have very thorough parental guide sections, which will sometimes even document each instance of a profanity. That is the best place for recording words like this.

I do happen to agree with you that the "character-says" keywords are bad. I see those keywords the same way as I see keywords like "f-word" and "s-word." If a specific word is highly relevant to the plot, then both the "character-says" and "f-word" keywords can make sense.  Otherwise people should resist the temptation to document every single little thing in a movie via the keywords.

Perhaps instead of these badly formed "-slur" keywords, people who really want to document every single time a word like this is used should instead be using keywords like "slang-for-breasts" or "slang-for-testicles" or "slang-for-feces" (or even a very specific keyword like "nuts-as-slang-for-testicles"). At least those keywords would be more accurate, even if still annoying.

@bradley_kent 

One final question. You said this:

BUT... the "calling-someone-" or "character-says-" keywords were supposed to all be eliminated.

Can you cite a thread where that decision was made? I tried searching but could not find anything of the sort. Instead, all I found was this thread, where Michelle made it clear that "character-says" keywords are within the guidelines.

Keyword Spam in "Infinitely Polar Bear" | IMDb Community Forums (sprinklr.com)

If it's true that the "character-says" keywords should be deleted, then there is a lot of deleting to be done!

Again, just to make my position clear, I think the "character-says" guidelines can be appropriate in very limited circumstances (when a particular line is vital to the plot and/or has some intrinsic value that transcends across titles), but people should be careful not to overuse these keywords. Personally I think they are overused as it is.

It was quite a few years ago.  It had gotten ridiculous with keywords like "character-says-hi."    If I remember the discussion correctly, it was thought that, if a quotation was important, it should be in the Quotations section and not in Keywords.  At any rate, thousand were deleted by many contributors, sometimes including over a hundred on just one title!  These deletions were (and are) being accepted by the staff.  By extension, "character-says-" could include possibly ANYTHING that a character or narrator says!  The entire script could then be converted into absurd "character-says-" keywords.

Unfortunately, keywords were becoming a "dumping ground" for many things.  This became most notable with the redesign (and reprogramming) where the Characters section was deleted, shifting  them into the "-character" addendum keywords.

Yes, keywords were originally intended to be just about plot, but they are also about many other things, including filmic and script devices:  "slow-motion-scene," "voice-over-narration," "freeze-frame," "scene-during-opening-credits," "prologue," "epilogue," and on and on.  The horrific "character-says-" keywords just "cluttered up" what was already an overcrowded  area, and that, yes, logically, occasionally just belonged in Quotations.

P.S. Please note that the list of remaining "character-says-" keywords have only one title.  You may be on the verge of opening a floodgate that could overwhelm Keywords.

@bradley_kent said:

P.S. Please note that the list of remaining "character-says-" keywords have only one title.  You may be on the verge of opening a floodgate that could overwhelm Keywords.

I'm not sure what point you're responding to there, or what point you're making. There are dozens of "character-says" keywords with more than one title. And don't forget the "calling-someone" keywords and the "character-calls" keywords and the "character-asks" keywords. I could probably go on -- that was just off the top of my head. 

But the point is, the floodgates are already open. As I said earlier, although keywords that quote or paraphrase what a character says may be within the guidelines, I also agree with you that these types of keywords are being overused. 

Regardless, I doubt anything I say on this message board is likely to open any floodgates further.

@bradley_kent said:

they are still a "slur" -- a disparagement, an offense, a lessening, a ridiculing, an insult. 

Not really. Words like this are not inherently pejorative. It truly depends on the context in which they are used, and in particular whether they are intended as an insult. To call words like "tits" and "balls" and "shitty" and "pussy" inherent disparagements any time they are used would be to devalue the meaning of the word "slur." 

By that logic, contributors could start adding keywords like "vomit-slur" for a character who says someone "blew chunks," or "dog-slur" for "mutt" or "mongrel," or "toddler-slur" for referring to a child as an "ankle biter," or "torture-slur" when a character uses the euphemism "enhanced interrogation," or "death-slur" when a character says someone "kicked the bucket." Some of these are crude. Some are slang. Some are euphemisms. But none are true slurs.

Anything to do with ethnicity, nationality, religion or race is a "slur," but to some it is "slang."  Anything to do with sex or bodily functions is "slang," but to some it is also a "slur."

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. The point here is not whether "anything" to do with these things is slang or slurs. The question is whether these words are being used as insults. Only then would they properly be deemed slurs. And if someone believes that any time these words are used, they are insults, that person is probably so sensitive as to be "abnormal" (to use one of our fellow top contributor's favorite words).

If "anything to do with sex or bodily functions" were a slur, then every word and phrase like "making love" and "hooking up" would be a "sex-slur," while "powder room" and "water closet" would be a "lavatory-slur" and "going to the bathroom" would be a "defecation-slur" and/or "urination-slur." The slippery slope would quickly lead to such absurd results. 

And back to your original point that any euphemism or word or phrase that somehow disparages or lessens the thing being euphemized (or is somehow offensive) makes it a slur, then how about when a character calls "shotgun" to reserve the passenger seat in a car? Would that be a "passenger-seat-slur?" After all, it could be argued that the phrase disparages or lessens the concept of sitting in the passenger seat, or could offend someone. 

What if a character says "I am absolutely gutted by that news." Would "gutted" be an "extremely-upset-slur?"

If a character says "I drank too much last night, I was so pissed," would "pissed" be an "intoxication-slur?"

The list could go on and on. At some point, common sense should prevail: the word "slur" should be reserved for situations where one character is leveling an insult or pejorative, usually at another character.

I am apparently one of those "abnormal," "so sensitive" people that finds the use of a "slang" word as an insult to be, indeed, a "slur."

While they may not be "inherently pejorative," a "slang" word used to objectify or commodify a person or thing, IS -- and it is, therefore, a "slur."

Any word could potentially be a "slur," depending, yes, upon context and subtext.

You seem to be attempting to apply the "-slur" addendum to extreme situations where it has no relevance, therein approaching a point of absolute absurdity.

I am, once again, only talking about ethnicity, nationality, religion or race, and sex or bodily functions.  These are usually not just "slang," but intentional "slurs" that dehumanize and disenfranchise their subject.

@bradley_kent 

It might help your case if you could point to some real-world examples of words like "tits," "cock," "balls," "pussy," "shit," etc. being referred to or described as "slurs," even when they are not being used as insults against another person.

Are there any linguists, writers, critics, or similar experts who have used the word "slur" in this context? I tried searching for that myself but came up empty-handed.

Instead, all I cound find was this list, which includes some of those words as slurs, but only when they are actually being used as an insult: 

List of Insults - insult.wiki

If a character in a movie uses one of these words to insult another character, then I could see that being a slur, but it would be a generic "slur," not a "vagina-slur" or "penis-slur."

Also, there are plenty of situations in movies where characters use these words without making an insult -- for example, when characters use these words to refer to their own genitalia. In those contexts, these words are definitely not slurs.