[HN Gopher] Cuss: Map of profane words to a rating of sureness
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cuss: Map of profane words to a rating of sureness
        
       Author : tosh
       Score  : 52 points
       Date   : 2025-05-31 10:18 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | CSMastermind wrote:
       | It's certainly an interesting data set, though it has no concept
       | of severity. As far as I can tell, "doodoo" is the same as some
       | racial slurs: we're 100% certain they're bad words.
        
         | swah wrote:
         | If I type the word 'doodoo' I'm pretty sure I'm not swearing...
         | Most probably telling someone about baby sounds.
        
           | mdaniel wrote:
           | oh, it's about baby _something_ but that sentence didn 't end
           | the way I thought it would
        
           | kps wrote:
           | Baby shark, shitshitshit.
           | 
           | Baby shark, shitshitshit.
           | 
           | Baby shark!
           | 
           | https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/06/oklaho.
           | ..
        
       | Blackarea wrote:
       | Could have been in a language agnostic format (eg. csv)
        
         | weinzierl wrote:
         | I think the value add here is being a software package. The
         | lists exist elsewhere and the package authors supplied sources.
         | If you really need a combined list it should be trivial to
         | generate it from the code.
        
       | blueflow wrote:
       | Typical cuss filter UX:
       | 
       |  _types something in live chat_
       | 
       |  _some random word from the sentence gets censored out_
       | 
       | "Why did this just got censored out?"
       | 
       |  _check urban disctionary_
       | 
       | "Why?????"
       | 
       | Bonus points if its regular ethnonyms that are classified as
       | profanities, so people from that place are having big trouble to
       | tell where they are from.
        
         | donatj wrote:
         | I have vivid memories of Digg back in the day censoring out
         | absolutely baffling things in the middle of otherwise regular
         | words.
        
           | genewitch wrote:
           | Go gently caress yourself
        
             | DrillShopper wrote:
             | That was Something Awful unless you were logged in
        
           | sgerenser wrote:
           | Wow, how embarrbutting
        
       | PaulHoule wrote:
       | Was really amused to see that a paper had English's most
       | prominent profane word in it's abstract on arXiv last month for
       | the first time:
       | 
       | https://arxiv.org/search/?query=fuck&searchtype=all&source=h...
       | 
       | though somebody did slip in a use in a comment earlier.
        
       | donatj wrote:
       | Something we have had to deal with in managing educational
       | software with a writing aspect is trying to manage what is
       | offensive to who, in what context and where is not universal at
       | all.
       | 
       | One of the most prime examples, at one point a number of terms
       | related to homosexuality had made it onto the list at the request
       | of a larger district. These are also terms that are being
       | reclaimed, and it was... a difficult problem to try to satisfy
       | everyone, and it did upset other districts. I believe their
       | patterns were all but removed eventually.
       | 
       | We have a fought over the list of definitions and every change
       | provoked controversy. Our current solution is just that we mark
       | items for teacher review but don't tell them why. We don't say
       | they are offensive, we don't say what the problematic words are.
       | We just say it might need review. That's worked pretty well so
       | far.
       | 
       | All this is to say, policing speech is a problem best avoided.
        
         | morkalork wrote:
         | I worked in completely different field and I had to give up on
         | flagging any variations of "shit". Turns out there's working-
         | class boomers will utter some form or another in every other
         | sentence. Nothing harmful just like "my brother is full of
         | horse shit", "my job is bullshit".
        
           | bee_rider wrote:
           | "Shit" is pretty good because it is crass but not offensive
           | (in the sense that it doesn't target any particular group).
           | And of course it describes a lot of what's happening
           | nowadays.
        
           | gherkinnn wrote:
           | Shitty to limit the use of shit to working-class boomers.
        
           | kps wrote:
           | I'm post-boomer, but let me tell you, shit's still fucked.
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | Unfortunately, whether or not a term is really offensive is a
         | combination of what it is, who said it, and when/where (at
         | least in the common-sense definition). Unfortunately, because
         | this is directly opposed to our (at least in the US, and in
         | most countries rooted in liberalism) sense of fairness which
         | says that rules should be applicable universally, across all
         | people and in all contexts.
         | 
         | Which is to say... policing speech is a problem best avoided!
        
           | DrillShopper wrote:
           | > Unfortunately, because this is directly opposed to our (at
           | least in the US, and in most countries rooted in liberalism)
           | sense of fairness which says that rules should be applicable
           | universally, across all people and in all contexts.
           | 
           | The US is not even internally consistent about this - the
           | legal definition of obscenity in the US is deferential to
           | local community standards.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | There's internal inconsistency because different
             | communities have different special issues that get us to
             | violate our basic principles.
        
       | weinzierl wrote:
       | Good to know that _" This package is safe."_
       | 
       | When it comes to security, the only thing that beats warm fuzzy
       | words are shiny security seals.
        
       | mdaniel wrote:
       | I legit thought this said "... rating of _success_ " meaning how
       | likely the project was to be successful on some metric based on
       | the profane words therein. I recall there was a study(?) akin to
       | that for the Linux kernel, as a frame of reference
        
         | genewitch wrote:
         | Was it something like FPC where the PC was per commit?
        
       | smitelli wrote:
       | Never realized the "chunky" in my chunky peanut butter was so
       | profane. /s
        
       | tgv wrote:
       | Where does the rating come from? Do you understand what all those
       | words mean? It looks like you copied someone's rather subjective
       | opinion. Because e.g. "bollo" and "caliente" aren't inherently
       | profane in Spanish. Or do people think the hot water tap is
       | leering at them? "Oye, tia, que caliente qu'et-ta!"
        
       | pimlottc wrote:
       | "Sureness" is a not really a word, I had to read through to
       | understand what they meant. "Certainty" or "confidence" would be
       | clearer.
        
         | articulatepang wrote:
         | Sureness is most certainly a word! It has been used by writers
         | of the stature of Emerson ("the law holds with equal sureness
         | for all right action") and Edith Wharton (""The moment the
         | reader loses faith in the author's sureness of foot the chasm
         | of improbability gapes.")
         | 
         | It used to mean "certainty", as when T. H. Howard writes,
         | "Uncertainty about our religious condition is quite as
         | unsatisfactory as any doubt about our most sacred domestic
         | relationships. Sureness is vital to peace, and the truly
         | sanctified soul will live in the region of certainty."
         | 
         | But in more modern usage the word has a connotation slightly
         | different from what the author of this library intends. Its
         | meaning is closer to "assuredness": confidence matched with
         | ability. For example, "Proust had an incredible sureness of
         | touch in shedding this prophetic ray on his characters." (again
         | from Edith Wharton).
        
           | pimlottc wrote:
           | Point taken. It's not really a common word in modern usage,
           | and probably not really the word the author wants here.
        
       | bitcurious wrote:
       | Based on a list of (in part) profane words which includes:
       | 
       | addict africa amateur american angry arab
        
         | Aachen wrote:
         | I assume this is meant as criticism, but to be fair to the
         | list, it classifies 5 out of these 6 as 0, which apparently
         | means {Use as a profanity = unlikely, Use in clean text =
         | likely}, and the 6th one (addict) is a 'maybe' on both scales
         | which seems fair to me: wouldn't a respectful source speak of
         | addict _ion_ , addict _ive_ substances, people who are addict
         | _ed_ , etc.?
         | 
         | From just this short list and a handful of other words I looked
         | at, they seem to have done a reasonable job of classifying
         | them, even if I see other issues such as completeness and what
         | even is the purpose
        
       | jollyllama wrote:
       | "Beaver" unlikely to be used in profanity, eh?
        
         | Night_Thastus wrote:
         | Pretty unlikely. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone
         | use it aside from talking about the actual animal it refers to.
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | It is a bit dated as slang in 2025.
        
         | bsimpson wrote:
         | I caught that too. Interesting set of examples. I can think of
         | a profane use of beaver immediately, but not a unvalenced use
         | of "asshat."
        
           | brookst wrote:
           | I think it was an intentional and good example to demonstrate
           | that 0 means unlikely, not impossible.
        
       | Aachen wrote:
       | It seems to require specifying all spelling variants of a word
       | https://github.com/words/cuss/blob/6bab3fef250481e34ba55bc40...
       | 
       | And then fails to do that for words that are not uncommonly
       | written with a space
       | https://github.com/words/cuss/blob/6bab3fef250481e34ba55bc40...
       | 
       | Making this a complete list will probably be a challenge when it
       | needs to be a byte-for-byte match
        
       | thuanao wrote:
       | Somewhat related: What is with the rampant cursing nowadays? In
       | the US people are openly saying f-word in professional settings,
       | in public to strangers or acquaintances, in writing and video...
       | seemingly everywhere even in calm normal conversations.
       | 
       | I don't remember it being like this decades ago. Is it just me? I
       | remember people used to curse only in private conversation, when
       | angry, and never at the office in meetings and professional
       | contexts.
        
         | SamBam wrote:
         | Yeah, there's been a pretty big generational shift, I think
         | mostly from GenZ. I'd posit that texting/social media may be a
         | reason.
         | 
         | I first went to grad school ~20 years ago, and no one cursed in
         | class, especially not the professors.
         | 
         | I recently went back to school and got another masters, and
         | nearly all the mid-20-year-olds drop f-bombs in regular
         | classroom talk to the professor constantly, like they don't
         | even hear that they're doing it. Some professors don't mind,
         | and even respond in kind (though much more self-consciously),
         | some are clearly displeased, but the students barely notice.
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | Yes it's particularly prevalent in the under-30 crowd, and
           | especially people under 25. I don't know about teens, not
           | around them very much these days.
           | 
           | Don't get me wrong, I used that word plenty when I was that
           | age, but only among peers in informal settings. Never at work
           | or when talking to a person in a respected position.
        
         | bigstrat2003 wrote:
         | It's not just you, and I would say that there seems to have
         | been a general coarsening of society. The other day I saw
         | someone with a bumper sticker saying "I pooped today", which I
         | did find funny, but I reflected that it never would've been
         | socially acceptable 30 years ago or so. People seem to have
         | rejected the idea that some things are not acceptable to
         | discuss or display openly. See for example "let your freak flag
         | fly" and so on.
         | 
         | There are pros and cons to it, I suppose. I don't think it's
         | bad for gay people to be out of the closet, for example. But I
         | also find stuff like the rampant swearing* or "I pooped today"
         | to be a bit troubling as I get older and think "man I wouldn't
         | want my kids to learn it's ok to talk like that".
         | 
         | * not casting stones, I have a very strong swearing habit
         | myself that I try to curb. It's hard.
        
         | BrandoElFollito wrote:
         | Maybe because this is how people communicate?
         | 
         | I am French and when I speak English I use fuck when someone
         | fucked up. I also say sex when people are, well, fucking.
         | 
         | The f* _k, g**_ y, m***ly and others are childish.
        
       | SamBam wrote:
       | I'm confused as to the purpose of all the zeros. Since this is
       | far, far from a complete list of all English words, what's the
       | difference between a word not being on the list vs a word being a
       | zero?
       | 
       | I can kind of see "was this a word they considered and scored,
       | vs. not considered?" when trying to assess whether the project is
       | comprehensive, but from a programming standpoint, it just seems
       | like it's going to have a lot of useless overhead, since by the
       | time I'm looking up the word I don't care whether it's a zero or
       | a miss.
       | 
       | (I also find the scoring of "2" for many of the words to be
       | weird, like "yank," "chug," "looser" etc. as they can all have
       | perfectly normal meanings.)
        
       | AriedK wrote:
       | Helpful tool for car makers.
       | 
       | Would have probably saved them from the Mitsibishi Pajero, Ford
       | Pinto, Mazda Laputa
       | 
       | Downside is, it doesn't analyze phonetics afaict. The hebrew
       | Volkswagen Beetle (Hipushit) would have passed as fine.
        
       | Fnoord wrote:
       | The Dutch word 'kunt' (je kunt = you can) gets censored in WoW
       | because of 'cunt'. That is, if you have mature language filter
       | on. I have this on because I have no interest in raging kids in
       | said game, but I do want to read simple, common Dutch words.
       | Annoys me to this day. CS gave the obvious answer (WONTFIX, with
       | obvious workaround disabling the mature language filter
       | altogether). It could be solved easily by looking at context
       | instead of simple blacklisting. I connect from a Dutch IPv4. I
       | sometimes talk Dutch. The same would be true for the other
       | endpoint.
        
       | kps wrote:
       | I am reminded of the late great Eudora, a Mac mail program. Late
       | versions would flag 'offensive' terms in both outgoing and
       | incoming messages. A hidden option setting would cause it to
       | _read aloud_ all flagged text.
        
       | carlos-menezes wrote:
       | Nit: why is Portuguese named "European Portuguese"? If anything,
       | the language spoken in Brazil should be called "American
       | Portuguese".
        
         | HelloMcFly wrote:
         | I think in this case volume wins out in that over 90% of
         | Portuguese speakers are Brazilian Portuguese speakers. If
         | anything it may one day just become "Portuguese" and "European
         | Portuguese".
        
           | dmurray wrote:
           | At that time, we will have niche dialects "American English"
           | and "British English". "English" will be identified with the
           | variety spoken in India. Please kindly do the needful good
           | sir.
        
           | carlos-menezes wrote:
           | We might as well say European Spanish when referring to the
           | language that originated in the Iberian Peninsula.
        
       | BrandoElFollito wrote:
       | These articles always remind me of some code for particle physics
       | simulations. It was full of variables called anal_this and
       | anal_that (because analysis).
       | 
       | Someone put a comment "stop calling variables ANAL!!! This is
       | physics not an orgy!!!!"
       | 
       | I may have a copy on a disquette somewhere :)
        
       | thih9 wrote:
       | Do we know how exactly are these certainty ratings determined?
       | 
       | Edit: seems like it's all arbitrary? E.g. in a PR[1] I saw random
       | new words get added with no explanation of why a certain rating
       | gets assigned.
       | 
       | [1]: https://github.com/words/cuss/pull/43/files (nsfw too).
        
       | BrandoElFollito wrote:
       | I had a look at the French ones.
       | 
       | 1/4 is normal everyday cussing
       | 
       | 1/4 is cussing when the team is losing, but there are children
       | around
       | 
       | 1/4 are from the 17th century and I had a good laugh
       | 
       | 1/4 are useful when driving
       | 
       | 3 are actually bad (just an estimation :)).
       | 
       | The thing with French is that the cussing is quickly funny.
        
       | GuB-42 wrote:
       | Looked at french words, most have a rating of 2 (mostly profane)
       | even for words that are not profane at all (ex: envoyer => send),
       | words that have a profane second meaning, but their non-profane
       | meaning is also in common use (ex: morue => cod). Also "retard"
       | just means "delay", I have never heard it used as profanity,
       | maybe in Quebec? ("retard" in English would translate to
       | "attarde" in French)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-02 23:01 UTC)