@problemofficer To what extent of vulgar language is acceptable in this site? Since some vulgar language is somehow a vivid aspect of a language.

@problemofficer Umm... what?

Upvoted for intelligent handling of words that should not be typed out (especially on a public site like this).

This might be cultural problem but this is a site for adults. We are talking about the use of language in a factual manner. If you are suggesting a term then also write that term in its full version. It is what it is. You censoring it comes across like a six year old being afraid to say a bad word because his mummy will send him to timeout.

@problemofficer Or, is censoring the vulgar word may come across as a mature adult who does not see a need to gratuitously offend others, like a 13 year old who says vulgar words and giggles hysterically.

Upvoted because not everyone has a sh**y attitude like Problem. (and it's a good answer)

@problemofficer if he had spelt it out, someone would have downvoted the answerer for doing so.

@WernerCD a shiny attitude??

Let's not disparage the word shit. It has a long history of legitimate use; e.g., "I dyde shyte thre grete toordes. Fables of Aesop, Caxton Translation, Vol.15, 1484" (with thanks to Kathleen Meyer, author of the book How to Shit in the Woods [1989], now in its third edition [2011] with more than 2.5 million copies sold in seven languages worldwide, and used and recommended by rangers of the U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, as well as scout troops, outdoor schools and individuals who seek to improve their field hygiene.)

@TOOGAM In titles, words that can reasonably be expected to cause offence (e.g. swear words) should be bowdlerised since they can end up in HNQ, which are shown on all sites. In questions and answers, however, network policy is that when discussing a word, that word should be written clearly—regardless of whether it is offensive or not. The blanket notion that words like shit “should not be typed out” is, quite frankly, ludicrous and has no place here. Being rude or offensive towards someone is never acceptable here, but mentioning a word under discussion always is.

In the military it is quite common in some areas to refer to 4S for Shit, Shower, Shave & Shine (your boots).

@JanusBahsJacquet "regardless of whether it is offensive". This phrasing demonstrates a stance of not caring about offending. What "has no place here" are certain words where their very usage is known to be disrespectful to many members of the general public, and the reason that has no place here is that "here" is in the general public. As we are all aware of the rules taught and better practiced by ancestral generations, the fact you managed to refer to an inappropriately contrary rule doesn't place your position in a more right status.

@TOOGAM You’re quite simply factually wrong. You’re perfectly welcome to avoid referring to swear words, but you have no right to dictate that others refrain from doing so. That is censorship, and it is both explicitly not allowed here and also a lot more offensive and inappropriate than writing out a particular string of characters. Also note that when I said “whether it is offensive”, the it I referred to is the word itself, not its usage. Offensive behaviour is not tolerated here, but academic discussion of words—**all** words—is encouraged.

Shag shower shave?

@ViktorMellgren : While I strongly favor such an alternative, I'm not quite familiar with "Shag" having the same meaning. A quick Google of Shag led to Wikipedia page on Shag which gave several meanings, none of which match the word it seems you may be trying to avoid. Worse, the Wikipedia page does identify the word as "a British slang term for sexual intercourse", which I doubt the military has prescribed as a daily routine that is required before shaving.

@Janus : You are choosing what should be censored, and choosing something known to offend much of (mostly older) society. A group doesn't get to just ignore certain national laws just because they have an internal bylaw that says they wish to be exempt. Likewise, EL&U doesn't successfully avoid being offensive, violating the known public decency rule, just because a policy writer cites different goals. I'd really love to hear how I am "simply factually wrong", but I suggest a chat channel would be a more appropriate location to continue. (I'm not sure how to make a linked chat... do you know?)