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 addiction, addictive substances, people who are addicted, 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
Maybe it's because of dialects of English I'm less familiar with, but I don't see how these (all classified as "1") are more likely to be profanity than "beaver" (classified as "0")
Aachen|9 months ago
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
aidenn0|9 months ago
- abortion
- abuse
- addict
- addicts