On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Alexander Pánek <alexander.panek@brainsware.org> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)
>>
>> There are no parens about it.  It's either Belgian or it's not beer.  :D
>
> Riiiight. What about Austrian, Polish and Czech beer? Those are AWESUM.

OFINE.  They're good too.  Mr. Pánek, whatever a-tilde upside-down-bang means.

Alexander Pánek wrote:
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>> I can't take it any more!
> 
> Shouldn’t it be “anymore” or “any longer”? ;P

Not no-how, not no-way.

Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.
> 
> Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.
> 
> If you've really gone through what I have and weren't affected, then I guess you're just a better person than I.
> 

If you are surrounded by people who hate you, they don't have to say anything to have a horrible effect on you. The words are an expression of an intent, and the intent is what affects you. Or sometimes words will have no ill intent but will sufficiently remind you of situations in which they would that they cause a similar effect.

When superdan swears, he obviously has no ill intent. If it still offends, then good luck with your problems.

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> 
>> Sure, words can be used in ways that can harm, but the harm doesn't come
>> from the words themselves. I can do hurtful things that involve words
>> without ever going near profanity. For example, go up to someone who is
>> insecure about their acne and use these particular words: "I'm surprised you
>> are willing to show that face in public." Of course, one could argue that
>> this particular *combination* of words is profane, but even that's not true:
>> I could recite that exact same arrangement to a good friend with a good
>> sense of humor, or to a mask-painter who's unveiling a piece from a private
>> collection they had previously been very secretive about. Same arrangement,
>> same words, different acceptability-levels. Conversely, I can use profanity
>> in a way that doesn't harm anyone. "Oh, fuck, I almost overslept." Words
>> like "that" can be used in ways that are highly offensive, and words like
>> "fuck" can be used in ways that are completely benign - any word can be used
>> either way. So clearly, the words themselves can't be inherently good or
>> bad.
> 
> Ok, so sounds like you've decided that swearing like a sailor is
> perfectly A-OK as long as no harm is intended.   But here's the deal
> for me.  I, probably like many others, spent the first 18 years of my
> life having my parents and teachers tell me that that was wrong.  So
> no matter what you say, my "whoa that's wrong!" sensors go off every
> time I hear a profanity.  It's maybe like watching someone break in

This is true for a majority of people, I think. We aren't just /taught/ from a young age that certain words are bad, it's hammered into us. I still would never say "shit" in front of my grandmother.


> line -- even a line you're not standing in.  You see it, and your
> "that's just not right" sensors start going off.  It's not a great
> harm, no, but it brings about an elevated level of stress.  Or
> watching someone kick a puppy.   Or in another way it's like sitting
> in a restaurant where people are smoking.  To the other smokers in the
> room it probably seems like a pleasant environment but to most
> non-smokers it is very annoying and something that is hard to ignore.
> 
> So maybe you say, that's your problem, get over it.  Maybe so, but I
> don't really want to get over it.  There's no real redeeming value in
> casual swearing.  I don't believe society is any better off with
> everyone swearing at each other than it is with everyone being polite
> and respectful.  If I could choose my world to live in, I'd definitely
> choose the latter over the former.  I see no value in trying to push
> the envelope there, like South Park does.   Which is a bummer because
> South Park has some really funny stuff underneath all that cursing.
> But I just can't enjoy it.  I enjoy it much more when people tell me
> what happened in an episode without using all the swearing.  :-)
> 
> Maybe all this makes me some kind of freak outlier far to the right of
> current societal norms, but so far I don't see swearing becoming a big
> part of the nightly news or presidential addresses.  So I think it is
> still not considered proper to speak in that way by the majority of
> society.  What's really funny, though, is to meet people who have
> learned English primarily by watching American movies.  They seem to
> be under the impression that you need to put in a swear word every
> sentence or so in order to sound American.

The problem I have with the stigma on swearing is that people who find these words objectionable tend to replace them with other words that aren't so objectionable in order to get the same intent across. Nick mentioned this already. To me, it's an absurd practice.

Consider the case of insulting someone. If I were angry at someone and wanted to let them know what I thought of them, I might say one of the following:

"You're a piece of shit!" --> unacceptable
"You're a piece of crap!" --> acceptable to many, but the intent is same
"You're a piece of poo!" --> who would object to that?

My mother would not have scolded me had she heard me call someone a piece of poo. She would have admonished me for using "crap", since crap sounds dirtier to her than the cutesy poo. She would have slapped my face for saying "shit". But in all three cases the intent is the same. If I were wanting to insult someone, I would use the harshest word I could allow myself to use. In my case, I have no problem saying "shit", despite my upbringing. My mother would use "crap", because she thinks that's quite dirty enough to get the point across. My grandmother would use "poo", but it doesn't mean the emotion behind it is any less than mine or my mother's, or the intent any different.

What of the case of swearing in general, not /at/ someone? If I stub my toe, I might exclaim, "Fuck!" Someone nearby might be offended by that. So should I take that into consideration, check my natural reaction, and exclaim "Ouch!" instead? I say no. This really is the listener's problem, not the speaker's.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any swear word. Any perceived offense or insult behind the words themselves is a result of indoctrination by our parents and teachers. And when you really want to insult someone, non-swear words are no less vile than swear words. The intent behind the words is what matters most. Getting upset over the words themselves is just plain silliness.

That said, I admit to cringing every time I read superdan's posts. In my mind, I know it's ridiculous. But ideas forced on us in childhood are hard to let go of completely.



> 
> On the other hand I do *not* wish to impose my preferences on others
> by force.  I believe firmly in free speech.  You can say whatever you
> please.  But just do not do so under the delusion that what you say
> and how you say it has no affect on others.
> 
> --bb

Daniel de Kok Wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Alexander Pánek <alexander.panek@brainsware.org> wrote:
> > Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)
> >>
> >> There are no parens about it.  It's either Belgian or it's not beer.  :D
> >
> > Riiiight. What about Austrian, Polish and Czech beer? Those are AWESUM.
> 
> Then you never had Duvel or La Chouffe :).

Have you had a Budvar, Stiegl or any other of those beers yet?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mike Parker <aldacron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem I have with the stigma on swearing is that people who find these words objectionable tend to replace them with other words that aren't so objectionable in order to get the same intent across. Nick mentioned this already. To me, it's an absurd practice.
>
> Consider the case of insulting someone. If I were angry at someone and wanted to let them know what I thought of them, I might say one of the following:
>
> "You're a piece of shit!" --> unacceptable
> "You're a piece of crap!" --> acceptable to many, but the intent is same
> "You're a piece of poo!" --> who would object to that?
>
> My mother would not have scolded me had she heard me call someone a piece of poo. She would have admonished me for using "crap", since crap sounds dirtier to her than the cutesy poo. She would have slapped my face for saying "shit". But in all three cases the intent is the same. If I were wanting to insult someone, I would use the harshest word I could allow myself to use. In my case, I have no problem saying "shit", despite my upbringing. My mother would use "crap", because she thinks that's quite dirty enough to get the point across. My grandmother would use "poo", but it doesn't mean the emotion behind it is any less than mine or my mother's, or the intent any different.
>
> What of the case of swearing in general, not /at/ someone? If I stub my toe, I might exclaim, "Fuck!" Someone nearby might be offended by that. So should I take that into consideration, check my natural reaction, and exclaim "Ouch!" instead? I say no. This really is the listener's problem, not the speaker's.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with any swear word. Any perceived offense or insult behind the words themselves is a result of indoctrination by our parents and teachers. And when you really want to insult someone, non-swear words are no less vile than swear words. The intent behind the words is what matters most. Getting upset over the words themselves is just plain silliness.

Yes, to everything.  Exactly.  :D

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Mike Parker <aldacron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:

> The problem I have with the stigma on swearing is that people who find these words objectionable tend to replace them with other words that aren't so objectionable in order to get the same intent across. Nick mentioned this already. To me, it's an absurd practice.
>
> Consider the case of insulting someone. If I were angry at someone and wanted to let them know what I thought of them, I might say one of the following:
>
> "You're a piece of shit!" --> unacceptable
> "You're a piece of crap!" --> acceptable to many, but the intent is same
> "You're a piece of poo!" --> who would object to that?

The problem I have is that if you decide they're all equal, what do you say when you've really reached your limit and are totally on the edge?   You've turned it up all the way to 11 just by default already, so where can you go from there?  Nowhere really.   You've severely limited your capacity for dynamic range.  Just like the crapily-produced music these days with compression turned all the way up all the time to make it sound "louder".  But the irony is that if everything sounds loud then nothing sounds loud.

So I've got no problem with people swearing in the rare occasions where passions are running so high that no other expression will really suffice.  It's more the casual uses below that bother me.  I do it myself occasionally when I'm really pissed.

> What of the case of swearing in general, not /at/ someone? If I stub my toe, I might exclaim, "Fuck!" Someone nearby might be offended by that. So should I take that into consideration, check my natural reaction, and exclaim "Ouch!" instead? I say no. This really is the listener's problem, not the speaker's.

If you're really pissed off, I say sure. But I'd follow it with an "excuse me" once you get control of yourself again.

But putting the blame for the problem all on the listener is callous in my opinion.  No man is an island and all that.  You can go through life choosing not to care whether you hurt the feelings of your fellow man, but I think that's a lousy way to live.  Better to try to show some respect to those around you.  Your attitude sounds to me like the guy who does something rude and when everyone turns around to look follows it up with "what the f** you lookin' at?", as opposed the guy who says "pardon me".  Deciding that anything you do which is offensive to the other party is somehow to blame on the other party is ridiculous.  You do not set the standards for the entire world. Especially if your behavior is clearly on the edge of what is considered the norm for your environment.

I think that keeping the norms in your environment in mind is the key there.   I don't think you should have to double check *everything* you do with *everyone* around just in *case* they have some allergy to the word "fruitcake" because of a childhood trauma.  There's no way you could anticipate that that would be offensive to them.  So there, yes, I agree that it is something they really have to come to terms with.   But if you *do* know about their thing about "fruitcake", then you are just being an ass if you keep saying it around them. Likewise, among your friends, sailor talk may be the norm.  You have an idea what will and will not be offensive to them.  You should be cautious when going far outside that.

> There's nothing inherently wrong with any swear word. Any perceived offense or insult behind the words themselves is a result of indoctrination by our parents and teachers.

Agreed.  But that indoctrination is a very real thing.  It exists and it affects people.  Trying to define it out of existence as non-tangible and therefore unimportant or unreal is silly.   It is as silly as dismissing the placebo effect.  The placebo effect is very real even if there's no "real" medicine involved.

> And when you really want to insult someone, non-swear
> words are no less vile than swear words. The intent behind the words is what
> matters most. Getting upset over the words themselves is just plain
> silliness.

No, the swear words are more vile.  Because they transgress an established social norm at the same time as expressing that intent. It communicates that you are so intent on what you have to say that you are willing to risk stepping outside those norms to express it. Unless of course you use those same words to express your dismay at today's lunch options.  Then you've robbed those words of any special emphasis they might have been able to provide.

> That said, I admit to cringing every time I read superdan's posts. In my mind, I know it's ridiculous. But ideas forced on us in childhood are hard to let go of completely.

You say that as if you *should* let go of it completely.  Why should you?  If we were talking about a childhood idea like "slavery is good", then I'd agree with you it's important to try to ditch that notion.  But not all ideas forced on us in childhood are bad.  Like having respect for others, working hard, playing fair, etc.



--bb

Hello Daniel,


> I don't think language should be restricted. An observation I make in
> daily life (of course, this is not universally true) is that religious
> people are usually more easily offended. When have you heard calls for
> censorship when someone offended darwinism or Kant's categorical
> imperatives? At the same time, it happens all the time when someone
> makes a parody of something that is written in the bible or another
> religious book. "Offense" means different things to different people,
> and trying to limit it isn't going to help anyone.
> 


I don't know about that Daniel, I've managed to offend a whole lot athiests and agnostics here. :P


-JJR

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.783.1234919397.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> Unless of course you use those same words to express your dismay at today's lunch options.  Then you've robbed those words of any special emphasis they might have been able to provide.
>

Not necessarily. Just like the "normal everyday words that can be used maliciously", the difference is all in the delivery. I could say "Oh, fuck, broccoli again" in a way that suggests "I despise you, let's fight!" (loud, gruff and annunciated with a sneer or a big frown and glaring at the chef or server), or I could say it in a perfectly benign manner (subdued, prepended with a chuckle or soft laugh-like snort or a "heh", and glancing over to, nudging, and smiling at a tired-of-broccoli friend standing nearby). That latter still leaves plenty of room for "fuck" to be used coarsely, in just the same way that "Did you see that thing on TV last night?" leaves plenty of room for "that" to be used coarsely (as in my earlier example of telling an insecure acne-victim "I'm surprised you're willing to come out looking like THAT!")

Hello Alexander,


> Ad OT-topic: I was a bit puzzled by the way John brought this issue
> up, but I completely agree with him.


Yeah, I shoot from the hip a little too often.  I'm still trying to work on that. :(


-JJR