On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "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!")

But then the emphasis is not at all coming from the word itself but the intonation.  You have robbed the word of the extra-special power it had via that societal indoctrination, making it just an ordinary word.   You are right, though,  that you may be able to still get your point across, even without the extra help that the taboo gives.

But this part is really just my argument for why, given the choice between profanity as the norm and not, why we should choose the latter.   It's certainly a valid proposition for a society to decide there are no taboo words and play "fuck-a-bye baby" to their children in the crib, because after all it's just a word.  But I'm saying by doing so you're giving up a capacity for nuance and dynamic range.  I think there's more value in keeping that capacity for dynamic range open, than there is value in cheapening "shit" to the point where it is in all ways equivalent to "poo".  Now we have two different words that can communicate two very different levels of intensity.  If you make it all the same then that really just seems like a loss overall to me.

That's quite separate from the second argument, which is that given societal norms as they stand *now* (whatever those norms may be), it is disrespectful to one's fellow man to unilaterally decide to ignore the established norms because of an attitude of "if you don't like it it's *your* problem".  Perhaps in your microcosm, you are behaving well within the norms.  I would assume so, or else you are probably a lonely guy.  But when you go out in public, your microcosm rubs elbows with everyone else's microcosms -- the average norm of your surroundings changes and I believe one should adapt one's behavior accordingly.   And I think you agree with this to some extent, too, if only because I don't see you swearing like sailor Dan here on the NG.

--bb

Hello Mike,


> 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.
> 


True, there is more significance in the spirit behind the words such you don't need expletives to communicate the same thing (although using them does make the messsage much more severe).  There are some fair considerations in your and other's posts, and this has been good for me to think about more. 



But I disagree that it's completely about indoctrination or that the words are devoid of meaning.  Somebody else mentioned that every culture has its swear words. There is always a history behind such words, though.  So really, while all children are indeed indoctrinated to begin with (is there any other way?), yet as they grow older, many will learn the "why's" of what they were taught when they were young when their minds were not capable or ready to understand these things.  Later they may accept the reasonings or reject them.  Ingrained reactions may remain, however, as you suggest.  Even so, some indoctrinated values may still remain yet unconsidered.  This will always happen to all types of people in all cultures and in all worldviews.  If the principles behind the values are good, then I'd gather that the keeping of these values will remain useful and practical into adulthood.


In regards to English epletives, there's a history behind those, of course, which most of you know.  Some express what some might call the "baser" elements of life: as such their meaning is associated with the filthiness of excrement or urination or whatever.  In the case of the f-word, most of us know that it refers to the act of copulation.  Since most people rarely do any of the above in public (and if they do, they are usually looked at with horror), even so expressing these words in public is usually considered rude and offensive(or used to be).  Thus my argument was that society (and parents) have typically had a good reason for discouraging there use, and it's not completely fair to call it indoctrination with the implication that it was a bad thing (maybe that was not your implication, but it came across that way).  I'd say it was good training ever so much as it's good training to wash your hands before you eat.  This is one reason I also said that I felt it was less a matter of the words changing meaning (as Walter seemed to suggest in his first post on the topic), and more about people's manners and sensitivity changing as the use of expletives becomes more common-place.  I know some words change meaning, but these aren't the ones... not yet at least. :)   


So what we have here is a society where people are becoming so used to hearing and saying expletives and profanity that they no longer think of their meaning, even though these words retain their meaning still.  Yes, it is usually the less desensitized of us that get offended at hearing them.  I still associate them with the meanings they retain, and so I especially dislike these terms being used in normal conversation as much as I'd dislike seeing the content of their meaning.  So I believe their is a strong argument for these words not being completely neutral: they are an abstraction of reality. Eventually that abstraction might carry multiple meanings or lose meaning in the minds of society... but most people might think differently about their speech if you flung some manure at them in return for every expletive they sent your way.  I don't think throwing manure would eventually lose it's meaing, though. :D


I believe that we benefit from speaking in such a way that we edifiy our listeners, including the avoidance of insults with or without expletives. I can't say I can see much edification in the use of expletives and profanity as the delivery vehicle, though, based on my reasoning above.  I've worked around it most of my life, and strangely, the language hasn't improved with the hearing of it.


Most of the people I work with have eventually figured me out and limited their swearing when around me; and I've been thankful for that, since it shows that they don't want to offend even though I don't make a big deal of it (well, sometimes I tease them about it).  And no, I don't go around forcing people to stop swearing, although I /might/ ask them to stop using profanity around me with a "please".


In this newsgroup, I see it as "noise" that interrupts the communication process for more than a few people.


-JJR

Hello Steve,

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:01:49 +0000, John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello Steve,
>> 
>>> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the
>>> death of Alan Turing.
>>> 
>> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very
>> hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are
>> quite unfamiliar with.
>> 
> I'm just pointing out the similarities.  Of course there are
> differences in the case of Alan Turing, but I don't think I have to
> know you to interpret your post?  You don't like the furry creature
> drawings (or specifically one drawing, which supposedly depicts
> something "close" to beastiality), and I get that.  But suggesting
> that someone's artistic preference should preclude them from
> contributing to D is in my mind a form of discrimination, and it seems
> uncalled for.  I agree with Nick about how you should have gone about
> this, and I'm glad you see that now.
> 


Just a quick response here.  You seem to infer that I suggested that he stop contributing to D. I did not.  I suggested a separation of the display of his other interests from his D material that gets displayed here (specifically I requested  "that you disassociate /it/ completely with your dealings with D").  I think that particular request was fair, and it seems that he was considerate enough to respond to the request or at least part of it.  This should not be compared to ostracism.  I just wanted to clarify that part. 


Ostracism in a group like this would make no practical sense because I'm sure the whole group would disappear for one reason or another :P (and I'm sure I would be the first to be ostracised.)   Although it seems that the right to ostracise trolls still exists. Poor guys. :)


Yes, the mode was completely indelicate however disturbed I was at the time. I am not at all satisfied with how I carried that one out. 


-JJR

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> 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.

Wtf @ web interface. :(

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:06 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:01:49 +0000, John Reimer wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Steve,
>>> 
>>>> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death of Alan Turing.
>>>> 
>>> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are quite unfamiliar with.
>>> 
>> I'm just pointing out the similarities.  Of course there are differences in the case of Alan Turing, but I don't think I have to know you to interpret your post?  You don't like the furry creature drawings (or specifically one drawing, which supposedly depicts something "close" to beastiality), and I get that.  But suggesting that someone's artistic preference should preclude them from contributing to D is in my mind a form of discrimination, and it seems uncalled for.  I agree with Nick about how you should have gone about this, and I'm glad you see that now.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Just a quick response here.  You seem to infer that I suggested that he stop contributing to D. I did not.  I suggested a separation of the display of his other interests from his D material that gets displayed here (specifically I requested  "that you disassociate /it/ completely with your dealings with D").  I think that particular request was fair, and it seems that he was considerate enough to respond to the request or at least part of it.  This should not be compared to ostracism.  I just wanted to clarify that part.

OK, I was thinking about the case where bearophile was less accommodating :)  If the link was bearophile's requirement (which it wasn't, and I think he was happy to oblige to your request) for inclusion of his work, then the only recourse would be to remove the work.

As it turns out, that was not the case, but we hadn't heard from him at the time I wrote this :)  In any case, I agree the request was fair.

> Ostracism in a group like this would make no practical sense because I'm sure the whole group would disappear for one reason or another :P (and I'm sure I would be the first to be ostracised.)   Although it seems that the right to ostracise trolls still exists. Poor guys. :)

I don't think ostracism is necessary.  People who are jerks (not meaning you) get called out as such, so usually there isn't a problem with that. I take more offense to a person saying that an idea is stupid or worthless than I do to swearing or trolling.

> Yes, the mode was completely indelicate however disturbed I was at the
> time.
>  I am not at all satisfied with how I carried that one out.

Water under the bridge now.

-Steve

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>> "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!")
> 
> But then the emphasis is not at all coming from the word itself but
> the intonation.  You have robbed the word of the extra-special power
> it had via that societal indoctrination, making it just an ordinary
> word.   You are right, though,  that you may be able to still get your
> point across, even without the extra help that the taboo gives.
> 
> But this part is really just my argument for why, given the choice
> between profanity as the norm and not, why we should choose the
> latter.   It's certainly a valid proposition for a society to decide
> there are no taboo words and play "fuck-a-bye baby" to their children
> in the crib, because after all it's just a word.  But I'm saying by
> doing so you're giving up a capacity for nuance and dynamic range.  I
> think there's more value in keeping that capacity for dynamic range
> open, than there is value in cheapening "shit" to the point where it
> is in all ways equivalent to "poo".  Now we have two different words
> that can communicate two very different levels of intensity.  If you
> make it all the same then that really just seems like a loss overall
> to me.


I understand your point. But it's sort of lost when people can't bring themselves to utter certain words because they're too profane, so they say words like "poo" or "screw" instead. We can't still get a nice, dynamic range. Look at how many different words there are that can be substituted for "fuck" in different contexts.

> 
> That's quite separate from the second argument, which is that given
> societal norms as they stand *now* (whatever those norms may be), it
> is disrespectful to one's fellow man to unilaterally decide to ignore
> the established norms because of an attitude of "if you don't like it
> it's *your* problem".  Perhaps in your microcosm, you are behaving
> well within the norms.  I would assume so, or else you are probably a
> lonely guy.  But when you go out in public, your microcosm rubs elbows
> with everyone else's microcosms -- the average norm of your
> surroundings changes and I believe one should adapt one's behavior
> accordingly.   And I think you agree with this to some extent, too, if
> only because I don't see you swearing like sailor Dan here on the NG.


In my case, I rarely swear. I let a word out on my blog every now and then for emphasis. Regardless of what I think, I understand how society at large views these words. I don't go out of my way to offend people. It helps that I'm in Korea, where English expletives just don't have the same weight. But when I'm around other expats, particularly females (excluding those who get offended when you don't treat them as one of the guys), I behave just as I was taught. Well, once I get inubriated all bets are off.

Considering that these days there are so many people offended by so many different things, I don't agree with the idea that we should always have to tip-toe on egg shells in order to avoid offending someone. I mean, directly insulting people is certainly not good practice. And in public, as silly as I think it is, I try to be careful about what I say (being in Korea helps, but when I'm around other expats and alcohol...) But I fully blame the emphasis on political correctness over the past two+ decades for restrictions on freedom of speech. It started out with good intentions, but it has devolved into absurdity. For a prime example, just look what's happened with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, where it is now considered a human rights violation to defame religion. That has some ugly side effects [1].

So while I certainly am consciously considerate of others to a large extent in person, it is something I hope that some day I don't have to bother with. And I will continue to post content on my blog that I hope offends certain groups who always offend me by whinging about being offended :)

[1] http://richarddawkins.net/article,3600,n,n

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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.


I didn't decide they're all /equal/. Usually, when someone calls you a piece of poo, they aren't being serious. They're just poking fun. That's why I use "shit" when I'm angry, because the connotation is more serious. Especially when combined with an angry tone. My problem is that society has declared "shit" too dirty, or too offensive, to say in public. Some people go out of their way to avoid saying it. Can you imagine reading this in a novel:

"With fire in his eyes, his mouth twisted in rage, my nemesis snarled, 'You're a piece of poo!'"

It's ridiculous to say "poo" when you really mean "shit". What I'm trying to say is that no word should be considered so dirty that it's anathema to say it. We need to be teaching our kids to keep their intent and tone of voice civil, rather than spanking them for cussin'.

By the same token, if I jokingly call my friend a piece of shit or, more realistically, just say the word "bullshit" when I think he's full of it, it's ridiculous for some random passerby to feel offended by that. I wasn't speaking to that person and there was no insult meant to my friend. Everyone has the right to be offended. But I have the right not to care. Though as I mentioned in another post, I usually check my language in public anyway. Not that I'm much of a cusser.


> 
>> 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.

There's good, there's bad, and there's silly. I agree with you that slavery is bad. And that the other things you mention are good. But in my book, this thing about expletives is one of the silly. We're taught a lot of silliness actually. I'll save my thoughts on that for my blog ;)

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c1460c8cb5f4c18ef2950@news.digitalmars.com...
>
> So what we have here is a society where people are becoming so used to hearing and saying expletives and profanity that they no longer think of their meaning, even though these words retain their meaning still.

Oh, I very much disagree with this. If I say, for example, "Why isn't this fucking line of code working?" it's blatantly obvious that I'm not remotely talking about sex. Or if someone tells me "Fuck you, you piece of shit!", I'm well aware that the connotation is nothing more than a very strong form of "I'm very angry at you", and that they're not actually talking about sex or excrement. Granted, sometimes such words are used for their original meaning, but in the examples above, the connection between "fuck" and "sex", and the connection between "shit" and "excrement", become nothing more than matters of etymology.

Hello Nick,

> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:28b70f8c1460c8cb5f4c18ef2950@news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> So what we have here is a society where people are becoming so used
>> to hearing and saying expletives and profanity that they no longer
>> think of their meaning, even though these words retain their meaning
>> still.
>> 
> Oh, I very much disagree with this. If I say, for example, "Why isn't
> this fucking line of code working?" it's blatantly obvious that I'm
> not remotely talking about sex. Or if someone tells me "Fuck you, you
> piece of shit!", I'm well aware that the connotation is nothing more
> than a very strong form of "I'm very angry at you", and that they're
> not actually talking about sex or excrement. Granted, sometimes such
> words are used for their original meaning, but in the examples above,
> the connection between "fuck" and "sex", and the connection between
> "shit" and "excrement", become nothing more than matters of etymology.
> 


You are talking about intent... I'm saying the word still means what it originally did even if you use it in the context you do.  I wasn't talking about what it connotes when you use it.  Nor did I say that people think of this meaning when you say it (you can read that in the above portion).  I merely pointed out that this etymology is important part of the definiton of how the word became recognized as bad whether or not people recognize that or not.  It wasn't just any word that became "bad".


I think there are some very good arguments against swearing.  On the jobs that I've worked, people notice that I don't swear even though I typically make no issue of it.  There is a reason that swearing is bad taste, and I've listed them in previous posts and so have others.


Anyway, I am getting weary of this conversation, so I'd better leave this before I get myself in more trouble here.  If cussing makes you happy, fly at it.  But I'd rather not be part in that conversation... or be here anymore, for that matter.


-JJR

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Nick,
>
>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c1460c8cb5f4c18ef2950@news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> So what we have here is a society where people are becoming so used to hearing and saying expletives and profanity that they no longer think of their meaning, even though these words retain their meaning still.
>>>
>> Oh, I very much disagree with this. If I say, for example, "Why isn't this fucking line of code working?" it's blatantly obvious that I'm not remotely talking about sex. Or if someone tells me "Fuck you, you piece of shit!", I'm well aware that the connotation is nothing more than a very strong form of "I'm very angry at you", and that they're not actually talking about sex or excrement. Granted, sometimes such words are used for their original meaning, but in the examples above, the connection between "fuck" and "sex", and the connection between "shit" and "excrement", become nothing more than matters of etymology.
>>
>
>
> You are talking about intent... I'm saying the word still means what it originally did even if you use it in the context you do.  I wasn't talking about what it connotes when you use it.  Nor did I say that people think of this meaning when you say it (you can read that in the above portion).  I merely pointed out that this etymology is important part of the definiton of how the word became recognized as bad whether or not people recognize that or not.  It wasn't just any word that became "bad".
>
>
> I think there are some very good arguments against swearing.  On the jobs that I've worked, people notice that I don't swear even though I typically make no issue of it.  There is a reason that swearing is bad taste, and I've listed them in previous posts and so have others.
>
>
> Anyway, I am getting weary of this conversation, so I'd better leave this before I get myself in more trouble here.  If cussing makes you happy, fly at it.  But I'd rather not be part in that conversation... or be here anymore, for that matter.

Yep, I think all participants have spoken their piece on this topic. I found it a very interesting discussion.  Thanks!

--bb