View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Walter,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression of
>> "art", but this one's a doosie.
>> 
> Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use in
> their skits, because there are many different british accents. He
> laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper class
> accents.
> 
> I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes
> <g>.
> 
> There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show, but
> at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at Jacques
> Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid would get
> those jokes?
> 


I tend to care a lot about things and think a lot about implications and 
idea and how they affect people,  including the manner and language used 
when one expresses oneself to another.  I don't particularly care for a lot 
of the humour available on television today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway). 
However, it seems that a lot of people enjoy lampoons because it acts as 
a balm to their mind to help /avoid/ taking most things too seriously.  I 
can appreciate that, but I think there's also a caution involved there.


The main problem with many of the new television shows is that, like fashion 
decides the fad in clothes, someone is deciding for us what is fair game 
to  be laughed at.  The limits are pushed continually.  For all the talk 
about religion's apparent control of people's minds, I think there's a whole 
lot more to be worried about as people feed on the what the boob tube serves 
up.  With long time exposure, I'd say there is possibly a strong influence 
on their tolerance for what they consider acceptable behavior.  Humor, of 
course, is only one aspect of this.   It used to be that the productions 
in television tried to model the real world.  I think the opposite is now 
happening to some extent as we derive more relevancy from the fantasies and 
culture created in the imaginary worlds portrayed to us from television.


Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression should 
warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or irreverant expression 
has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already seen plenty of evidence of 
that in here.  You may think it's cute and artsy, but I think it does any 
combination of the following:  creates a language barrier, trivializes the 
original meaning of certain anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in 
communication, demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking 
of others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in somebody's 
face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can stamp a "art" 
sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a comedic role (or 
any situation really), but this is just as effective as sticking an "ice 
cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to make it pretty.


It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days, and a 
person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But I've been keenly 
aware of how the same profanity is expressed with ever so much force and 
rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes very clear that the words 
fit the role perfectly with the malice that expresses them (not to say person 
should swear when he is angry :) ).  It's no wonder that the expression of 
them becomes confusing when they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent 
reason.


-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Walter,
>
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression of
>>> "art", but this one's a doosie.
>>>
>> Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use in
>> their skits, because there are many different british accents. He
>> laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper class
>> accents.
>>
>> I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes
>> <g>.
>>
>> There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show, but
>> at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at Jacques
>> Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid would get
>> those jokes?
>>
>
>
> I tend to care a lot about things and think a lot about implications and
> idea and how they affect people,  including the manner and language used
> when one expresses oneself to another.  I don't particularly care for a lot
> of the humour available on television today (I don't watch it anymore,
> anyway). However, it seems that a lot of people enjoy lampoons because it
> acts as a balm to their mind to help /avoid/ taking most things too
> seriously.  I can appreciate that, but I think there's also a caution
> involved there.
>
>
> The main problem with many of the new television shows is that, like fashion
> decides the fad in clothes, someone is deciding for us what is fair game to
>  be laughed at.  The limits are pushed continually.  For all the talk about
> religion's apparent control of people's minds, I think there's a whole lot
> more to be worried about as people feed on the what the boob tube serves up.
>  With long time exposure, I'd say there is possibly a strong influence on
> their tolerance for what they consider acceptable behavior.  Humor, of
> course, is only one aspect of this.   It used to be that the productions in
> television tried to model the real world.  I think the opposite is now
> happening to some extent as we derive more relevancy from the fantasies and
> culture created in the imaginary worlds portrayed to us from television.
>
>
> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression should
> warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or irreverant
> expression has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already seen plenty of
> evidence of that in here.  You may think it's cute and artsy, but I think it
> does any combination of the following:  creates a language barrier,
> trivializes the original meaning of certain anglo-saxon words, shows general
> disrespect in communication, demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals
> carelessness in thinking of others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like
> throwing dirt in somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to
> interact.  We can stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is
> clothed in a comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just as
> effective as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way
> to make it pretty.
>
>
> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days, and a
> person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But I've been
> keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with ever so much force
> and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes very clear that the words
> fit the role perfectly with the malice that expresses them (not to say
> person should swear when he is angry :) ).  It's no wonder that the
> expression of them becomes confusing when they merge back into everyday
> speech for no apparent reason.

Very thoughtful piece there, John.  I agree with you pretty much
completely.  I think the issues you speak of are particularly
pervasive in American culture these days.  Can't speak for other parts
of the world, but things definitely don't seem as bad to me over here
in Japan.  Then again it could be just that my Japanese just isn't
good enough to pick up that level of nuance, but I really don't think
Japanese culture has taken a heavy hit from the sarcasm bucket yet.

--bb
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
John Reimer wrote:
> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression 
> should warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or 
> irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already 
> seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may think it's cute and 
> artsy, but I think it does any combination of the following:  creates a 
> language barrier, trivializes the original meaning of certain 
> anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in communication, 
> demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking of others 
> feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in somebody's 
> face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can stamp a "art" 
> sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a comedic role (or 
> any situation really), but this is just as effective as sticking an "ice 
> cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to make it pretty.

I don't disagree with most of that, except that the language one used 
reflects on the speaker, not the listener. The listener chooses how to 
react to that, and that is the listener's choice.


> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days, and 
> a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But I've 
> been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with ever so 
> much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes very clear 
> that the words fit the role perfectly with the malice that expresses 
> them (not to say person should swear when he is angry :) ).  It's no 
> wonder that the expression of them becomes confusing when they merge 
> back into everyday speech for no apparent reason.

The meanings of words constantly shift and change. Often, a word will 
revolve around to a completely opposite meaning, then go back again 
("bad" is a good (!) example). This is not a modern phenomenon. It's 
been going on forever, and obviously is why there are different 
languages in the first place.

Trying to control people by controlling words goes back almost as far. 
For example, several people were burned at the stake for daring to 
create an english language version of the Bible. Controlling speech is 
characteristic of repressive societies. I care not for that.

You might also consider that these days using profanity is more 
acceptable than it used to be, while other words, like the infamous "n" 
word (I can't even type it) used to be acceptable but no longer are.
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:56:04 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>>> <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?),
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil
>>>>>>>> "barbarians", now
>>>>>>>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is
>>>>>>>> in its
>>>>>>>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic
>>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the
>>>>>>>> west.
>>>>>>>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic
>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle,
>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean
>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own
>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into
>>>>>>> allegedly
>>>>>>> being pro-"white power".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4
>>>>>> sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
>>>>>> here's a quote for example from
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>> Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and
>>>>>> Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend
>>>>>> good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah
>>>>>> (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O
>>>>>> Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites”
>>>>>> (Qur'an [Qur'an 9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have
>>>>>> expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by
>>>>>> sword and against the hypocrites by tongue
>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly
>>>>>>>> Jesus was
>>>>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
>>>>>>> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they
>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish
>>>>>>> Bible. As
>>>>>>> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments,
>>>>>>> Moses,
>>>>>>> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and
>>>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>>> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you
>>>>>>> get the
>>>>>>> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the
>>>>>> Jewish concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the
>>>>>> old testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one
>>>>>> defines different, and contradicting new concepts.
>>>>>> Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the
>>>>>> christian faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a
>>>>>> software concept) with Judaism.
>>>>> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
>>>>> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
>>>>> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
>>>>> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity,
>>>>> of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was
>>>>> written down later than the New Testament.
>>>>> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and
>>>>> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
>>>>> possible divergence.
>>>>
>>>> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I
>>>> know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is
>>>> completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether
>>>> there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or
>>>> anything like that.)
>>>>
>>>> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is
>>>> clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being
>>>> unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do
>>>> better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In
>>>> case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call
>>>> someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow
>>>> the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I
>>>> haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating
>>>> shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know one - Jesus.
>>>
>>> There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
>>> And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't eat
>>> pork and shellfish.
>>>
>>>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who
>>>> would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
>>>
>>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs
>>> them their life.
>>
>> Where did you hear that?
>> I doubt that since the preservation of life is a holy jewish principle
>> and which cancels all other commandments in the bible.
>
> I'm sorry, I was wrong. These are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
>> for example, driving on the Shabat is a a sin but if we're talking
>> about an ambulance driving to save someone's life than it's becomes
>> completely "Kosher". As the saying goes: "if you saved one soul of
>> Israel as if you saved the entire world".
>>
>> Kinda the exact opposite of the Jihad concept that other people
>> believe in.
>
>  From Qur'an:
>
> "...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul -
> unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as
> if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he
> had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]
> [1] i.e. in legal retribution for murder, through the requisite channels
> of justice.
> [2] i.e. that requiring the death penalty, again through the requisite
> legal channels.
>
> This verse establishes the sanctity of life.
>
> (Taken from http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Wanton.Destruction.html)
>

True Jihad according to Islam is against non-believers (pagans) since 
from Islamic point of view Jews and Christians are also believers of 
Allah (albeit with different rituals).
Problems is that, Just like in Christianity there is no requirement to 
actually *read* the book yourself. Instead there's the religions 
representative (I forgot the title they use)  that peaches to the 
public. It doesn't really matter nowadays what that book actually says 
since hardly anyone reads it. what those extremist representatives say 
is what Muhammad wants and that's it.
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> I also really do not appreciate any use of other-languages like Latin
>> just to make yourself look smart. for instance, I can reply using
>> Aramaic phrases, but I doubt it that most people will understand it
>> here.
>
> B’Asrah hodain? No, nobody will get it. ☺
>
> —Joel Salomon

I said "most", not "all".. :)
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Walter,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression
>> should warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or
>> irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already
>> seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may think it's cute and
>> artsy, but I think it does any combination of the following:  creates
>> a language barrier, trivializes the original meaning of certain
>> anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in communication,
>> demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking of
>> others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in
>> somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can
>> stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a
>> comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just as effective
>> as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to
>> make it pretty.
>> 
> I don't disagree with most of that, except that the language one used
> reflects on the speaker, not the listener. The listener chooses how to
> react to that, and that is the listener's choice.
> 


That's one way to shift responsibility.


>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But
>> I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with
>> ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes
>> very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the malice that
>> expresses them (not to say person should swear when he is angry :) ).
>> It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes confusing when
>> they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent reason.
>> 
> The meanings of words constantly shift and change. Often, a word will
> revolve around to a completely opposite meaning, then go back again
> ("bad" is a good (!) example). This is not a modern phenomenon. It's
> been going on forever, and obviously is why there are different
> languages in the first place.
> 


Yes, words do shift in meaning.  The words we are talking about right now 
are called "profanity".  There is a reason for that.  Our society generally 
knows what the bad words are quite well... and until they shift, we can rest 
assured that what they express is quite clear.  If this were not so, nothing 
in our language would ever have meaning at any one moment and communication 
would break down... communication is about interfacing with people, afterall. 
We must know our audience and prepare our words accordingly if we mean to 
communicate effectively.


> Trying to control people by controlling words goes back almost as far.
> For example, several people were burned at the stake for daring to
> create an english language version of the Bible. Controlling speech is
> characteristic of repressive societies. I care not for that.
> 


Yes, those extreme examples do paint weighty pictures.


I begin understand a little more about you.  I've spoken my mind a lot in 
this list, sometimes too much... but you've had the opportunity to see a 
part of who I am for awhile now.  I've had barely a glimpse of who you are. 
It's actually been fairly confusing for me, in fact.


However, now I can also see why you are worried about repression of me or 
anyone else for good or for bad: and this is primarily why this list slips 
and slides all over the map, billows, heaves and explodes multiple times 
over.  And why there is heavy ostracism (even repression :)  ) of anyone 
who appears to "repress" any sort of freedom of speech... perhaps even the 
worst kind.  But even so you've had to resort to some forms of "repression" 
(moderation) when somebody has asked you to or when you have deemed it necessary. 
So you are forced into a bit of an inconsistancy.


There is another flaw with how you generalize the word "repression".  You 
can indeed blame some ills of society and government on repression.  But 
in fact, you've only chosen your mode of repression: you are not actually 
disengaging from it.  When you agree that total freedom of expression is 
acceptable, you must allow a repression to occur where the stronger, more 
vocal, more forceful, more well-spoken overwhelm those that are less able 
to express... the more feable-minded, the less articulate.  Repression still 
occurs.  It just doesn't take on the formal/organized aspect you so despise. 
And to what do we limit the complete freedom of speech?  The more liberal 
the mind, the less it would hinder it and the more generally it would interpret 
it (as to what point "free expression" may lead to "action").  


Yes, there is a fine balance to all this, and repression can work horribly 
in both directions, but I'd be very cautious in insinuating that you have 
taken some sort of higher road by avoiding a repression of one sort only 
to allow the development of another shade of it.  If you choose to argue 
against any form of control system, you argue against the ability to maintain 
any type of order... and so it will always be.  As history goes, nothing 
is new in this regard... we've flipped back and forth between these forms 
of repression for centuries and failed thoroughly at both extremes.  It seems 
people think they've discovered something new in this area repeatedly: they 
escape one net only to land in another.


> You might also consider that these days using profanity is more
> acceptable than it used to be, while other words, like the infamous
> "n" word (I can't even type it) used to be acceptable but no longer
> are.
> 


If profanity is becoming more acceptable it is not for a changing in word-meaning 
as you suggested happens above.  An honest examination of the phenomenon 
would indicate that there is growing /apathy/ for the /effect/ that this 
kind of speech has on the receiver of it  Even with this apathy in force, 
it is not uncommon for people to recognize the effect such words have on 
others in certain situtions and to change their speech accordingly.   Think 
how one might speak in the presence of the the President of the United States 
or Queen Elizabeth II, or even a simple minister.  I've seen similar mysterious 
changes in habit happen before.  What seems to happen is that the individual 
breaks through his general indifference to recognize how his speech may be 
received or how it may charactarize him to the other person, thus initiating 
a certain "repression" of his vocal faculties.


-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Bill,

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Walter,
>> 
>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression
>>>> of "art", but this one's a doosie.
>>>> 
>>> Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use
>>> in their skits, because there are many different british accents. He
>>> laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper
>>> class accents.
>>> 
>>> I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes
>>> <g>.
>>> 
>>> There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show,
>>> but at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at
>>> Jacques Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid
>>> would get those jokes?
>>> 
>> I tend to care a lot about things and think a lot about implications
>> and idea and how they affect people,  including the manner and
>> language used when one expresses oneself to another.  I don't
>> particularly care for a lot of the humour available on television
>> today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway). However, it seems that a
>> lot of people enjoy lampoons because it acts as a balm to their mind
>> to help /avoid/ taking most things too seriously.  I can appreciate
>> that, but I think there's also a caution involved there.
>> 
>> The main problem with many of the new television shows is that, like
>> fashion decides the fad in clothes, someone is deciding for us what
>> is fair game to be laughed at.  The limits are pushed continually.
>> For all the talk about religion's apparent control of people's minds,
>> I think there's a whole lot more to be worried about as people feed
>> on the what the boob tube serves up. With long time exposure, I'd say
>> there is possibly a strong influence on their tolerance for what they
>> consider acceptable behavior.  Humor, of course, is only one aspect
>> of this.   It used to be that the productions in television tried to
>> model the real world.  I think the opposite is now happening to some
>> extent as we derive more relevancy from the fantasies and culture
>> created in the imaginary worlds portrayed to us from television.
>> 
>> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression
>> should warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or
>> irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already
>> seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may think it's cute and
>> artsy, but I think it does any combination of the following:  creates
>> a language barrier, trivializes the original meaning of certain
>> anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in communication,
>> demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking of
>> others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in
>> somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can
>> stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a
>> comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just as effective
>> as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to
>> make it pretty.
>> 
>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But
>> I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with
>> ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes
>> very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the malice that
>> expresses them (not to say person should swear when he is angry :) ).
>> It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes confusing when
>> they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent reason.
>> 
> Very thoughtful piece there, John.  I agree with you pretty much
> completely.  I think the issues you speak of are particularly
> pervasive in American culture these days.  Can't speak for other parts
> of the world, but things definitely don't seem as bad to me over here
> in Japan.  Then again it could be just that my Japanese just isn't
> good enough to pick up that level of nuance, but I really don't think
> Japanese culture has taken a heavy hit from the sarcasm bucket yet.
> 
> --bb
> 


Thanks for the encouragment, Bill.  You just might regret it later, though. 
;)


-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:02:59 +0000 (UTC), John Reimer wrote:


> I don't particularly care for a lot 
> of the humour available on television today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway). 

There might be a baby in bathwater issue here.


> ... I think there's a whole lot more to be worried about as people feed
> on the what the boob tube serves up...

[snigger.. ] He said "boob" [snigger...]


Sorry, couldn't help myself. To paraphrase Einstein, we should take things
seriously but not too seriously.

> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression should 
> warrant more careful thought.

And that also applies to other forms of speech, of course.

>  I don't believe profane or irreverant expression 
> has a neutral effect on hearers.

Of course it doesn't. That's often why its uttered in the first place - to
affect the hearer. 

>  We've already seen plenty of evidence of 
> that in here.  You may think it's cute and artsy, but I think it does any 
> combination of the following:  creates a language barrier, trivializes the 
> original meaning of certain anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in 
> communication, demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking 
> of others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in somebody's 
> face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can stamp a "art" 
> sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a comedic role (or 
> any situation really), but this is just as effective as sticking an "ice 
> cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to make it pretty.

Bloody hell, mate (oh shit! ... was that swearing ... sorry), language is
never static. In which language can one not cuss? It appears to be normal
for people to express frustration and anger in (irrational?) words. But I
do agree there is way too much gratuitous swearing - but much of that is
juvenile attention-seeking behaviour, and should be dismissed and accepted
as just that. 

> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days, and a 
> person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.

Hmmm ... you got some statistics to back that up? Most people I deal with
have limits (not all the same), so that seems to indicate to me that some
swearing behaviour is not acceptable to most people.

>  But I've been keenly 
> aware of how the same profanity is expressed with ever so much force and 
> rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes very clear that the words 
> fit the role perfectly with the malice that expresses them (not to say person 
> should swear when he is angry :) ).  It's no wonder that the expression of 
> them becomes confusing when they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent 
> reason.

Yep, I think your right here.

A particular use of language is often used as a sign of comradeship; a way
of showing that "I belong". It seems that swearing falls into this category
too.


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Derek,

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:02:59 +0000 (UTC), John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> I don't particularly care for a lot of the humour available on
>> television today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway).
>> 
> There might be a baby in bathwater issue here.
> 
>> ... I think there's a whole lot more to be worried about as people
>> feed on the what the boob tube serves up...
>> 
> [snigger.. ] He said "boob" [snigger...]
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself. To paraphrase Einstein, we should take
> things seriously but not too seriously.
> 
>> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression
>> should warrant more careful thought.
>> 
> And that also applies to other forms of speech, of course.
> 
>> I don't believe profane or irreverant expression has a neutral effect
>> on hearers.
>> 
> Of course it doesn't. That's often why its uttered in the first place
> - to affect the hearer.
> 
>> We've already seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may think
>> it's cute and artsy, but I think it does any combination of the
>> following:  creates a language barrier, trivializes the original
>> meaning of certain anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in
>> communication, demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in
>> thinking of others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing
>> dirt in somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.
>> We can stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is
>> clothed in a comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just
>> as effective as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure;
>> there's no way to make it pretty.
>> 
> Bloody hell, mate (oh shit! ... was that swearing ... sorry), language
> is never static. In which language can one not cuss? It appears to be
> normal for people to express frustration and anger in (irrational?)
> words. But I do agree there is way too much gratuitous swearing - but
> much of that is juvenile attention-seeking behaviour, and should be
> dismissed and accepted as just that.
> 
>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.
>> 
> Hmmm ... you got some statistics to back that up? Most people I deal
> with have limits (not all the same), so that seems to indicate to me
> that some swearing behaviour is not acceptable to most people.
> 
>> But I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed
>> with ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it
>> becomes very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the
>> malice that expresses them (not to say person should swear when he is
>> angry :) ).  It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes
>> confusing when they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent
>> reason.
>> 
> Yep, I think your right here.
> 
> A particular use of language is often used as a sign of comradeship; a
> way of showing that "I belong". It seems that swearing falls into this
> category too.
> 


You're funny, Derek.  I don't feel the urge (hmmm... or ability, for that 
matter) to contradict your statements.  I think you made your points well 
enough.


And I'm tired.... 


-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Walter,
>>>
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression
>>>>> of "art", but this one's a doosie.
>>>>>
>>>> Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use
>>>> in their skits, because there are many different british accents. He
>>>> laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper
>>>> class accents.
>>>>
>>>> I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes
>>>> <g>.
>>>>
>>>> There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show,
>>>> but at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at
>>>> Jacques Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid
>>>> would get those jokes?
>>>>
>>> I tend to care a lot about things and think a lot about implications
>>> and idea and how they affect people,  including the manner and
>>> language used when one expresses oneself to another.  I don't
>>> particularly care for a lot of the humour available on television
>>> today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway). However, it seems that a
>>> lot of people enjoy lampoons because it acts as a balm to their mind
>>> to help /avoid/ taking most things too seriously.  I can appreciate
>>> that, but I think there's also a caution involved there.
>>>
>>> The main problem with many of the new television shows is that, like
>>> fashion decides the fad in clothes, someone is deciding for us what
>>> is fair game to be laughed at.  The limits are pushed continually.
>>> For all the talk about religion's apparent control of people's minds,
>>> I think there's a whole lot more to be worried about as people feed
>>> on the what the boob tube serves up. With long time exposure, I'd say
>>> there is possibly a strong influence on their tolerance for what they
>>> consider acceptable behavior.  Humor, of course, is only one aspect
>>> of this.   It used to be that the productions in television tried to
>>> model the real world.  I think the opposite is now happening to some
>>> extent as we derive more relevancy from the fantasies and culture
>>> created in the imaginary worlds portrayed to us from television.
>>>
>>> Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of expression
>>> should warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe profane or
>>> irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers.  We've already
>>> seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may think it's cute and
>>> artsy, but I think it does any combination of the following:  creates
>>> a language barrier, trivializes the original meaning of certain
>>> anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in communication,
>>> demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking of
>>> others feelings, etc and on and on.   It's like throwing dirt in
>>> somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to interact.  We can
>>> stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a
>>> comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just as effective
>>> as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to
>>> make it pretty.
>>>
>>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But
>>> I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with
>>> ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes
>>> very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the malice that
>>> expresses them (not to say person should swear when he is angry :) ).
>>> It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes confusing when
>>> they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent reason.
>>>
>> Very thoughtful piece there, John.  I agree with you pretty much
>> completely.  I think the issues you speak of are particularly
>> pervasive in American culture these days.  Can't speak for other parts
>> of the world, but things definitely don't seem as bad to me over here
>> in Japan.  Then again it could be just that my Japanese just isn't
>> good enough to pick up that level of nuance, but I really don't think
>> Japanese culture has taken a heavy hit from the sarcasm bucket yet.
>>
>> --bb
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the encouragment, Bill.  You just might regret it later, though.
> ;)

I agree with your assessment that there's an issue, and it concerns me
too.   But I may not agree with you on how it should be addressed.
:-)   Seems Walter is reading your observations as a call to direct
action to control people's speech.  I didn't read it that way.

--bb
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home