View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c1452e8cb5e9c3ce5b5d0@news.digitalmars.com...
> 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.
>

As a listener, I find the suggestion that the speaker is the one in control 
of my reaction downright insulting. No one's attempting to "shift 
responsibility" here.
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Derek,

>> 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.
> 


No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within certain 
groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.


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

> 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
> 


Oh, I see.  I guess that's a problem that precident creates.  No, my discussion 
here is merely a discussion.   I wasn't insinuating that he should control 
people's speech here... ouch.... 


Though I'd prefer if people tried to aim for a higher mark. :)


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

> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:28b70f8c1452e8cb5e9c3ce5b5d0@news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> As a listener, I find the suggestion that the speaker is the one in
> control of my reaction downright insulting. No one's attempting to
> "shift responsibility" here.
> 


Hmm... I didn't think of it quite that way. :)


Nick, I'm merely saying that we must take responsibility for what we say, 
including the potential affect on the listener.  I felt Walter was shifting 
this responsibilty away with his statement here, but perhaps I confused his 
meaning?  If so, my apologies.  I'm afraid as I get more tired, my brain 
waves get fuzzier.


-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Derek,
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within
> certain groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.


George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.

--bb
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gncqss$2hto$1@digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "superdan" <super@dan.org> wrote in message
>>> news:gnc2ml$14ch$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french.
>>>> don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat
>>>> apple thing.
>>>
>>> I don't usually mind profanity, so for me the big problem is more
>>> often the high overhead involved in translating things like this into
>>> real words and sentences. ;-)
>>
>> One interesting aspect of writing posts like that is you can use it to
>> defeat snooping programs that look for certain keywords and phrases. It
>> also makes it far more difficult for non-native language speakers to
>> understand it, if that is one's intention.
>
> Being a non-native English speaker, I *HATE* that kind of writing since 
> it's very hard for me to understand it

I'm a native English speaker, and even *I* find it very difficult to read 
that kind of writing. It's bad enough that I usually just don't even bother 
to try to read it and just move on to the next post/web-page/etc. There's 
plenty of things out there written with *good* language that it's just not 
worthwhile to waste time on the poorly-written stuff. Therefore, I see bad 
language like that as an effective way to make people not even listen to 
you.
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Bill,

> 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
> 



The major thing that got me worried was the /encouragement/ of this kind 
of speech in Walter's original post.  I felt that was unnecessary and exacerbating 
a problem here.  That's probably why I pursued this discussion to this degree. 



-JJR
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Hello Derek,
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within
>> certain groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.
>
> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
> accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>

Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like 
that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.

I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up as 
"People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks 
and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be harmed 
by words.
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gncqss$2hto$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> "superdan" <super@dan.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:gnc2ml$14ch$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french.
>>>>> don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat
>>>>> apple thing.
>>>>
>>>> I don't usually mind profanity, so for me the big problem is more
>>>> often the high overhead involved in translating things like this into
>>>> real words and sentences. ;-)
>>>
>>> One interesting aspect of writing posts like that is you can use it to
>>> defeat snooping programs that look for certain keywords and phrases. It
>>> also makes it far more difficult for non-native language speakers to
>>> understand it, if that is one's intention.
>>
>> Being a non-native English speaker, I *HATE* that kind of writing since
>> it's very hard for me to understand it
>
> I'm a native English speaker, and even *I* find it very difficult to read
> that kind of writing. It's bad enough that I usually just don't even bother
> to try to read it and just move on to the next post/web-page/etc. There's
> plenty of things out there written with *good* language that it's just not
> worthwhile to waste time on the poorly-written stuff. Therefore, I see bad
> language like that as an effective way to make people not even listen to
> you.

That reminds me of this comic Snuffy Smith that was in the funny pages
of the newspapers where I grew up.  When I was in grade school I liked
to read the comics, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what
the heck they were saying in Snuffy Smith.  It's all written like
"Gee, G'paw, I shurely'd be likin' ter gwan git sum, but I rekin it
ain't all done yit."  But it's been around for a long time.  So I
guess some people like to read obfuscated English.  Then of course
there's James Joyce and William Faulkner who made whole literary
movements out of writing stuff that was impossible to read.  :-)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith
February 17, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello Derek,
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within
>>> certain groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.
>>
>> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
>> accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>>
>
> Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like
> that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.

Well, you're a product of your environment, so I guess that's not
really surprising.

> I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up as
> "People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks
> and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be harmed
> by words.

I don't quite know what to say to that.   So you're saying you
wouldn't mind if someone stood behind you uttering profanities all day
long?  I would find that highly annoying and it would most certainly
contribute to my stress levels.  Even if it weren't profanities it
would be highly annoying.  So to say words can't harm you seems
nonsense to me.  Sure words do not cause physical injury, but are
physical injuries the only ones that matter?

--bb
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home