"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c145458cb5ea19dc58340@news.digitalmars.com...
> 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.

Hmm, I can sympathise with that point. However, I'm convinced it's a futile effort in most cases, except perhaps direct one-on-one conversation. The problem is that people are just very different. Sure, some people find South Park and George Carlin disgusting and offensive, but others find them appealing and quite literally find the squeaky-clean content of Brady Bunch and Leave It To Beaver to be deplorable (for a number of different reasons). Some groups of people regularly toss around swear words in ordinary conversation with none of the listeners ever getting the slightest tinge of discomfort. Other people are offended by such swear words, but on the other hand, many people are *truly* offended by political correctness.

If everybody was the same, then sure, it would make perfect sense to expect people to take responsibility for how the listener is affected. But this is the real world, and everyone is not remotely the same, so in most cases such a convention would be tricky at best, and in the case of mass-media, it's nothing short of a complete and total impossibility.

Incidentally, this is exactly why I consider the golden rule to be great in spirit and as a rough general guideline, but absoultely terrible when taken as-is.

> I'm afraid as I get more tired, my brain waves get fuzzier.
>

Heh, this is one area where you and me *are* the same ;)

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gndqjh$144o$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> If everybody was the same, then sure, it would make perfect sense to expect people to take responsibility for how the listener is affected. But this is the real world, and everyone is not remotely the same, so in most cases such a convention would be tricky at best, and in the case of mass-media, it's nothing short of a complete and total impossibility.
>

Plus, there's also the issue that if the public, in general, really was so offended by such profanity in mass-media, such content would be very short-lived instead of becoming as prolific as it is today.

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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?

I'd be just as annoyed if you stood behind me reading the dictionary aloud all day. It's not the words or ideas that annoy, it's the sound.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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. 

Like you, I just don't bother reading things that have poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, are one giant paragraph, are all caps, etc. When I have bothered to read one now and then, I find the thinking just as disorganized as the presentation, and so a waste of time.

Such is not *always* the case, it may be art.

eecummings:
=============================
she being Brand

-new;and you
know consequently a
little stiff i was
careful of her and(having

thoroughly oiled the universal
joint tested my gas felt of
her radiator made sure her springs were O.

K.)i went right to it flooded-the-carburetor cranked her

up,slipped the
clutch(and then somehow got into reverse she
kicked what
the hell)next
minute i was back in neutral tried and

again slo-wly;bare,ly nudg.  ing(my

lev-er Right-
oh and her gears being in
A 1 shape passed
from low through
second-in-to-high like
greasedlightning)just as we turned the corner of Divinity

avenue i touched the accelerator and give
===========================================

 And superdan plays ghetto-speak like an instrument <g>.

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.755.1234856377.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> 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...
>>>
>>> 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.
>

That's only true to a certain extent. There are plenty of things I've spent years completely surrounded by and never liked, and plenty of things that I liked immediately upon introduction. And I'd venture to say that's true of most people as well.

>> 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?
>

You're attributing more to the idea of "words" than just "words". What you're describing is harassment. Yes, harassment involves words, but it's clearly more than just words. Such scenarios are not what I'm talking about. (Granted, the "sticks and stones" adage is traditionally used to pacify kids that were the victims of name-calling, so maybe describing it that way was inaccurate after all.)

What I'm talking about is illustrated by this:
On some show/song/game/etc., some character says:
"Why can't I get my CPU fan to work?!?"
"Why can't I get my dang CPU fan to work?!?"
"Why can't I get my fucking CPU fan to work?!?"

The intent, scenario, action, everything, is exactly the same. The only difference is the words. No one that tunes in, listens, and remains unharmed by one of those is ever going to be harmed by one of the others unless there's something seriously wrong with them.

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.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I'd be just as annoyed if you stood behind me reading the dictionary aloud all day. It's not the words or ideas that annoy, it's the sound.

What if it was Sean Connery reading it?

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gndrqu$193p$1@digitalmars.com...
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I'd be just as annoyed if you stood behind me reading the dictionary aloud all day. It's not the words or ideas that annoy, it's the sound.

Incidentally, I actually had a co-worker once who did more-or-less just that. He wasn't following me around or anything, but it was a small war-room setup and he was always yapping away with someone, and every other word out of his mouth was some variant of "fuck", regardless of whether or not it actually fit the content of the sentence. Irritating as hell, but it would have been just as bad if it were either a "surfer-dude"-style overuse of "like" or even just constant whistling or pencil-tapping...Or noise-making yo-yos...Those damn, insufferable, company-issued logo-bearing noise-making yo-yos...with the blinky red lights and everything...talk about "bells and whistles"...Man, I hated those things...(And yes, that seriously happened, at the same job. And it was a room of *programmers*.)

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gnduoc$1deu$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I'd be just as annoyed if you stood behind me reading the dictionary aloud all day. It's not the words or ideas that annoy, it's the sound.
>
> What if it was Sean Connery reading it?

Oh, well now of course that would be different. :)  Except it might be difficult at work though...so soothing...must...work...but...nice...like a lullaby...ZZzzzzzz.....

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.754.1234855176.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> 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

The newer comics Non-Sequitor (the old guy telling stories in the bar) and Pearls Before Swine (the crocs) do that a lot too. But they're so funny I find it worth the effort. It gives certain characters a particular accent that kind of emulates good comedic voice-acting and really makes the whole thing just that much funnier.

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.754.1234855176.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> 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.  :-)
>

One of Victor Borge's comedy routines had something similar that was actually verbal instead of written. He called it "Language Inflation", and he'd replace words like "to" and "too" with "three", and "tennis" with "elevenis".