OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Walter Bright]

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.