OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

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