OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

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