OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Derek Parnell]

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.


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell