OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Nick Sabalausky]

"John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c145458cb5ea19dc58340 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:28b70f8c1452e8cb5e9c3ce5b5d0 at 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 ;)