OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.755.1234856377.22690.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>>
>>> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
>>> accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>>>
>>
>> Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like
>> that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.
>
> Well, you're a product of your environment, so I guess that's not
> really surprising.
>

That's only true to a certain extent. There are plenty of things I've spent 
years completely surrounded by and never liked, and plenty of things that I 
liked immediately upon introduction. And I'd venture to say that's true of 
most people as well.

>> I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up as
>> "People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks
>> and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be 
>> harmed
>> by words.
>
> I don't quite know what to say to that.   So you're saying you
> wouldn't mind if someone stood behind you uttering profanities all day
> long?  I would find that highly annoying and it would most certainly
> contribute to my stress levels.  Even if it weren't profanities it
> would be highly annoying.  So to say words can't harm you seems
> nonsense to me.  Sure words do not cause physical injury, but are
> physical injuries the only ones that matter?
>

You're attributing more to the idea of "words" than just "words". What 
you're describing is harassment. Yes, harassment involves words, but it's 
clearly more than just words. Such scenarios are not what I'm talking about. 
(Granted, the "sticks and stones" adage is traditionally used to pacify kids 
that were the victims of name-calling, so maybe describing it that way was 
inaccurate after all.)

What I'm talking about is illustrated by this:
On some show/song/game/etc., some character says:
"Why can't I get my CPU fan to work?!?"
"Why can't I get my dang CPU fan to work?!?"
"Why can't I get my fucking CPU fan to work?!?"

The intent, scenario, action, everything, is exactly the same. The only 
difference is the words. No one that tunes in, listens, and remains unharmed 
by one of those is ever going to be harmed by one of the others unless 
there's something seriously wrong with them.

Sure, words can be used in ways that can harm, but the harm doesn't come 
from the words themselves. I can do hurtful things that involve words 
without ever going near profanity. For example, go up to someone who is 
insecure about their acne and use these particular words: "I'm surprised you 
are willing to show that face in public." Of course, one could argue that 
this particular *combination* of words is profane, but even that's not true: 
I could recite that exact same arrangement to a good friend with a good 
sense of humor, or to a mask-painter who's unveiling a piece from a private 
collection they had previously been very secretive about. Same arrangement, 
same words, different acceptability-levels. Conversely, I can use profanity 
in a way that doesn't harm anyone. "Oh, fuck, I almost overslept." Words 
like "that" can be used in ways that are highly offensive, and words like 
"fuck" can be used in ways that are completely benign - any word can be used 
either way. So clearly, the words themselves can't be inherently good or 
bad.