OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Mike Parker]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ok, so sounds like you've decided that swearing like a sailor is
> perfectly A-OK as long as no harm is intended.   But here's the deal
> for me.  I, probably like many others, spent the first 18 years of my
> life having my parents and teachers tell me that that was wrong.  So
> no matter what you say, my "whoa that's wrong!" sensors go off every
> time I hear a profanity.  It's maybe like watching someone break in

This is true for a majority of people, I think. We aren't just /taught/ 
from a young age that certain words are bad, it's hammered into us. I 
still would never say "shit" in front of my grandmother.


> line -- even a line you're not standing in.  You see it, and your
> "that's just not right" sensors start going off.  It's not a great
> harm, no, but it brings about an elevated level of stress.  Or
> watching someone kick a puppy.   Or in another way it's like sitting
> in a restaurant where people are smoking.  To the other smokers in the
> room it probably seems like a pleasant environment but to most
> non-smokers it is very annoying and something that is hard to ignore.
> 
> So maybe you say, that's your problem, get over it.  Maybe so, but I
> don't really want to get over it.  There's no real redeeming value in
> casual swearing.  I don't believe society is any better off with
> everyone swearing at each other than it is with everyone being polite
> and respectful.  If I could choose my world to live in, I'd definitely
> choose the latter over the former.  I see no value in trying to push
> the envelope there, like South Park does.   Which is a bummer because
> South Park has some really funny stuff underneath all that cursing.
> But I just can't enjoy it.  I enjoy it much more when people tell me
> what happened in an episode without using all the swearing.  :-)
> 
> Maybe all this makes me some kind of freak outlier far to the right of
> current societal norms, but so far I don't see swearing becoming a big
> part of the nightly news or presidential addresses.  So I think it is
> still not considered proper to speak in that way by the majority of
> society.  What's really funny, though, is to meet people who have
> learned English primarily by watching American movies.  They seem to
> be under the impression that you need to put in a swear word every
> sentence or so in order to sound American.

The problem I have with the stigma on swearing is that people who find 
these words objectionable tend to replace them with other words that 
aren't so objectionable in order to get the same intent across. Nick 
mentioned this already. To me, it's an absurd practice.

Consider the case of insulting someone. If I were angry at someone and 
wanted to let them know what I thought of them, I might say one of the 
following:

"You're a piece of shit!" --> unacceptable
"You're a piece of crap!" --> acceptable to many, but the intent is same
"You're a piece of poo!" --> who would object to that?

My mother would not have scolded me had she heard me call someone a 
piece of poo. She would have admonished me for using "crap", since crap 
sounds dirtier to her than the cutesy poo. She would have slapped my 
face for saying "shit". But in all three cases the intent is the same. 
If I were wanting to insult someone, I would use the harshest word I 
could allow myself to use. In my case, I have no problem saying "shit", 
despite my upbringing. My mother would use "crap", because she thinks 
that's quite dirty enough to get the point across. My grandmother would 
use "poo", but it doesn't mean the emotion behind it is any less than 
mine or my mother's, or the intent any different.

What of the case of swearing in general, not /at/ someone? If I stub my 
toe, I might exclaim, "Fuck!" Someone nearby might be offended by that. 
So should I take that into consideration, check my natural reaction, and 
exclaim "Ouch!" instead? I say no. This really is the listener's 
problem, not the speaker's.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any swear word. Any perceived 
offense or insult behind the words themselves is a result of 
indoctrination by our parents and teachers. And when you really want to 
insult someone, non-swear words are no less vile than swear words. The 
intent behind the words is what matters most. Getting upset over the 
words themselves is just plain silliness.

That said, I admit to cringing every time I read superdan's posts. In my 
mind, I know it's ridiculous. But ideas forced on us in childhood are 
hard to let go of completely.



> 
> On the other hand I do *not* wish to impose my preferences on others
> by force.  I believe firmly in free speech.  You can say whatever you
> please.  But just do not do so under the delusion that what you say
> and how you say it has no affect on others.
> 
> --bb