OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Mike Parker <aldacron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:

> 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?

The problem I have is that if you decide they're all equal, what do
you say when you've really reached your limit and are totally on the
edge?   You've turned it up all the way to 11 just by default already,
so where can you go from there?  Nowhere really.   You've severely
limited your capacity for dynamic range.  Just like the
crapily-produced music these days with compression turned all the way
up all the time to make it sound "louder".  But the irony is that if
everything sounds loud then nothing sounds loud.

So I've got no problem with people swearing in the rare occasions
where passions are running so high that no other expression will
really suffice.  It's more the casual uses below that bother me.  I do
it myself occasionally when I'm really pissed.

> 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.

If you're really pissed off, I say sure. But I'd follow it with an
"excuse me" once you get control of yourself again.

But putting the blame for the problem all on the listener is callous
in my opinion.  No man is an island and all that.  You can go through
life choosing not to care whether you hurt the feelings of your fellow
man, but I think that's a lousy way to live.  Better to try to show
some respect to those around you.  Your attitude sounds to me like the
guy who does something rude and when everyone turns around to look
follows it up with "what the f** you lookin' at?", as opposed the guy
who says "pardon me".  Deciding that anything you do which is
offensive to the other party is somehow to blame on the other party is
ridiculous.  You do not set the standards for the entire world.
Especially if your behavior is clearly on the edge of what is
considered the norm for your environment.

I think that keeping the norms in your environment in mind is the key
there.   I don't think you should have to double check *everything*
you do with *everyone* around just in *case* they have some allergy to
the word "fruitcake" because of a childhood trauma.  There's no way
you could anticipate that that would be offensive to them.  So there,
yes, I agree that it is something they really have to come to terms
with.   But if you *do* know about their thing about "fruitcake", then
you are just being an ass if you keep saying it around them.
Likewise, among your friends, sailor talk may be the norm.  You have
an idea what will and will not be offensive to them.  You should be
cautious when going far outside that.

> 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.

Agreed.  But that indoctrination is a very real thing.  It exists and
it affects people.  Trying to define it out of existence as
non-tangible and therefore unimportant or unreal is silly.   It is as
silly as dismissing the placebo effect.  The placebo effect is very
real even if there's no "real" medicine involved.

> 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.

No, the swear words are more vile.  Because they transgress an
established social norm at the same time as expressing that intent.
It communicates that you are so intent on what you have to say that
you are willing to risk stepping outside those norms to express it.
Unless of course you use those same words to express your dismay at
today's lunch options.  Then you've robbed those words of any special
emphasis they might have been able to provide.

> 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.

You say that as if you *should* let go of it completely.  Why should
you?  If we were talking about a childhood idea like "slavery is
good", then I'd agree with you it's important to try to ditch that
notion.  But not all ideas forced on us in childhood are bad.  Like
having respect for others, working hard, playing fair, etc.



--bb