OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.783.1234919397.22690.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. Just like the "normal everyday words that can be used
> maliciously", the difference is all in the delivery. I could say "Oh, fuck,
> broccoli again" in a way that suggests "I despise you, let's fight!" (loud,
> gruff and annunciated with a sneer or a big frown and glaring at the chef or
> server), or I could say it in a perfectly benign manner (subdued, prepended
> with a chuckle or soft laugh-like snort or a "heh", and glancing over to,
> nudging, and smiling at a tired-of-broccoli friend standing nearby). That
> latter still leaves plenty of room for "fuck" to be used coarsely, in just
> the same way that "Did you see that thing on TV last night?" leaves plenty
> of room for "that" to be used coarsely (as in my earlier example of telling
> an insecure acne-victim "I'm surprised you're willing to come out looking
> like THAT!")

But then the emphasis is not at all coming from the word itself but
the intonation.  You have robbed the word of the extra-special power
it had via that societal indoctrination, making it just an ordinary
word.   You are right, though,  that you may be able to still get your
point across, even without the extra help that the taboo gives.

But this part is really just my argument for why, given the choice
between profanity as the norm and not, why we should choose the
latter.   It's certainly a valid proposition for a society to decide
there are no taboo words and play "fuck-a-bye baby" to their children
in the crib, because after all it's just a word.  But I'm saying by
doing so you're giving up a capacity for nuance and dynamic range.  I
think there's more value in keeping that capacity for dynamic range
open, than there is value in cheapening "shit" to the point where it
is in all ways equivalent to "poo".  Now we have two different words
that can communicate two very different levels of intensity.  If you
make it all the same then that really just seems like a loss overall
to me.

That's quite separate from the second argument, which is that given
societal norms as they stand *now* (whatever those norms may be), it
is disrespectful to one's fellow man to unilaterally decide to ignore
the established norms because of an attitude of "if you don't like it
it's *your* problem".  Perhaps in your microcosm, you are behaving
well within the norms.  I would assume so, or else you are probably a
lonely guy.  But when you go out in public, your microcosm rubs elbows
with everyone else's microcosms -- the average norm of your
surroundings changes and I believe one should adapt one's behavior
accordingly.   And I think you agree with this to some extent, too, if
only because I don't see you swearing like sailor Dan here on the NG.

--bb