OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Mike Parker]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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.


I understand your point. But it's sort of lost when people can't bring 
themselves to utter certain words because they're too profane, so they 
say words like "poo" or "screw" instead. We can't still get a nice, 
dynamic range. Look at how many different words there are that can be 
substituted for "fuck" in different contexts.

> 
> 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.


In my case, I rarely swear. I let a word out on my blog every now and 
then for emphasis. Regardless of what I think, I understand how society 
at large views these words. I don't go out of my way to offend people. 
It helps that I'm in Korea, where English expletives just don't have the 
same weight. But when I'm around other expats, particularly females 
(excluding those who get offended when you don't treat them as one of 
the guys), I behave just as I was taught. Well, once I get inubriated 
all bets are off.

Considering that these days there are so many people offended by so many 
different things, I don't agree with the idea that we should always have 
to tip-toe on egg shells in order to avoid offending someone. I mean, 
directly insulting people is certainly not good practice. And in public, 
as silly as I think it is, I try to be careful about what I say (being 
in Korea helps, but when I'm around other expats and alcohol...) But I 
fully blame the emphasis on political correctness over the past two+ 
decades for restrictions on freedom of speech. It started out with good 
intentions, but it has devolved into absurdity. For a prime example, 
just look what's happened with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human 
Rights, where it is now considered a human rights violation to defame 
religion. That has some ugly side effects [1].

So while I certainly am consciously considerate of others to a large 
extent in person, it is something I hope that some day I don't have to 
bother with. And I will continue to post content on my blog that I hope 
offends certain groups who always offend me by whinging about being 
offended :)

[1] http://richarddawkins.net/article,3600,n,n