Post #41452
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-01 01:04
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
If you love free speech, make your kids say "fuck"
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I think I am the only parent in the world who doesn't try to censor their kid's speech. I fail to understand why it’s so important to make sure kids don't ever use certain words. By the time they are 8, they probably have a good idea of what most of these words mean anyway. Every kid knows what “shit” means – it means the exact same thing as poo-poo, crap, and feces. So why do people insist on shoving soap in the mouths of a kid who utters the word “shit”?
A kid can take a poop, but he can’t take a shit. What’s up with that? Why is is okay to kick somebody's butt, but not okay to kick their ass?
The whole concept of "bad words" is just a leftover piece of Victorian nonsense. All of the “bad words” either describe natural bodily functions (shit, fuck), natural body parts (cunt, ass), or is a requests for damnation from a particular deity (God damn thee!!). The Victorians may have had problems with the subjects, but modern society really doesn’t shun away from these types of things any longer. It’s perfectly acceptable to talk about these subjects in most situations.
However, since people learned that some of the words which describe these subjects are “bad”, it leads to the strange situation where it is ok to go on national TV and talk about “making whoopee”, just as long as you don’t use the word “fuck”. What’s the fucking difference? I don’t think this is what the Victorians were hoping to accomplish. It wasn’t that the word “fuck” offended them – it was the act of fucking that offended them. They didn’t want people to talk about fucking at all. I think that this notion that the word “fuck” itself is bad is a bit of a modern misunderstanding.
But the reason I am bringing this up is this...
People need to understand the harm they are doing their kids by punishing them for having a "potty mouth". By censoring you kid’s speech, you are teaching them that it's OK to have their speech censored by authority figures. This is where political correctness is born. When they get older, society will attempt to restrict their speech in the same manner for various political reasons. If they are raised to believe that there really is such a thing as a "bad word", they will accept these restrictions. But, if you raised your kids in an environment which doesn't attempt to limit their lexicon, the whole notion of political correctness will seem a little silly to them. If a child is raised to believe that restrictions on speech are unnecessary, they will laugh at the notion that a word should be banned because it is “bad”.
Which is more important?... Making sure your kids don’t say “shit”, or teaching them that they shouldn’t allow other people to control what they say? I am the only person who sees it this way? Can encouraging your kids to say “fuck” help protect them from political correctness when they are older?
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41455
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-01 02:11
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Fascist States of America
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'd probably raise my kids to swear freely like you, that is, if I had or even wanted kids in my life any more than I want AIDS and the Candiru in my life. _________________
Rev. Ted Haggard wrote:
If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant.
Eddie Murphy wrote:
I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Post #41475
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 250
Total Words: 24,632
Average words per post: 98.53
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-01 06:24
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Singapore
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
As much as people around me dislikes it, I swear like a fucking sailor, I think it's perfectly alright. I rather people swear than to engage in drugs/sex/violence etc. To my kids, if I ever would have one, I will neither advocate or be against cussing. It's just talking! Geez. People need to loosen up abit. Sigh, what an uptight world. _________________ Death makes a prophet's voice louder. Martyrs are dangerous. - Chapterhouse Dune, Frank Herbert.
Kom
Del ditt hat med oss
Forlat ditt svake legeme
La deg ei forvirres av vakre ord
I Døden finnes all makt
- Dimmu Borgir's Broderskapets Ring
Die Irae. Die Illa. Solvet Cosmos in Favilla. Vocamus te Aeshma-Deva.
Post #41494
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 401
Total Words: 53,349
Average words per post: 133.04
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-01 12:05
Politics: Atheist
Country: Germany
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I second your cause in the respect that it doesn't make sense to censor words like "fuck" on TV etc. As soon as a child knows what it means, it's really unnecessary to keep it from hearing the word.
My only concern would be that excessive swearing probably reduces the educational or intellectual value of what's being said - not always, but resorting to swearing often shows that you're unable to find other words to express yourself. I'm against censorship of swearwords, but I don't know if encouraging someone to use them is the right solution, whether it's people on television shows or children. I agree that U.S. censorship is exaggerated I've probably said it before, but here it's perfectly normal to see naked breasts on afternoon TV.
To summarize - swearing is okay, but that doesn't mean it has to be done excessively. _________________ Det snurrar i min skalle.
Post #41497
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-01 12:46
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
The trick is legitimise and destroy. A world where "fuck" just means "have sex" would be one where "fuck" isn't just used as a lazy shock-value word...
On second thoughts, then, it's probably fucking easier just to keep swear-words as a taboo. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #41603
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 350
Total Words: 58,653
Average words per post: 167.58
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-03 00:54
Politics: Nihilism
Country: Oceania
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Sorry if I'm redundant, I didn't want to read the whole page.
I think washing your kid's mouth out with soap is barbaric, but I don't think you should encourage your children to swear (or let them swear without at least a mild verbal reprimand) because if cursewords lose their power I'm going to fucking kill something.
However, the responsibility to keep swearwords pure for yourself is your own, and other people's swearing will not necessarily diminish the satisfaction that YOU get from cursing. That said, I am of the opinion that the world would be extremely dull if curses lost their shock value. We need taboos to a DEGREE--people shouldn't be punished for puritanical reasons, but sex and drugs and rock and roll shouldn't go mainstream! _________________ Wolf Wajsbrot ("Un attentat, trois déraillements")
Tristan Tzara (Dadaïste)
As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.
-L'Étranger
Post #41659
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-03 21:47
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Of course it's stupid to be offended by curse words (unless they're used in an offensive way, of course) but its also stupid to be offended by nudity (unless the nudist is obese) and the like. But since most people are offended by it, it seems polite to respect that. To some people I know, cursing in front of them would be like slapping them in the face - its just rude in some circumstances and we should respect other people's sensitivity. _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Post #41662
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-03 22:32
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Language as a social tool includes subtleties beyond the simple meanings of the words in question. Our choice of words even among groups of synonyms tell the listener indirectly the level of respect/affection/formality within which we are issuing the communication.
Expletives are used in modern communication to communicate the lowest levels of formality and dependent on context respect. It is not simple lack of intelligence which causes us to take offence upon the utterance of these words but a learnt social mechanism which does serve some utility.
If we ceased to view certain words as negative in the way we do swear words we would simply shift to a similar repulsion of other seemingly parallel choices of words, Japanese would be a good example of this. I think the truly tedious thing about these words in modernity is the manner in which societies slide to informality has embraced them to the point of rejecting all other words. If words did not have this draw of the taboo they would not be used... at least not as they are currently used. I would certainly teach my children that using such words with any relish is base and intellectually weak.
It is nice to think we should just reject the connotations we all find in swear words, but these are things truly hard to unlearn. I think some of the other threads on this subject demonstrate that we all innately feel, there is something special about these words, whether that causes us to over or under use them is another matter. I find it hard to believe we can shield our children from this attachment without great expenditure. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #41918
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 18:02
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
2+2=5 wrote:
I second your cause in the respect that it doesn't make sense to censor words like "fuck" on TV etc. As soon as a child knows what it means, it's really unnecessary to keep it from hearing the word.
True. If they already know he word, and they already know what it means. What are we protecting them from? I suppose tat it could be connected to the ancient belief that there is a sky god listening to all of your thoughts, and that every time you think about sex you must repent by doing 100 Mary's.
Talk of such things angers the deity, so we must seek to repress it ... especially in innocent children.
2+2=5 wrote:
My only concern would be that excessive swearing probably reduces the educational or intellectual value of what's being said - not always, but resorting to swearing often shows that you're unable to find other words to express yourself. I'm against censorship of swearwords, but I don't know if encouraging someone to use them is the right solution, whether it's people on television shows or children. I agree that U.S. censorship is exaggerated.
To summarize - swearing is okay, but that doesn't mean it has to be done excessively.
I'm not advocating creating a nation of little Joe Pesci's...
... but if a kid drops his dad's lug nuts in the snow while helping change a flat tire, and he happened to let out a little "Oh, Fuck!", I wouldn't think of sticking soap in his mouth.
2+2=5 wrote:
I've probably said it before, but here it's perfectly normal to see naked breasts on afternoon TV.
(I'm really gonna dig this new YouTube embedding feature)
Zoon wrote:
To some people I know, cursing in front of them would be like slapping them in the face - its just rude in some circumstances and we should respect other people's sensitivity.
Fuck 'em. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41930
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 401
Total Words: 53,349
Average words per post: 133.04
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 22:38
Politics: Atheist
Country: Germany
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
BB wrote:
True. If they already know he word, and they already know what it means. What are we protecting them from? I suppose tat it could be connected to the ancient belief that there is a sky god listening to all of your thoughts, and that every time you think about sex you must repent by doing 100 Mary's.
Talk of such things angers the deity, so we must seek to repress it ... especially in innocent children.
In addition, if you forbid your child to speak about certain things, and therefore indirectly to think about them as well (newspeak principle all the way), won't the temptation grow? I mean, as a general rule, something becomes really interesting once it's not allowed.
For all I care, people can think about fucking as much as they want ...and while we're at it, God can fuck himself, too. ( that felt good)
BB wrote:
I'm not advocating creating a nation of little Joe Pesci's...
Hehe, I liked that movie. In that kind of quantity, swearing is simply ridiculous and therefore funny. ("Funny?! Why the fuck am I funny?!" )
BB wrote:
... but if a kid drops his dad's lug nuts in the snow while helping change a flat tire, and he happened to let out a little "Oh, Fuck!", I wouldn't think of sticking soap in his mouth.
I'd go so far as to say that's a form of child abuse... By the way, it calls Brave New World to my mind (just started reading it) - connect swearwords with a soapy mouth....repeat about 70 times, and the child is conditioned to loathe swearing...
Hell, even if you bring your children up not to swear, what kind of crap parents need to resort to those kind of methods?
-----
Cool show... I hated that lawyer woman - it's as if she's disgusted by femininity, by herself even O.o Fuck it, free the breasts, if I don't like what I see I'll look away. _________________ Det snurrar i min skalle.
Post #41938
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 1331
Total Words: 165,375
Average words per post: 124.25
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 23:45
Politics: Green
Country: Germany
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
2+2=5 wrote:
I'd go so far as to say that's a form of child abuse... By the way, it calls Brave New World to my mind (just started reading it) - connect swearwords with a soapy mouth....repeat about 70 times, and the child is conditioned to loathe swearing...
Hell, even if you bring your children up not to swear, what kind of crap parents need to resort to those kind of methods?
Haha, that makes me think about my exchange student ... He always cussed and used the word fuck pretty often when his mum wasn't around. "Mum" was mad at me when I said " I think Bastian hates me " she was like " No, you mean he doesnt like you" ...uh no I am pretty sure he hates me? -- There is a very huge cultural difference I guess. I wasn't allowed to say " I am pissed off" ... It's absolutely normal to say Shit here, while people there would say " Shoot" I mean why the hell ( heck lol ) would you say Shoot when you want to say Shit feel free to say so. I slipped through this darn ( damnnn ) rule by using german swear words until my exchange student asked me , if I say "Shit" when I am saying " Scheiße" .lol I remember 'my other exchange student replaced fuck by fudge.... what's the reason behind replacing words ? That's a thing we do, too, but it's just not as popular. I don't thing it makes that much difference if a little kid says fuck or fudge.... one would know what this kid wants to say anyway. The only thing that would be effective to raise kids to not swear that much is a normal use of swear words .
I've been brought up with the word shit and I dont use it quite as often as some people who werent allowed to say it ( just a guess).
Post #41967
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 196
Total Words: 23,747
Average words per post: 121.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-10 12:12
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Sweden
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
My opinion on the matter is that a child has a certain period of repeating "fun words". Sooner or later it won't be that much of a fun to learn how to curse, so he/she learns to use it occassionally instead.
Think of it, most people tend to learn how to curse in another language before they learn anything else. It's about making it fun opening up to a new language, but the fun will pass as soon as everyone become linguist experts.
FUCK!ASS! (The Boondock Saints) _________________ Trust no one, do as thou wilt.
"Everything in this room is eatable, even *I'm* eatable! But that is called "cannibalism," my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies"
Post #42021
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 04:02
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
BB wrote:
A kid can take a poop, but he can’t take a shit. What’s up with that? Why is is okay to kick somebody's butt, but not okay to kick their ass?
Also, along those lines, why is it okay to wear a shirt that says "Make love to the environment" but not "Fuck the environment"? _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Post #42631
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 632
Total Words: 75,294
Average words per post: 119.14
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 09:26
Politics: Technocratism
Country: British Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
This is very intriguing.
Lets just take a step back and considere what words actually are.
1. A complex series of noises that, when grouped together, form a method of auditory communication.
2. A complex series of symbols that, when grouped together form a method of visual communication.
Why is it that some series of noises are considered acceptable in open convercement, but not others? After all, they are just words. Methods of communication.
Its similar to nudity really. Why is it socially acceptable to reveal you face, arms, hands, fingers, legs, face, back, portions of the breasts and, in the case of men, the chest, but not the whole of the breasts and genitals?
In the Isaac Asimov book, "Prelude to Foundation", a society called Mycogen chemically remove hair from themselves at the onset of puberty, making men and women completley balled all other their bodies. And when the too main charecters arrive, for reasons I shall not reavel in case I ruin the story for someone, they are forced to wear skincaps over their hair and eyebrows. One of the charecters was on a tour of Mycogens famous algae farms, when he and the women he was with retired for a rest in a special private rest room, and he quizes her on Mycogens ancient history, she tells him she would reveal nothing, unless he showed her the hair on his head and his eyebrows.
Later, he discusses this incident with his companion. An interesting suggestion was raised. He is asked if he would find the breasts on a women attractive if they lived in a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable, perhaps even expected, for a women to have her breatsts constantly on view. We probably wouldn't, since a womens breats are kwept out of sight and touch, this is why we are attracted to a women who has large breasts. It was the same principle for the Mycogenians and hair.
"Swear words" would not be considerd swear words or inapropiate if they were always used in converstion. _________________ Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
Sindark Nave wrote:
I am extremely, awfully, dreadfully, eminently, exceedingly, exceptionally, extra, greatly, highly, most, notably, very strange, peculiar, odd, queer, outlandish, and eccentric. Salutations.
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
"To such devices have we descended" A Handmaids Tale, by Margaret Atwood
Post #42643
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 11:15
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Comrade Alexander wrote:
This is very intriguing.
Lets just take a step back and considere what words actually are.
1. A complex series of noises that, when grouped together, form a method of auditory communication.
2. A complex series of symbols that, when grouped together form a method of visual communication.
Why is it that some series of noises are considered acceptable in open convercement, but not others? After all, they are just words. Methods of communication.
Its similar to nudity really. Why is it socially acceptable to reveal you face, arms, hands, fingers, legs, face, back, portions of the breasts and, in the case of men, the chest, but not the whole of the breasts and genitals?
One reason is that, according to the Old Testament, the use of curse words bring on the wrath of God. Generally, however, a key reason for verbal ettiquette is a common one for all forms of ettiquette: snobbery. Snobbery is usually a means of those who do not distinguish themselves by struggle to place themselves above everyone else.
They need to somehow justify their social status (for instance, that of a rich English landowner), but can't say appeal either to their intelligence or accomplishments. For example, a rich landowner's son has no material impetus to study subjects of practical use, like business, practical sciences or practical arts like the social sciences or law. So they, by and large, dedicate themselves to the pursuit of impractical subjects like Latin, the history of art and the like. Thus, by rattling off a series of sentences in Latin, they can feel intellectually superior in spite of the fact that these sentences are of no use to society. Instead, they just serve to further distinguish this parasitic class of lay-abouts and give them a sense of undue legitimacy. Most forms of higher social ettiquette (for instance, the custom of wives facing husbands at dinner tables, something that most families don't think about) are thus just means of justifying what is counter-productive to society.
On the other hand, the social ettiquette that swearing is not always appropriate is a far more egalitarian form of distinction, because it is a means by which anyone can distinguish themselves as sensitive and good members of society. EVERYONE knows that its customary not to begin a eulogy with "Bitches and gentlemen". I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you don't have to have attended Eton to do know it, and you don't need to go through Oxbridge to know how to pull it off. It can be seen as a sort of collective snobbery: the majority do it, and thus identify themselves as sensitive to the needs of others. That kind of social awareness is a GOOD reason to feel cocky. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #42684
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
Total Words: 124,012
Average words per post: 224.66
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 21:04
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Big Brother wrote:
A kid can take a poop, but he can’t take a shit. What’s up with that? Why is is okay to kick somebody's butt, but not okay to kick their ass?
Comrade Alexander wrote:
Why is it that some series of noises are considered acceptable in open convercement, but not others? After all, they are just words. Methods of communication.
Its similar to nudity really. Why is it socially acceptable to reveal you face, arms, hands, fingers, legs, face, back, portions of the breasts and, in the case of men, the chest, but not the whole of the breasts and genitals?
Zoon wrote:
Also, along those lines, why is it okay to wear a shirt that says "Make love to the environment" but not "Fuck the environment"?
There are critically important reasons. There's more to communication than just the denotation (the exact, dictionary meaning) of what you are transmitting. You also have to worry about the connotation. That is, the images and emotions that your words evoke in your audience's mind. While the word nigger might just denote a black guy, it will connote totally different things depending on whether a black or a non-black guy uses it; therefore, there's obviously more than "just words" involved in the communication. Because emotions are so primal and personal, and the power of words like cunt or nigger in certain contexts makes emotions flare into life, they're not even usable words unless you're trying to stir up these emotions!
Doesn't really need further explaining but I may as well just spell it out:
Saying black to address or denote blacks is emotionally uninvolved.
Saying nigger in the same situation heaps scorn upon the race, and suggests malicious intent whether you have it or not.
Saying vagina is also emotion-neutral (or as neutral as you can get, referring to the organ)
Saying cunt indicates a spectrum of scorn or desire to fuck, and provokes all emotions thus associated in your listener.
Saying movement indicates a sort of politeness. You're trying to spare your listener(s) the imagery of taking a dump, hehe.
Saying poop is an effort to cast it into cute, even gift-like terms, and I guess it works better than other terms in making kids comfortable with the concept.
Saying shit throws cuteness and politeness out the window, going instead for direct imagery and the notion of the worthlessness of shit.
Bottom line: because the connotations are different, the meanings of the words are literally, totally, incontrovertibly different. Kids need to know the differences and how they work.
One Of The Few wrote:
...a key reason for verbal ettiquette is a common one for all forms of ettiquette: snobbery. Snobbery is usually a means of those who do not distinguish themselves by struggle to place themselves above everyone else.
Don't you think your highlighting snobbery as a "key reason" for verbal etiquette downplays reasons that are more immediately relevant and have power over us? Perhaps among the landed British gentry there's snobbery in it, but everywhere else, this same etiquette is associated with professionalism. Professionalism is not superficial; it makes money for a reason. People react better to good communicators, good communicators can get better deals, and are more convincing in debates or pitches. This is all because we instinctively trust someone who's apparently used his time and energy to master communication. If they cared enough to become articulate and use appropriate words etc., it gives us a reason to care, too.
Whereas if your gynecologist uses the word "cunt," you're probably not going to get the impression that he's a good gynecologist. In fact, you'll probably expect he has unprofessional thoughts in his mind about you.
All of this sort of leads me back to the OP:
Big Brother wrote:
I fail to understand why it’s so important to make sure kids don't ever use certain words. By the time they are 8, they probably have a good idea of what most of these words mean anyway. Every kid knows what “shit” means – it means the exact same thing as poo-poo, crap, and feces. So why do people insist on shoving soap in the mouths of a kid who utters the word “shit”?
Yeah I agree that they shouldn't never be allowed to say these words. But they may be worth censoring to an extent for the sake of teaching. I believe part of becoming both an adult, a strong speaker, and a good thinker (not a goodthinker lol) is learning the strengths and weaknesses of these words. "Bad words" are triggers for images and emotions and should be used with care. Flowering your language up with a lot of bad words is exactly the same as using "like" and "um." You come across as coarse, cheap, and dumbed-down when you use them a lot, pretty much for the reasons I gave above regarding professionalism. If you don't offer some real energy when talking to people, people won't offer you real energy back. And that's kind of the pitfall of "bad words." They're just cheap language. Easy as shitting.
Last edited by Tristan on Wed 2007-05-23 21:16; edited 1 time in total
Post #42685
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 21:11
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
Don't you think your highlighting snobbery as a "key reason" for verbal etiquette downplays reasons that are more immediately relevant and have power over us? Perhaps among the landed British gentry there's snobbery in it, but everywhere else, this same etiquette is associated with professionalism. Professionalism is not superficial; it makes money for a reason. People react better to good communicators, good communicators can get better deals, and are more convincing in debates or pitches. This is all because we instinctively trust someone who's apparently used his time and energy to master communication. If they cared enough to become articulate and use appropriate words etc., it gives us a reason to care, too.
Whereas if your gynecologist uses the word "cunt," you're probably not going to get the impression that he's a good gynecologist. In fact, you'll probably expect he has unprofessional thoughts in his mind about you.
If you'd read my post properly, you'd have noted that (a) I view this particular kind of snobbery as a socially positive thing, and (b) was referring in the sentenced you quoted to just verbal ettiquette. Verbal ettiquette doesn't necessarily mean swearing; it's any form of grammatical or vocabulary self-restriction outside the "rules" and diction of the formal language.
Other than that, I agree with you fully. Swear-words are just a small section of language. Naturally, their use and the circumstances of their use shape the message they convey. There's also a great deal of variation, because language isn't completely standardised: I can think of a few people I know who use cunt as a ready singular pronoun, without any malice whatsoever. At a less extreme level, cunt seems to be far more unacceptable in the US than in the UK (where it's no worse than "fuck" or "shit"). Maybe I'm just misreading its seriousness in the US. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #42689
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
Total Words: 124,012
Average words per post: 224.66
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 21:21
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ah, I suppose your casting of gentry as a "parasitic class of lay-abouts" kind of obscured your point that their language conduct is a socially positive thing. I should've acknowledged that you came around on this in your final paragraph...
Post #42693
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 22:02
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
Ah, I suppose your casting of gentry as a "parasitic class of lay-abouts" kind of obscured your point that their language conduct is a socially positive thing. I should've acknowledged that you came around on this in your final paragraph...
To be precise, I didn't make a value judgement on their specific kind of snobbery, while mass ettiquette like sensitivity to the use of swear-words is a very positive kind of snobbery. I have to admit, I haven't really thought about whether upper-class means of self-distinction are good or bad; they're not really producing anything for the community, but that shouldn't be the basis on which all things are judged.
Hmm. I'll have to put some more thought onto this on a less busy day. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #42720
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1141
Total Words: 150,439
Average words per post: 131.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-24 08:44
Politics: X-tremely Silly Party
Country: Titan
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
2+2=5 wrote:
My only concern would be that excessive swearing probably reduces the educational or intellectual value of what's being said - not always, but resorting to swearing often shows that you're unable to find other words to express yourself. I'm against censorship of swearwords, but I don't know if encouraging someone to use them is the right solution, whether it's people on television shows or children. I agree that U.S. censorship is exaggerated I've probably said it before, but here it's perfectly normal to see naked breasts on afternoon TV.
To summarize - swearing is okay, but that doesn't mean it has to be done excessively.
That's the point: if you say "fuck" excessively it just decreases the intellectual value of your speech.
Marx wrote:
The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.
Marx's Evil Twin wrote:
The development of Modern Industry fucking cuts from under its feet the very shitty foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products! What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own fucking grave-diggers. Fuck them 'all!
Post #55808
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
Total Words: 4,582
Average words per post: 104.14
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 00:37
Politics: Ron Paul 2008
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Certainly swearing should not be promoted. Why? Because we're an educated and civilized people! Teach our kids to do it? Where? In school at the teachers or classmates or administrators, or maybe at all of them? How about in line at the local McDonalds with a couple elderly women standing close by? If cursing is accepted as normal talk, is there anywhere that it wouldn't be "cute"? How "bout standing in line at the local funeral parlor? Hopefully my point will be understood. Most of the hours we spend in life aren't spent on a loading dock or railroad yard. "It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation and just one day to ruin it"! Why would anyone aspire to have their kids grow up to be vulgarians?
Post #55812
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 01:17
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
graysonmaura wrote:
Certainly swearing should not be promoted. Why? Because we're an educated and civilized people! Teach our kids to do it? Where? In school at the teachers or classmates or administrators, or maybe at all of them? How about in line at the local McDonalds with a couple elderly women standing close by? If cursing is accepted as normal talk, is there anywhere that it wouldn't be "cute"? How "bout standing in line at the local funeral parlor? Hopefully my point will be understood. Most of the hours we spend in life aren't spent on a loading dock or railroad yard. "It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation and just one day to ruin it"! Why would anyone aspire to have their kids grow up to be vulgarians?
Vulgarian? Doesn't that imply more than that one is vulgar but that one is vulgar through wealth? It's not important.
I think the point is that educated, civilised people shouldn't embrace the concept of curse words any more than they should embrace their usage. When you teach a child not to say certain taboo words you enforce in their mind that these words have special power, to shock and offend, to be shock and offended by.
The existence of taboo words in a language is not particularly desirable if we want civilised discussion rather than visceral reaction; they act as a refuge for poor argument to find power and a terminus for civilised debate.
By encouraging the use of taboo words it is logical to think that they would lose their power as they would cease to be taboo, this is the rationale behind above espoused position if I understand it. A child short be taught not to insult or attack and to be logical and well-reasoned, this cannot be encapsulated by clumsily imposed vocabulary restrictions.
Unfortunately, despite the sound logic of this position there are two solid arguments against it. Firstly the practical, it is hard to convince children that words are not taboo when those beyond their family treat them so, a child will soon learn that these words provoke a response and alter their usage appropriately. It should be noted that such children do lose their parents as an outlet for cursing to provoke a response; I could see this having developmental advantages and ultimately encouraging less inappropriate usage.
Secondly the neurological, there are convincing arguments (particularly from Steven pinker) which suggest that the harboring of taboo words in a human language is innate and to some extent unavoidable. Individual taboo words can be toppled through common usage but new ones invariably emerge in their place.
Your argument, however, seems to make the assumptions that both, the children being allowed to swear in front of thier parents are also being brought up to be stupid and that cursing has power beyond that granted it by its recipiants. If cursing is accepted as normal talk it will be no less "cute" at a funeral parlour than at a dockyard, it would be simply a word, an expression of feeling.
Whilst vulgarity is often tied to language I would argue that the truly vulgar aspects of ones composition lie in action and intent over vocabulary. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #55818
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 01:49
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Fascist States of America
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
I think the point is that educated, civilised people shouldn't embrace the concept of curse words any more than they should embrace their usage. When you teach a child not to say certain taboo words you enforce in their mind that these words have special power, to shock and offend, to be shock and offended by.
The existence of taboo words in a language is not particularly desirable if we want civilised discussion rather than visceral reaction; they act as a refuge for poor argument to find power and a terminus for civilised debate.
By encouraging the use of taboo words it is logical to think that they would lose their power as they would cease to be taboo, this is the rationale behind above espoused position if I understand it. A child short be taught not to insult or attack and to be logical and well-reasoned, this cannot be encapsulated by clumsily imposed vocabulary restrictions.
I actually remember a Lenny Bruce routine about this sort of thing. I even saw it in the movie Lenny with Dustin Hoffman, and he even went around the audience, going up to Audience members' faces and calling them ethnic slurs while doing this routine. Here it is:
Lenny Bruce wrote:
Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike— that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.
Basically, the point of this can be used for virtually any other word we as people find taboo, from the N Word to Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. _________________
Rev. Ted Haggard wrote:
If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant.
Eddie Murphy wrote:
I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Post #55820
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 02:12
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Fascist States of America
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
JD-sama wrote:
I think the point is that educated, civilised people shouldn't embrace the concept of curse words any more than they should embrace their usage. When you teach a child not to say certain taboo words you enforce in their mind that these words have special power, to shock and offend, to be shock and offended by.
Well, what if we were to say here that curse all of a sudden words have no shock value? Then what would be the point of not teaching them?
Being shocked and being offended is the spice of life. I'm often offended but should anyone take the shock personally? I learned to cuss in fifth grade and I felt it was more liberating than using every giant word in the dictionary.
To illustrate my concept: Fuck civilized people. Fuck taboos.
JD-sama wrote:
By encouraging the use of taboo words it is logical to think that they would lose their power as they would cease to be taboo, this is the rationale behind above espoused position if I understand it. A child short be taught not to insult or attack and to be logical and well-reasoned, this cannot be encapsulated by clumsily imposed vocabulary restrictions.
Shit. I hit on that fucking point already, man...
JD-sama wrote:
[...]the neurological, there are convincing arguments (particularly from Steven pinker) which suggest that the harboring of taboo words in a human language is innate and to some extent unavoidable. Individual taboo words can be toppled through common usage but new ones invariably emerge in their place.
Yes, especially when one encounters injury or boredom, this does usually happen.
I'd like to see what kinds of cuss words people actually come up with in these situations...
Largely, all these cuss words rely on context for their meaning. That's the basis for all the fucking cussing in the goddamned piss-poor response thread.
Post #55823
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 02:50
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Teimuraz Sakirovadze wrote:
Well, what if we were to say here that curse all of a sudden words have no shock value? Then what would be the point of not teaching them?
Being shocked and being offended is the spice of life. I'm often offended but should anyone take the shock personally? I learned to cuss in fifth grade and I felt it was more liberating than using every giant word in the dictionary.
To illustrate my concept: Fuck civilized people. Fuck taboos.
There's nothing wrong with being shocked or offended. There is something rather irrational about being shocked and offended by a word and not its meaning.
If I were call you a curse word that would be cause to take offence, just as if I suggested that you were involved in an incestuous relationship with a gutter cur. The usage of the curse word shouldn't be the cause of the offence, the intent should be. If I were to stub my toe and expel a torrent of expletives only an idiot should be offended, or even shocked. There are a lot of idiots out there.
Quote:
Yes, especially when one encounters injury or boredom, this does usually happen.
I'd like to see what kinds of cuss words people actually come up with in these situations...
Largely, all these cuss words rely on context for their meaning. That's the basis for all the fucking cussing in the goddamned piss-poor response thread.
There you go.
-Anzan
Well, we didn't always use curse words as we do today. What we now consider strong curse words, "fuck", "cunt", "shit" were in the past tame. In the english language there was a marked shift from religious taboo words, still dominant in romantic cultures, to effluvia based taboo words.
I would note though, from what I've learnt of japanese (and I am still very much an amateur) the language seems to lack specific taboo words, or kinki kotoba(an alliterative term I can't help appreciate) , instead japanese has insulting styles of speach or perhaps more aptly levels of informality of speech which are innapropriate.
This fits with Prof. Pinkers theory as I understand it. Taboo words are fundamentally a tool for signalling levels of formality. In informal settings use of taboo words is common and unawkward, they signal a communal relationship between equals. When used aggessively they signal the rejection of a dominancy relationship. When avoided they signal a reciprocal or accepted dominancy relationship.
So whilst curse words themselves might be avoidable I suspect that the higher social role they play will always be filled by some language convention. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #55838
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-05-19 05:22
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (1 vote cast)
JD you take a joke too literally.
Imagine the English good manners, swearing passes as freedom of speech, what about Tourette's and those being the butt of the swearing?
and now for the obvious....
Rye: still a Virgin!
Rye: You look fucking retarted, surely that was the angry ugly stick!
Rye: licking boots to faggot aspergies thinks does not go unnoticed!
Rye: Bad Genes, don't hate me for being aspie too!
Rye: Bleat Rastasista's dumbass script, you make out with sheep too?
Rye: women scare me, they are like my mommie
Rye: your dicky's like baby's, surely outsized by the chickens'
Rye: the human genome is better off without me
Rye: don't blame me, schizo got me in
Rye: Faggots Ace and Kirov will do me soon
So goes the Ballad of the Orwellian in the Rye.... _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
I've probably said it before, but here it's perfectly normal to see naked breasts on afternoon TV.
Wolf Wajsbrot ("Un attentat, trois déraillements")
Tristan Tzara (Dadaïste)
that felt good)
)
