Hello Walter,
John Reimer wrote:
Concerning profanity and swearing. I think many forms of expression
should warrant more careful thought. I don't believe profane or
irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers. We've already
seen plenty of evidence of that in here. You may think it's cute and
artsy, but I think it does any combination of the following: creates
a language barrier, trivializes the original meaning of certain
anglo-saxon words, shows general disrespect in communication,
demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals carelessness in thinking of
others feelings, etc and on and on. It's like throwing dirt in
somebody's face and thinking that's a normal way to interact. We can
stamp a "art" sticker on it and call it funny when it is clothed in a
comedic role (or any situation really), but this is just as effective
as sticking an "ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to
make it pretty.
I don't disagree with most of that, except that the language one used
reflects on the speaker, not the listener. The listener chooses how to
react to that, and that is the listener's choice.
That's one way to shift responsibility.
It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves. But
I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with
ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it becomes
very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the malice that
expresses them (not to say person should swear when he is angry :) ).
It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes confusing when
they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent reason.
The meanings of words constantly shift and change. Often, a word will
revolve around to a completely opposite meaning, then go back again
("bad" is a good (!) example). This is not a modern phenomenon. It's
been going on forever, and obviously is why there are different
languages in the first place.
Yes, words do shift in meaning. The words we are talking about right now
are called "profanity". There is a reason for that. Our society generally
knows what the bad words are quite well... and until they shift, we can rest
assured that what they express is quite clear. If this were not so, nothing
in our language would ever have meaning at any one moment and communication
would break down... communication is about interfacing with people, afterall.
We must know our audience and prepare our words accordingly if we mean to
communicate effectively.
Trying to control people by controlling words goes back almost as far.
For example, several people were burned at the stake for daring to
create an english language version of the Bible. Controlling speech is
characteristic of repressive societies. I care not for that.
Yes, those extreme examples do paint weighty pictures.
I begin understand a little more about you. I've spoken my mind a lot in
this list, sometimes too much... but you've had the opportunity to see a
part of who I am for awhile now. I've had barely a glimpse of who you are.
It's actually been fairly confusing for me, in fact.
However, now I can also see why you are worried about repression of me or
anyone else for good or for bad: and this is primarily why this list slips
and slides all over the map, billows, heaves and explodes multiple times
over. And why there is heavy ostracism (even repression :) ) of anyone
who appears to "repress" any sort of freedom of speech... perhaps even the
worst kind. But even so you've had to resort to some forms of "repression"
(moderation) when somebody has asked you to or when you have deemed it necessary.
So you are forced into a bit of an inconsistancy.
There is another flaw with how you generalize the word "repression". You
can indeed blame some ills of society and government on repression. But
in fact, you've only chosen your mode of repression: you are not actually
disengaging from it. When you agree that total freedom of expression is
acceptable, you must allow a repression to occur where the stronger, more
vocal, more forceful, more well-spoken overwhelm those that are less able
to express... the more feable-minded, the less articulate. Repression still
occurs. It just doesn't take on the formal/organized aspect you so despise.
And to what do we limit the complete freedom of speech? The more liberal
the mind, the less it would hinder it and the more generally it would interpret
it (as to what point "free expression" may lead to "action").
Yes, there is a fine balance to all this, and repression can work horribly
in both directions, but I'd be very cautious in insinuating that you have
taken some sort of higher road by avoiding a repression of one sort only
to allow the development of another shade of it. If you choose to argue
against any form of control system, you argue against the ability to maintain
any type of order... and so it will always be. As history goes, nothing
is new in this regard... we've flipped back and forth between these forms
of repression for centuries and failed thoroughly at both extremes. It seems
people think they've discovered something new in this area repeatedly: they
escape one net only to land in another.
You might also consider that these days using profanity is more
acceptable than it used to be, while other words, like the infamous
"n" word (I can't even type it) used to be acceptable but no longer
are.
If profanity is becoming more acceptable it is not for a changing in word-meaning
as you suggested happens above. An honest examination of the phenomenon
would indicate that there is growing /apathy/ for the /effect/ that this
kind of speech has on the receiver of it Even with this apathy in force,
it is not uncommon for people to recognize the effect such words have on
others in certain situtions and to change their speech accordingly. Think
how one might speak in the presence of the the President of the United States
or Queen Elizabeth II, or even a simple minister. I've seen similar mysterious
changes in habit happen before. What seems to happen is that the individual
breaks through his general indifference to recognize how his speech may be
received or how it may charactarize him to the other person, thus initiating
a certain "repression" of his vocal faculties.
-JJR
