| |
Richard Marchetti wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Gene C. Weissinger writes:
> > There seems to be a lot of trashy language and ignorance being thrown
> > around...There ARE younger people reading there as well as here....
>
> Ignorance is one thing, trashy talk is another.
>
> They are just words after all.
>
> I don't use profanity here on Lugnet largely because Todd insists on it and
> not because I agree with this policy -- which I don't, I think its silly.
See below. I see your points and follow your line of reasoning with which I agree
for certain topics, but not this one. For example, I believe that your argument
defends ignorant speech but not necessarily profanity. Bad taste is bad taste,
freedom or no.
> P.S. Everyone can breath a deep sigh of relief that I hardly ever comment on
> this vacuous complaint of the so many so ready to complain and condemn
> different modes of speach. I would rather that rough words were expressed
> than that people had to censor themselves for the sake of those with virgin
> ears, or in fact not express themselves at all. We ARE losing meaning by
> disallowing the use of certain words, people!
I would argue that we are *also* losing meaning--extremely important coded
meaning--by allowing 'disallowed speech' to enter the accepted vernacular. You
see, cursing is never really disallowed--it just occupies a certain position in our
language. When foul language loses its "verboten" status, much of its
forcefulness, its very purpose for being, is lost--one of the primary purposes of
cursing is, in fact, to limit "violence" to verbality. Without an accepted
forbidden lexicon we lose the ability to convey extreme anger or frustration
verbally and instead have to resort to other forbidden methods of expression to
counter perceived transgressions. I would argue that these "other methods" have
increasingly involved escalating levels of physical violence, something that we're
becoming inured to as well.
Don't we all know a few people for whom cursing is second nature, but also a few
people who never curse? I guarantee that the curses of the latter carry far
greater weight than those of the former--and I would further argue that the former
are almost certainly more likely to be disposed to violence when words invariably
fail to express that person's anger or frustration. I don't care if the forbidden
words are four-letter classics or Ned Flander-diddly-erisms (pardon my
Fren-do-diddly-ench), a common standard of good taste should exist.
> And to me, all speach is
> valuable -- maybe especially the speech I don't want to see or hear. And
> isn't it in everyone's power to skip over a post they find personally
> offensive anyway? Grow up and meet me in the land of the free -- if you can
> find it -- its an increasingly difficult landscape to locate. Some things you
> just have to deal with for yourself and not look to Daddy to handle it for you.
The problem is that there is not and has never been such a thing as "true
freedom." Society always has rules negotiated by the general consensus--and what
is accepted or not accepted all has a place there. This includes words and
thoughts that are probably best left "forbidden" and consequently rare. "Freedom
of Speech" implies the freedom to dissent, not the right to be foul-mouthed and
crass around children. (For example, we can argue about this point--and Todd's
policy--under freedom of speech; we can't start swearing at each other and expect
that to be protected in all fora as well.)
Part of the responsibility of living in a human society is being a role model and
socializing others, whether or not it's written in a political document. You're
using political-theory reasoning on basic human psychological and sociological
phenomena, which is like going after a canteloupe with an apple slicer.
best,
Lindsay
FUT lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) Terms like "bad taste" are extremely subjective, and to my mind have no real meaning although I understand the gist of what you are saying -- really its more of a simple put down than anything else. And by "ignorance" I thought the original (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| No one could have put it better, Mr. Braun! -- Paul Davidson Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:388A4DF2.B4F052...msu.edu... (...) and (...) silly. (...) I agree (...) argument (...) taste, (...) comment on (...) expressed (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) Ignorance is one thing, trashy talk is another. They are just words after all. I don't use profanity here on Lugnet largely because Todd insists on it and not because I agree with this policy -- which I don't, I think its silly. -- Richard (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
