Subject:
|
Re: Some US-like things about LUGNET (Was Re: Where did you lot spring from?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 May 2000 14:00:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1154 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
> Quick wee nitpicks from a USian with Canadian and British affinities:
>
> Paul Baulch wrote:
>
> > Still, LUGNET on the whole feels fairly US-oriented to me, and there are two
> > major causes of this. ...<snip>
>
> >
> > The first aspect is the level of moderation. Being an adult, living in a
> > culture that is NOT an American culture (despite being, as people say,
> > somewhat Americanised), I feel irritation at being hampered by guidelines
> > regarding profanity that are so far into the wholesome family end of the
> > spectrum as to feel, frankly, ridiculous. If I wish to give any emotionally
> > emphasis or expressiveness I am forced to use a limited set of the most
> > firmly US-entrenched slang such as "darned", and can only use words such as
> > "God" in a religious sense (or for reference as I just did). In my culture
> > we say "bloody" about as often as USians seem to use "darned", but of course
>
> Here's the nitpick: the injunction against "bloody" has entirely to do with the
> British (primarily the English)--it doesn't offend any US-born Americans that I
> know. It's not a matter of US puritanism (I'm convinced that most of that is a
> myth, although whether it's our myth or a myth propigated in the rest of the
> world is still in the air) but a matter of playing to the safest common
> denominator for all. Don't assume it's all US; but by the same token, keep in
> mind that in the English-speaking world the US tail wags the dog because of
> sheer demographics--there's almost 300 million USians, ~250 million of whom are
> fluent speakers of English (however one defines that in the US, can you tell
> I've been grading student papers again?).
>
> And if you make the connection that profanity = colour, you're not being
> creative enough. ;) I think .loc.au, which I enjoy reading very much--I agree
> 100% with Paul's extolling of stream-of-consciousness threads--is wonderfully
> colourful without resorting to vulgarities.
>
> The second issue, that of constructive criticism, isn't a matter of being
> US-centered. If anything, I'd say that most of the criticism I receive on my
> MOCs comes out of the US--and I do give constructive criticism. Why do you
> think that it's a sign of US-centricity? If you go by sheer volume you have to
> run it through the above-mentioned demographic filter, to account for the
> plurality of US-based Lugnetters, before you can draw reliable conclusions.
>
> I agree with Paul and others that we should be conscious of how the centre of
> Lugnet is perceived, and that it is gravitated towards the US--but I disagree
> that the above two points are themselves indicative of where that centre is.
>
> best
>
> LFB (wondering about XFUTting this to .admin.general...?)
Yes, Americans are arrogant (at times), and ethnocentric. But they are among the
friendliest people in the world. However, the center of the known universe is
still Billund Denmark! :-)
Gary Istok
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
72 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
