Subject:
|
Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 08:23:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
514 times
|
| |
|
|
No one could have put it better, Mr. Braun!
--
Paul Davidson
Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:388A4DF2.B4F0528D@pilot.msu.edu...
>
>
> 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 expressi • on 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 is in Reply To:
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
