Thread: How bad is bad language? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020299
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
This OP follows a few exchanges in the Styx and I thought it might be worth a thread.
I was arguing that swearing is not necessarily malevolent speech, that malevolent speech does not require swearing. I think malevolent speech is certainly something Christians are under guidance to avoid, both from scripture and tradition. But a lot of expletives, whether or not deleted, are not used malevolently at all. Sometimes they are just used for emphasis, sometimes they are just expressions of surprise or pain. IMO, swearing is not the same as cursing.
The other issue was blasphemy, particularly taking the Lord's Name in vain. What strikes me is that many people of little or no faith may often blaspheme without any clear understanding that they are doing so. The commandment against blasphemy seems to be addressed to believers, for others I think it's often just noise.
Personally I swear very little, do my best to avoid malevolent speech and don't blaspheme. But I'm much more bothered by malevolent speech than bad language. Other views would be appreciated.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
In the last eighteen months my vocab, not least on the Ship, has begun to revert somewhat to what it was forty years ago at boarding school "words I never heard in the bible." Is it age, misfortune, backsliding?
Personally I think that words are of more or less neutral value. I do let rip here because in my 30 years as a stipendiary priest there were few other venues in which I could express myself with unadulterated passion. Still - context is everything. On the whole I calculated that most people, even though They TTWACW (or is it WS?) would cope with raw anger.
As it happens I don't swear in front of Kuruman (who doesn't swear) or our children (who I am sure do, but you know, encouragement and all that ...) ... my adult first family offspring, not so much inhibition.
While I don't think "using the Lord's name in vain refers to saying "Oh God" "OMG" etc, I do try to avoid it as I believe it cheapens something, someone divine. But I admit "God" has slipped into my vocab of late. I'm not proud of that. However I think the biblical injunction is more about performance abuse rather than vocal abuse ... if I claim to be a Christ-bearer but use my position as a means by which to exploit the vulnerable then I have indeed used the Lord's name in vain.
I don't think I have more than once or twice since my coming to faith 40 years ago used "Jesus" or "Christ" in an expletive form. I hope not. I may be a wanton liberal but Jesus is my companion, and I have no wish to denigrate or hurt him.
I am trying to write a novel at the moment. One of the main character uses "fuck" and less often "shit" in am myriad ways. It's just her. Another says "Christ" when he thinks he's dying. Both are necessary to the integrity of the plot and character, and I hope I won't burn in hell. I'll use a non de plume anyway, so God won't know who wrote it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sample 1: I'm going to take away your health insurance and assistance. If you want a better life you have to work for it, even though I am doing nothing to create more jobs that you are qualified for, or help you qualify for better jobs.
Sample 2: Fuck that shit.
Which is more offensive?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Reminds me of the almost-apocryphal Tony Campolo story of when he was preaching at a conservative Christian college and said "10 million children will go to bed hungry tonight and most of you don't give a shit"
Then he went on to say, "but that's not what really bothers me. What really bothers me is that most of you are more upset that I just said 'shit' than that I just said 10 million children go to bed hungry"
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
But in what direction are we throwing stones when it comes to the double-standard accusation?
If someone in the SOF's Purgatory forum advocates the implementation of a totally for-profit, devil-take-the-hindmost health-care system(as per Mousethief's example), the mods will likely have little if anything to say about that. But if someone else comes along and calls that guy a "f*****g a*****e", he will be informed in no uncertain terms that such language is unacceptable in Purgatory, and to take it to Hell if he wants to continue in that vein. And if he persists in using those words in Purgatory, he'll be subject to mod sanction, up to and including suspension.
The point is, even on a relatively urbane, enlightened forum like this one, there is still a special taboo reserved for certain words and phrases, even if we give a pass to IDEAS that many would consider offensive.
(And just for the record, nothing in the above should be construed as criticism of the moderating policies I mention. I think a good case could be made for handling things that way, though it might skirt somewhat into anthropological territory, eg. why we fetishize certain words in and of themselves as having deeper significance than the ideas they're being used to express.)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think you're in error there, Stetson. It's not the words that would need to be taken to hell but how they're directed. You can say that something is a fucking terrible idea without trouble but using no "swear words" but calling someone a "puss-filled buboe on the left buttock of humanity" would still attract hostly attention.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Stetson
Actually, Commandment 3 does not preclude bad language used scornfully about the quality of ideas. To paraphrase the guidelines, you can certainly say this
'Fucking Hell! That is the most stupid pile of steaming horse shit I have ever read!". It is just an emphatic way of saying "Your opinion is stupid".
But what you cannot say, in Boards outside of Hell, is this.
"You are without doubt a stupid pile of steaming horse shit and a fucking excuse for a human being!". That is an emphatic way of saying "you are stupid".
And to underline the point, none of those remarks is malevolent in the sense of wishing bad on someone else. The ones prohibited are a personal attack because they demean someone else, rather than scorning the value of their opinion.
Here's an example of what I would call malevolent speech.
"I hope someone blows your brains out and rids the world of your poisonous presence".
Or the threatening "I know where you live".
They are very likely to get you suspended or banned immediately, even if thought to be hyperbole.
I think our Commandments are pretty good in drawing distinctions between demeaning opinions, demeaning Shipmates, and malevolent hate speech. And that final category strikes me as by far the worst kind of bad language, swearing or not.
(X post, obviously).
[ 16. September 2017, 06:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I stand corrected. Thanks.
[ 16. September 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reminds me of the almost-apocryphal Tony Campolo story of when he was preaching at a conservative Christian college and said "10 million children will go to bed hungry tonight and most of you don't give a shit"
Then he went on to say, "but that's not what really bothers me. What really bothers me is that most of you are more upset that I just said 'shit' than that I just said 10 million children go to bed hungry"
I did hear him preach this (at Spring Harvest), so I know it did happen.
I don't swear in my speech. It is something that reflects my conversion change - I used to be a standard foul-mouthed teenager.
But the way life has been, I find it is the only way I can express the pain and anguish inside. And, for me, it is cathartic to swear sometimes. It is mainly on these boards and Twitter, as well as, sometimes in my writing. Although my latest work has no swearing in it at all.
I also find, on twitter, it is easier to write "You fucking shit" than "You supperating postule on the syphilic behind of a flatulent waster" which has no swearing in it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Effing and jeffing is cultural. We tend to hear it in social situations a lot more since it became acceptable in films, then later on TV programmes including the casual setting of the mock panel game.
My own swearing, (which is meant more for humorous effect rather than to deliberately cause offence), is dependent on the the environment. If the f- word is generally used in a working situation then I'll use it, or even when on my own. The C- word is falling out of favour as the penny continues to drop over the causing of offence to females.
The decline of blasphemy has gone hand in hand with the decline of the church's influence in people's lives. Which stands to reason.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A well-spoken Methodist colleague once said in a Good Friday sermon that "Jesus died and took all the shit of the world on his shoulders". It made a profound impression.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
I cannot swear. It's a product of the way I was brought up (well, of course). If I were to swear, in speech or on these boards I would instantly know I was playing a part, not being sincere. It's a pity, because there are times when it would be good to swear. When I was a theological student something nasty happened (I actually forget what, it was to do with a relationship). My friends urged me to swear and get it out of my system. I couldn't. But it was great when one friend, who was a master of profanity offered to do it for me and let loose the most incredible sting of invective and expletive! There is a time for it. But of course the time and place was in private, and not in the presence of the person who had caused the offence.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I once had a Scottish colleague who was fairly foul mouthed. On one occasion I had slipped out for lunch and came in after he had had a fairly difficult exchange on the phone with another colleague. I don't claim to be purer than the driven snow on this issue, but I was generally less given to casual profanities than most of the people I worked with, and they put two and two together and thought that this was because I had conscientious objections to bad language because of my faith (not entirely correct). So I stepped back into the office with my sandwich and bag of crisps whilst my esteemed colleague is anticipating Malcolm Tucker in expressing his exact opinion of his colleague. Obviously, he twigs my presence and offers an apology. "I'm sorry, Callan, I know that you are a man of faith, and I know you don't use that kind of language. But it's just that X is a total cxxt!"
It was a genuine shock to him that everybody present collapsed in hysterics.
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on
:
I have two older friends, a married couple, who swear freely and copiously. They say they like to shock the bourgeoisie.
Their four-year-old granddaughter came to stay with them for a week and I went over for lunch. As we were standing outside in the garden, the little girl saw a large grasshopper leap closer to her across the lawn.
'Piss off, you wicked fucker!' she shouted and gave it the finger.
I don't think I've ever seen two non-bourgeois grandparents look so shocked. Children learn by imitation.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
There is the probably apocryphal story about the little girl who, after hearing the Christmas narrative, asked 'But Mummy, why did Mary and Joseph call the baby after a swear word?'
My main objection to most 'bad language' is that it is so unimaginative.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was arguing that swearing is not necessarily malevolent speech, that malevolent speech does not require swearing.
What do you mean by malevolent? I've used creative and direct swearing pointed directly at shipmates. I've sometimes meant it to convey real anger, disgust, contempt and the like. And I regret only a few instances. However, I've never meant any of it to convey any desire of real harm.
quote:
The other issue was blasphemy, particularly taking the Lord's Name in vain.
I've always though that the idea of blasphemy is diametrically opposed the the god Christians say they worship.
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
I don't think I've ever seen two non-bourgeois grandparents look so shocked. Children learn by imitation.
Surely it is a rite of passage for parents to have their offspring do such in front of the grandparents.
[ 16. September 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't swear in my speech. It is something that reflects my conversion change - I used to be a standard foul-mouthed teenager.
But the way life has been, I find it is the only way I can express the pain and anguish inside. And, for me, it is cathartic to swear sometimes. It is mainly on these boards and Twitter, as well as, sometimes in my writing.
I'm almost entirely the opposite. In RealLife I am a dreadful potty mouth, despite periodically trying not to be. As I get older, and tireder, the filters that kept the language in check at work and church have weakened to almost nothing - only church survives, and then only when "on parade" or with people who don't know me well.
In writing, however, I rarely use bad language. It seems so much more deliberate when written. Spoken, the £#&* is usually out of the gob before the brain has clocked it. Written, it's a deliberate act to let it remain, or indeed to write in the first place. Also, a written record can come back to haunt you in more ways!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was arguing that swearing is not necessarily malevolent speech, that malevolent speech does not require swearing.
What do you mean by malevolent?
Ill will expressed verbally = malevolent speech. Literally, wishing ill would happen to someone else. Cursing (as opposed to cussing).
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The other issue was blasphemy, particularly taking the Lord's Name in vain.
I've always though that the idea of blasphemy is diametrically opposed the the god Christians say they worship.
A bit of background. Not sure I understand you.
The point I was attempting to make is that people outside of faith communities may often blaspheme by the standards within those communities, but often quite unknowingly. Accusing them of blasphemy doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's an example of what I would call malevolent speech.
"I hope someone blows your brains out and rids the world of your poisonous presence".
Or the threatening "I know where you live".
They are very likely to get you suspended or banned immediately, even if thought to be hyperbole.
No, they aren't. At least, the first isn't. We had a thread about this in Styx just recently.
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
My main objection to most 'bad language' is that it is so unimaginative.
So is "pass the salt." But sometimes it is just what is required to achieve the ends you wish to achieve. Sometimes whether something is or isn't imaginative just isn't the point.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
One useful distinction here might be between profanity and obscenity. Profanity involves inappropriate references to what is sacred. The British objection to the adjective "bloody" is that it refers back to a profane oath "by God's blood." Obscenity, on the other hand, refers to matters not usually seen or mentioned explicitly in public (such as urine or feces).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The point I was attempting to make is that people outside of faith communities may often blaspheme by the standards within those communities, but often quite unknowingly. Accusing them of blasphemy doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Of course it does not. One cannot disrespect something one doesn't believe in.
quote:
Not sure I understand you.
quote:
Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable
God, as described by Christians, especially the perfect love bit, should not be susceptible to his feeling being hurt by contempt or insult. Needing to have deference, respect, reverence, etc. are Greek god types of behaviour, not all loving and perfect deity behaviours.
Blasphemy is because a god's followers cannot handle the disrespect they feel. And that is an area for self-improvement, not the punishing of others.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
My apologies, mousethief. Wishful thinking and a blind spot on my part. I really don't like FOAD anywhere.
[ 16. September 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Social status helps. I don't have enough of it to go around swearing in front of middle class people. I'm not a representative of working class cultural 'authenticity' either.
[ 16. September 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
lilBuddha, re blasphemy
Intriguing! What you're arguing is I think different to traditional understandings about the impassibility of God, but actually makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the roots of this do go back to the Ten Commandments, including this one.
quote:
(Exodus 20 v 7)
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Which does suggest that God is offended by such misuse.
I'm going to give it more thought and post further.
[ 16. September 2017, 21:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
lilBuddha, re blasphemy
Intriguing! What you're arguing is I think different to traditional understandings about the impassibility of God, but actually makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the roots of this do go back to the Ten Commandments, including this one.
quote:
(Exodus 20 v 7)
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Which does suggest that God is offended by such misuse.
I'm going to give it more thought and post further.
What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? If you look at how the word shav (here translated vain) is used in the OT, it is primarily, it seems, used to mean "falsehood" or "false." It shows up in the command, "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
It seems to me that to take the Lord's name in vain might mean to swear an oath on the divine name that you know is false, or to do something you don't intend to do. Given what I see of how the word is used in the Torah, I can't make it mean "don't say naughty words."
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some of the roots of this do go back to the Ten Commandments, including this one.
quote:
(Exodus 20 v 7)
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Which does suggest that God is offended by such misuse.
I was taught that this commandment means you should not swear in God's name that something is true when you know it isn't. One example I have heard was someone swearing that the camel he was selling was a young, healthy animal, while he knew that it had serious physical problems. If someone buys the camel and it collapses and dies in the middle of the desert, the buyer may die also.
Moo
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
In writing, however, I rarely use bad language. It seems so much more deliberate when written. Spoken, the £#&* is usually out of the gob before the brain has clocked it. Written, it's a deliberate act to let it remain, or indeed to write in the first place. Also, a written record can come back to haunt you in more ways!
In my book, One of mu characters uses fuck a lot, to express her frustration with life, with the hand she has been dealt. As the book goes on, her language moderates, as she understands more, as her anger is mitigated.
Towards the end, another character starts part 3 using the f-word. Which is an indication that things have gone very badly again.
I don't use language to offend people. I won't say "fuck" just because someone else finds it offensive. But I also won't resist from saying it just because someone finds it offensive. I once retweeted someone with a comment including a swear word. He messaged me asking if I could refrain from retweeting his words with profanity.
I didn't actually respond, but the answer is no. I will express myself as I wish. And the context showed who had said shit - me not him.
I will refrain from using the c-word, becasue I know that many find it objectionable. But it is because it would be received as offensive, rather than because it is too harsh a word.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Moo, mousethief
These are the sorts of views about the third commandment which I grew up with. As the article states specifically
quote:
It is a prohibition of blasphemy, specifically, the misuse or "taking in vain" of the name of the God of Israel.
But I find your argument about deliberate bearing of false witness, presumably invoking God's Name in an oath, to be powerful. And lilBuddha's argument seems powerful as well.
Still not quite sure what to make of this, will think some more overnight.
[ 16. September 2017, 22:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
My sufferinv isn't comparable to others. But when think of how upset I have been about things which have happened to me and mine, the lack of divine support in the midst of, and my lamentations and abusive comments both to God and others, I wonder if taking God's name in vain might be near to universal.
I realize we're supposed to accept higher purpose, but wonder how it is possible to ignore anguish and desolation and not think that a closer walk with thee might include a "fuck Gott and alle His hande work" (Sophie's Choice, by William Styron). Who tried to find salvation after the war, but couldn't, after being given the choice on the train platform at Auschwitz to send either son or daughter to the gas and save the other "you may keep one of your children".
Which leads me to suggest that it must be that at certain times taking the Lord's name in vain is not just permissible, but allowed, essential, inevitable. Only an unfeeling wretch wouldn't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Moo, mousethief
These are the sorts of views about the third commandment which I grew up with.
Thanks for this.
Interesting that it says "some scholars" equate it with blasphemy, but THAT claim has no citation.
I see that once again the Orthodox are left out. Catholics, Mormons (for Kolob's sake), Catholics, and Protestants all get a look-in. Not us. Sigh.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see that once again the Orthodox are left out. Catholics, Mormons (for Kolob's sake), Catholics, and Protestants all get a look-in. Not us. Sigh.
Well, it is Wikipedia, which anyone can edit. Maybe you could fix that.
(And I did laugh at "for Kolob's sake.")
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
lilBuddha, re blasphemy
Intriguing! What you're arguing is I think different to traditional understandings about the impassibility of God, but actually makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the roots of this do go back to the Ten Commandments, including this one.
quote:
(Exodus 20 v 7)
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Which does suggest that God is offended by such misuse.
I'm going to give it more thought and post further.
The bible is already pick and choose, so why not choose the bits that make sense?
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Rather in Mousethief's vein, this is bad language. It sets out to hurt, through lies and unsubstantiated claims. When one group of people decide that another group are worth less than themselves, then you get bad language (and physical and emotional violence). Given that many of the people offering this crap call themselves Christians, ordinary blasphemy seems almost a trifle.
Ordinary swear words don't even come close.
[ 17. September 2017, 04:37: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
There's no doubt God, or some unseen force somewhere, is offended by so-called foul language. Why else is it that the majority of us automatically refrain from using it in polite company. That doesn't mean this self same entity isn't devoid of a sense of humour, or doesn't wish for us to have an anger release mechanism.
Language which involves our body parts or functions does have something universally binding about it after-all.
We all have our own personal opinions on swearing, and on how much or how little we wish to hear it. Furthermore I guess most would agree that they do not enjoy aggressive behaviour being pointed directly at them, regardless of whether it is backed up with swearing or not. That isn't to say it's not going to happen now and again, what goes around comes around.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
mousethief
I think your critical observation about the absence of reference to Orthodox understandings re the third commandment in particular and by implication blasphemy in general is worth following up. The article I linked does point out that some have linked the third commandment to perjury and I have accepted the power of your argument and Moo's.
However it does seem to me that blasphemy has been regarded as very serious in the Judeo-Christian Traditions and I'm trying to figure out why, also whether it has continuing relevance. (lilBuddha, bear with me, that's my normal approach. I don't quickly dismiss thoughts from the past just because they don't fit my preferences.)
Here is a long comment attributed in this link to St John Chrysostom. He is a well respected, much revered Patristic voice within Orthodoxy. He sees blasphemy as very dangerous to the blasphemer and potentially poisonous to those who hear it. He also observes, very clearly, that it cannot possibly detract from the Glory of God, so its most profound danger is to those who speak and hear it.
We use the phrase 'bite your tongue' as a kind of antidote to hasty and unwise speech. Think before you speak. Chrysostom expands pretty vividly on that idea.
Blasphemy is not a topic I've actually given much thought to before, but I'm pretty well aware of the value of being restrained in speech. Careless talk costs lives. Words once uttered cannot be recalled. And I certainly see charitable value in not applying the label to folks outside of faith communities. Inside faith communities, well that's another matter.
Still processing. Now I look at it, it is a pretty weighty topic. On a point of provenance, mousethief, I'm not clear from the link what the original source was for St John Chrysostom's words. It wasn't a reference I'd come across before. You might well know better.
[ 17. September 2017, 11:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Barnabus62:
1. Quotes without attribution are always dangerous. People love putting their prejudices into the mouths of great people of the past, and in Orthodoxy, Chrysostom is one of the greatest.
2. Assuming it is authentic, it may be one of Chrysostom's foibles, rather than a place where he nails it. He is a known rabid antisemite, so not all of his pronouncements are worthy of equal esteem.
3. Assuming he's right, it would be an interesting conversation to have. What is it about blasphemy that's so dangerous?
It makes all the sense in the world to me to say that someone who isn't a Christian using Christ's name as a cuss word isn't really blaspheming. They're riding on the coattails of a tradition they have fallen out of (assuming they are a product of a Christian or once-Christian nation/ethnic group/etc.). The whole idea of using "Christ" as a cuss word implies the idea of using "Christ" to swear by -- i.e. to witness one's oath or promise.
(This whole subject is wonderfully examined in Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa Mohr. Great read. Informative and fun. Has a photo of a medieval cast trinket consisting of of four penises carrying a vulva on a litter (worth the price alone) that was a souvenir for pilgrims going to some holy shrine in England. Highly recommended.)
I wonder if ol' Goldenmouth would say that cussing using a saint's name is just as dangerous?
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There's no doubt God, or some unseen force somewhere, is offended by so-called foul language. Why else is it that the majority of us automatically refrain from using it in polite company.
Yes. That force is societal norms. Look, we don't (in the United States, anyway) run naked through the village square, but that doesn't prove God is mad about it. Societal mores is a much more defensible source.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There's no doubt God, or some unseen force somewhere, is offended by so-called foul language. Why else is it that the majority of us automatically refrain from using it in polite company.
This is flawed logic. If this were the case, the commandment would be Though shalt definitely kill There would be a commandment, or at least a verse, about queuing... O. M. G. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That's it! The Unforgivable Sin... is jumping a queue!
What you do demonstrate, though, is exactly the problem. Projection.
ETA: Stupid coding, following my command instead of intension
[ 17. September 2017, 14:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Barnabus62:
1. Quotes without attribution are always dangerous. People love putting their prejudices into the mouths of great people of the past, and in Orthodoxy, Chrysostom is one of the greatest.
Part of the problem is that St J C was so prolific. I've been wandering through this voluminous source, so far without finding the exact reference (homily, letter etc) but I've read enough to know that the link I found is pretty consistent with other stuff he wrote/said.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
2. Assuming it is authentic, it may be one of Chrysostom's foibles, rather than a place where he nails it. He is a known rabid antisemite, so not all of his pronouncements are worthy of equal esteem.
3. Assuming he's right, it would be an interesting conversation to have. What is it about blasphemy that's so dangerous?
You put your finger on what is puzzling me. As best I can work out St J C is arguing that intentional blaspheming (you know I agree with you about inadvertent blaspheming by folks outside faith communities) is a bit like hardening the heart. Poisons the mind, sets you up for Hell. God's anger seems to be directed primarily against the devil who uses the human weakness of unbridled tongues to tempt people away from relationship with Him.
And I guess some of this also ties up with the Orthodox Tradition about Hell and judgement, which is rather different to Catholic and Protestant understanding. People casting themselves into the flames etc, Hell being a place of purgation, etc.
Not an easy unpick, this. A lot of it feels arcane to me.
Thanks for the book link btw. From the reviews, it looks like the author and I have similar ideas about swearing.
[ 17. September 2017, 15:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
It would be very interesting to know the traditional Jewish interpretation of this.
Joy Davidman, who was raised Jewish, is my source for the example about the camel. I wonder if this is the standard Jewish view.
Moo
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
When one group of people decide that another group are worth less than themselves, then you get bad language (and physical and emotional violence). Given that many of the people offering this crap call themselves Christians, ordinary blasphemy seems almost a trifle.
Ordinary swear words don't even come close.
I was reading both the Guardian and an Australian paper (I can't remember which) this morning and I totally agree Arabella. The kind of hate speech being aimed at people supporting Single Sex Marriage left me feeling sick, that anyonewould address another human being with such
venom and lies was far worse that any swearing could ever be.
Huia
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
My favorite insult in literature at the moment is Moliere's "May your ears turn into arseholes and shit on your shoulders." I said it to someone once. It was ill-judged.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I echo mousethief's book recommendation above; that is a great book. And that mediaeval trinket has remained in my mind to this day. Certainly taught me we can be a lot more cautious swearing-wise and image-wise these days.
Like SC's book characters, friends know how I am faring based on my naughty word usage. I grew up being told naughty words were on par with blasphemy and rarely come natural to me even now, but I will use them in moments of anguish.
I fear losing sense of the dignity of someone, as per Arabella and Huia above, in the language used or actions taken, is worse to me than a bad word.
[ 18. September 2017, 07:50: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is a bit of a tangent, but I think is relevant.
We've long taught our children that there are different forms of speaking that are appropriate in different circumstances - and that one needs to think about the person one is talking to and whether the words one is choosing to use are appropriate in that context.
Of course adults have to be careful around small children as they copy what adults say - however as the child grows up, by-and-large they learn to understand (hopefully without too many cringeworthy mistakes) that they need to talk differently to different types of people.
And that being conversant in these different dialects is a skill and an asset, and more than this that being mindful of what other people expect from language is more than just polite, it is essential if one is going to be able to live alongside them.
The fact is that some forms of the English language sound aggressive to people who don't use it. I'm not sure that morally that's of any more importance than that some people find the sound of German harsh on the ears.
As we've seen above, there are ways to use all kinds of different vocabularies in ways that are (or aren't) violent.
Of course, it isn't an easy thing to get right, but only the person who never steps out of their own social sphere speaks in the same way to everyone they meet, IMO.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't think that's a tangent at all, mr cheesy. I don't know if you're aware but the phenomenon you're referring to is called "code switching."
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I agree Mr Cheesy, it's an essential life skill.
I swear, but rarely. If you keep your swearing for extreme circumstances it's an excellent safety valve. Also people really KNOW you mean it! I never swear in print or online - what's the point? When typing it's simple to moderate your language.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Another little thing I was thinking: on some level exposure to non-aggressive "bad language" insulates the individual to it.
Or to put it the other way around: someone who flinches every time they hear someone say "fuck" or who refuses to talk to someone who blasphemes etc and so on is going to find it quite hard to navigate through life in various communities around here.
Even if one isn't using the patterns of language that others are using, simply being around it is a good thing.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another little thing I was thinking: on some level exposure to non-aggressive "bad language" insulates the individual to it.
Excellent point. A good friend of ours, who worked for several years as a night club pastor (and that's another story) said that was exactly what happened to her. What might have bothered her, or jarred a bit, no longer did. She ceased being put off by the "decoration", heard what was really being said.
In fact, the whole code-switching notion is profoundly helpful in this discussion. I'm sure the real issue is malevolent speech, not the code used to express it. I'm with Arabella Purity Winterbottom.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If we say anything that corrodes, intimidates, oppresses, it's wrong. Without obscenity. And obscenity easily amounts to verbal sexual assault in mixed company. If done by theists, it's all blasphemy: misrepresenting God. The trouble is that the Bible does it unintentionally from beginning to end and the doctors of the church continue in that even worse. The current teachings to the vast majority of the peoples of the book are very bad, most bad bad language indeed.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think that's a tangent at all, mr cheesy. I don't know if you're aware but the phenomenon you're referring to is called "code switching."
Code switching, as I understand it, is done within a conversation or situation, not across different ones.
This link explains and contains the brilliant Key and Peale demonstrating and a more real example from Queen Bey.
[ 18. September 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There's no doubt God, or some unseen force somewhere, is offended by so-called foul language. Why else is it that the majority of us automatically refrain from using it in polite company.
This is flawed logic. If this were the case, the commandment would be Though shalt definitely kill There would be a commandment, or at least a verse, about queuing... O. M. G. That's it! The Unforgivable Sin... is jumping a queue!
What you do demonstrate, though, is exactly the problem. Projection.
There might as well have been a commandment 'thou shalt definitely kill' . Proved by simply taking a glance at Christianity down the ages. Many well mannered people have done ghastly things,( or been required to), while foul mouthers don't necessarily bite like they bark.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Code switching, as I understand it, is done within a conversation or situation, not across different ones.
That is the linguistic definition. It's not how sociologists use the term.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Code switching, as I understand it, is done within a conversation or situation, not across different ones.
That is the linguistic definition. It's not how sociologists use the term.
I'd like to see a link with that context.
However Gene Demby, in my link, does hint at a broader definition; so fair dos.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This isn't scholarly but it shows how the term is used, and gives a nod to the linguists' definition.
This is a scholarly article. The important part for our purposes begins with section 1.2.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This isn't scholarly but it shows how the term is used, and gives a nod to the linguists' definition.
This is a scholarly article. The important part for our purposes begins with section 1.2.
Thank you. I fully do both types of code switching, but never considered the sociological definition as code switching. Though it makes perfect sense that it is an extension of the linguistic definition.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reminds me of the almost-apocryphal Tony Campolo story of when he was preaching at a conservative Christian college and said "10 million children will go to bed hungry tonight and most of you don't give a shit"
Then he went on to say, "but that's not what really bothers me. What really bothers me is that most of you are more upset that I just said 'shit' than that I just said 10 million children go to bed hungry"
I heard him preach this at Spring Harvest and Greenbelt. Spring Harvest got told they didn't give a shit whilst Greenbelt got told they didn't give a fuck.
Swearing has power if it's used properly. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What's really sad is that he's right. A large section of the church would be more upset by the swears than the hunger. Which is truly sad.
Tubbs
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't claim to be purer than the driven snow on this issue,*
*I do.
I reckon swearing because life is shit is ok.
I reckon swearing at me because I have wronged you, less so.
The words, meh- the intent is what can harm.
Patdys: Pure as the driven yellow snow.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thank you. I fully do both types of code switching, but never considered the sociological definition as code switching. Though it makes perfect sense that it is an extension of the linguistic definition.
The sociological definition was the first one I encountered, in readings about the African American subcultures in America and how code switching is a normal and everyday part (burden) of life.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thank you. I fully do both types of code switching, but never considered the sociological definition as code switching. Though it makes perfect sense that it is an extension of the linguistic definition.
The sociological definition was the first one I encountered, in readings about the African American subcultures in America and how code switching is a normal and everyday part (burden) of life.
The sociological was also the first one I encountered, but I didn’t define it as such. Most people of colour in Europe and America will have this experience to some degree.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Sundry shipmates have been making use of the term code (-) switching, eg:
quote:
I fully do both types of code switching, but never considered the sociological definition as code switching. Though it makes perfect sense that it is an extension of the linguistic definition.
For (socio)linguists, code-switching, in that compounded (hyphenated) always primarily means 'alternating between two or more distinct languages within the same flow of speech'. But it did strike me, when I first encountered the term, as not entirely a happy choice of term. The use of code to refer to a distinctive style of discourse was used heavily by the educational sociolinguist Basil Bernstein back in the '60s, esp his distinction between elaborated and restricted codes, but the research about differentiated discourse codes has moved ahead massively since then and code isn't used very often in that sense today (sociolinguists typically talk about discourse styles or registers or [social, usually class-based dialects]). But I guess code is also useful as an ultra-neutral term.
However, I think most (socio)linguists today would avoid using the term code-switching for alternation between, for example, African-American Vernacular English [AAVE] and standard (ie white middle-class) General American – or, in my birth family's case, East Yorkshire urban vernacular [from 'Ull] and standard educated RP – even if they spoke about 'switching codes', since the hyphenated term has acquired such a definite more precise meaning.
The social and cultural implications of alternating between sociolects and standard within one language, and between two languages, are drastically different – you might say, one involves vertical switching and the other involves horizontal switching. Also, switching between sociolects to talk with different individuals is very different from deploying more than one language in talking with the same individual.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Did you read the second article I posted?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
However, I think most (socio)linguists today would avoid using the term code-switching for alternation between, for example, African-American Vernacular English [AAVE] and standard (ie white middle-class) General American – or, in my birth family's case, East Yorkshire urban vernacular [from 'Ull] and standard educated RP – even if they spoke about 'switching codes', since the hyphenated term has acquired such a definite more precise meaning.
Could you link something? Because bith my and mt's links imply otherwise.
quote:
The social and cultural implications of alternating between sociolects and standard within one language, and between two languages, are drastically different – you might say, one involves vertical switching and the other involves horizontal switching. Also, switching between sociolects to talk with different individuals is very different from deploying more than one language in talking with the same individual.
Language is about communication. Sociolects are also about communication. They both transmit culture as well, the difference is degree.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm not sure it really matters, does it? I've described the thing here, I wasn't aware that there was a term.
I'm quite willing to believe that different fields of study use it in different ways - to me that doesn't change the reality that I perceive; namely that people often find it necessary to change their forms of language depending on who it is that they're talking to.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure it really matters, does it? I've described the thing here, I wasn't aware that there was a term.
I'm quite willing to believe that different fields of study use it in different ways - to me that doesn't change the reality that I perceive; namely that people often find it necessary to change their forms of language depending on who it is that they're talking to.
Me too. I like your summary.
A classic example of a clash between technical and colloquial definitions. A general exegetical issue as well. Without dialogue, the specific meaning of a word in a text or a speech may not be completely clear. It's one of the ways in which misunderstandings arise.
And then there is also this factor
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
(Robert McCloskey)
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
What does "swearing" actually mean? "I swear by Almighty God that I shall tell the truth" is swearing, and I believe that Quakers find such oaths (note the true sense of the word) offensive to God.
Much so-called swearing is just plain Anglo-Saxon. "Shit", for example. Just a word that Anglo-Saxons would have used day in, day out, for faeces. Someone, somewhere along the line decided it wasn't polite.That ladies' ears might be hurt by the word. Or children led astray.
Personally I think God is too big and powerful to worry if I say a few words that some Victorian thought were naughty.
[ 21. September 2017, 10:37: Message edited by: Sighthound ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
In Germany they have 'High German' the formal language and colloquial German spoken in informal situations. High German is nation wide and the accent is too.
My German friends, who speak perfect English, laugh when I use colloquial, Northern, terms when in a semi-formal situation. I explain that there is no 'High English' or common accent for us all to learn and use ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
Sorry to be a pedant, but there isn't a universal German accent, even when speaking high German, as anyone who's ever heard someone from Saxony speak could tell you.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Boogie may be thinking of the difference between 'High German' and 'Low German'
Particularly since Luther's translation of the Bible was into 'High German' and since Luther's bible was generally used in the north of the German speaking areas,Low German has come to be seen as a form of dialect.In certain areas of North Germany people would like to use 'Low German' for some words or indeed complete sentences or conversations. English,like Dutch is another form of Low German (Plattdeutsch)
Of course High German is spoken and written all over the German speaking areas with quite marked differences in pronunciation from one area to another.
Most Swiss German speakers can easily switch from Swiss German to High German,albeit with an easily recognisable Swiss pronunciation of High German.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
One might dare to venture the suggestion that, whilst noting the striking heterogeneity that is all-too-clearly apparent between the various expressions of the German language, it would be egregious to postulate much linguistic similitude - beyond, that is, the most generalised - between the many diverse linguistic variations occasioned by both geographical and social dispersion and ethnic origin that are to be found within the British realm.
[ 22. September 2017, 09:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Sorry to be a pedant, but there isn't a universal German accent, even when speaking high German, as anyone who's ever heard someone from Saxony speak could tell you.
I stand corrected, my German is appalling, as is my understanding of languages. I thought they'd said that, when using High German, they tried to use a common accent.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Mind you, that's assuming they can read that Gothic script!
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Do Germans swear like Brits?
Pig Dog was always the held up as the limit of German bad language in the old war films.
Even the classic Downfall bunker rant appeared devoid of swear words. Maybe they didn't translate very well.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I lived in Swabia for a year, and the dialect there is very different from High German.
High German:Ich habe ihn nicht gesehen.*
Swabian: I hab ihn net gsehe.
*I have not seen him.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Do Germans swear like Brits?
Pig Dog was always the held up as the limit of German bad language in the old war films.
Even the classic Downfall bunker rant appeared devoid of swear words. Maybe they didn't translate very well.
Mark Twain didn't think so. In his essay "The Awful German Language" he makes this observation:
quote:
"Verdammt," and its variations and enlargements, are words which have plenty of meaning, but the sounds are so mild and ineffectual that German ladies can use them without sin. German ladies who could not be induced to commit a sin by any persuasion or compulsion, promptly rip out one of these harmless little words when they tear their dresses or don't like the soup. It sounds about as wicked as our "My gracious."
_____
*verdammt=damned
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Do Germans swear like Brits?
Pig Dog was always the held up as the limit of German bad language in the old war films.
Even the classic Downfall bunker rant appeared devoid of swear words. Maybe they didn't translate very well.
My relatives are likely to say "f---ing schweinehund" (pigdog ~ a-hole) where f--- doesn't have much potency. At the level of damn. English's gift to the world is the f word.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
When I was about twelve, my father heard my girlfriend and me saying, "Well, shoot-fire." We thought it was funny. He then gave me a lecture on swearing: "It's a bad habit. Don't do it."
That still seems like good advice to me. The people I know who swear a lot, swear a lot until it becomes boring and truly does seem like a bad verbal tic. It's now so prevalent among young people that I can't understand half of what the reality show contestants are saying because every other word is bleeped. Older people do it with a slightly self-conscious, "Aren't I shocking?" slant, as if their audience is a clutch of Victorian ladies and not their own bored peer group. Worse to me, it often stands in substitute for what could have been much more descriptive terms, as in, "That movie was shit."
For me it's not, how bad is bad language, but, why bad language?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For me it's not, how bad is bad language, but, why bad language?
Just because you don't like it, can't understand the rhythm of it, can't be bothered with it - doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Or that it is "bad".
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
When I was about twelve, my father heard my girlfriend and me saying, "Well, shoot-fire." We thought it was funny. He then gave me a lecture on swearing: "It's a bad habit. Don't do it."
When I was in boarding school, saying the f word was 10 swats. If you said it to a master (teacher) it was 10 then and 10 again later from the head master at study hall in front of the entire student body. There was a wee line-up sometimes.
(Swats: you bent over, hands to knees and they used a 30" long 3" wide swat stick to deliver punishment, always in front of the class. Canada was a backward country back a ways.)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For me it's not, how bad is bad language, but, why bad language?
Just because you don't like it, can't understand the rhythm of it, can't be bothered with it - doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Or that it is "bad".
I'm with Twilight. Regular use means that swearing has lost its potency and shock value. Why use it when there are a range of substitutes?
The other point is that of context. If you wouldn't swear in front of children or when leading service, why do it elsewhere? Do you suddenly lose the power of choice dependant on the company you keep?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Language is about communication. Sociolects are also about communication. They both transmit culture as well, the difference is degree.
Sure. I think keibat was pointing at the difference between using a different language/dialect/accent in different contexts (for example, using regional dialect at home vs. a high-status formal dialect at work) or with different people (using a dialect or vernacular with another speaker of that dialect, but using "standard" language with a non-dialect speaker in the same conversation) on the one hand, and "dual-band" communication using two languages at the same time between speakers of both languages/dialects on the other.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm with Twilight. Regular use means that swearing has lost its potency and shock value. Why use it when there are a range of substitutes?
Because it is a dialect. You don't use it, but why should you tell other people what language to use?
quote:
The other point is that of context. If you wouldn't swear in front of children or when leading service, why do it elsewhere? Do you suddenly lose the power of choice dependant on the company you keep?
Because almost everyone talks differently to different people. It's not about choice, it is simply about talking in a way that people are comfortable with.
Because talking is a two-way process, and because it isn't just about you and your qualms.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The other point is that of context. If you wouldn't swear in front of children or when leading service, why do it elsewhere? Do you suddenly lose the power of choice dependant on the company you keep?
Different language registers are appropriate to different contexts. If I'm giving a formal talk to a group of people, I use a different register from that that I would use if I was conveying the same information to a small group of colleagues, which is different again from the register that I would use telling a couple of mates over a few beers in the pub.
The Anglo-Saxon words in question don't belong in the formal register, but might in the informal.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The Anglo-Saxon words in question don't belong in the formal register, but might in the informal.
I think that the interesting thing is that language is constantly changing - and that things that once were the worst-possible and most common (in both senses) swear-words become extremely mild and inoffensive in time.
It seems to me to parallel changes in clothing - I was just thinking about the clothes that people were wearing last century in the labour exchange queue. The standard uniform for the working (or rather non-working) man used to consist of a tie, shirt, hat and overcoat.
It is hard to say that this has really stood the test of time. Whilst suits are still working uniforms for many office workers, it is hard to believe that many going to the job centre to look for work today would be wearing a shirt and tie.
Clothing which once would have been considered under-clothing is now fairly standard wear for most occasions.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that the interesting thing is that language is constantly changing - and that things that once were the worst-possible and most common (in both senses) swear-words become extremely mild and inoffensive in time.
And vice-versa: words that used to be commonplace become beyond the pale.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that the interesting thing is that language is constantly changing - and that things that once were the worst-possible and most common (in both senses) swear-words become extremely mild and inoffensive in time.
And vice-versa: words that used to be commonplace become beyond the pale.
Two different mechanisms, though. General swearwords lose their potency and taboo because of their commonality and society becoming less formal.
Other swearwords gain censure for the specific nature of their targets.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Different language registers are appropriate to different contexts. If I'm giving a formal talk to a group of people, I use a different register from that that I would use if I was conveying the same information to a small group of colleagues, which is different again from the register that I would use telling a couple of mates over a few beers in the pub.
The Anglo-Saxon words in question don't belong in the formal register, but might in the informal.
And then we have people in positions of power who violate all of it. It appears that people with very high status can get away with profanity and more than, be praised for it.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For me it's not, how bad is bad language, but, why bad language?
Just because you don't like it, can't understand the rhythm of it, can't be bothered with it - doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Or that it is "bad".
I'm calling it "bad" language because the title of thread calls it "bad" language.
Nowhere have I told anyone else they shouldn't use it. The whole point of thread is for we ourselves to say what we think of it. Do you think we should all be forced to like it? Should those of us who are fucking tone deaf to the beautiful cock thrusting rhythms of the language be forced to use it even if we aren't fucking feeling it?
Only you, Cheeesy, could sound all pearl clutching and huffy over someone not liking strong language.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
almost everyone talks differently to different people.
That's right. It seems to me very commonplace for men of my generation to use politer forms of expression when talking to their wives and mothers than when talking to groups of male friends.
And I don't see that as a bad thing, as a lack of integrity. It's just about being aware of your audience.
"Bad language" doesn't mean anything to the speaker - it's just an expression of strong feeling. If you say "Christ!" as an exclamation you are not in your mind calling on Our Lord and Saviour to witness your strength of feeling; you're just saying it because that's what people say (in your subculture).
But there are people who will hear it differently. People to whom that Name is sacred.
And it seems to me normal and healthy that there is give-and-take on both sides. That there's no rule that says you have to abide by their usage or that they have to suffer your usage. But rather that out of mutual respect we all both try not to offend and equally try not to take offense where none is intended.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm calling it "bad" language because the title of thread calls it "bad" language.
OK, and I'm discussing whether it is actually bad language.
quote:
Nowhere have I told anyone else they shouldn't use it. The whole point of thread is for we ourselves to say what we think of it. Do you think we should all be forced to like it?
Nope. But I do think that there is a veneer of racism, classism and other-isms when people paint the way that others speak as "bad". That might not be you, I have no idea.
But it does seem to me that when people complain about excess use of Anglo-saxon, they're often actually complaining about patter and patterns of language they associate with particular racial groups.
quote:
Should those of us who are fucking tone deaf to the beautiful cock thrusting rhythms of the language be forced to use it even if we aren't fucking feeling it?
Only you, Cheeesy, could sound all pearl clutching and huffy over someone not liking strong language.
I don't feel like I'm being huffy, I'm just saying that one doesn't have to get annoyed at the way other people speak and one doesn't have to use descriptors like bad to describe a whole pattern of language.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That's right. It seems to me very commonplace for men of my generation to use politer forms of expression when talking to their wives and mothers than when talking to groups of male friends.
And I don't see that as a bad thing, as a lack of integrity. It's just about being aware of your audience.
"Bad language" doesn't mean anything to the speaker - it's just an expression of strong feeling. If you say "Christ!" as an exclamation you are not in your mind calling on Our Lord and Saviour to witness your strength of feeling; you're just saying it because that's what people say (in your subculture).
But there are people who will hear it differently. People to whom that Name is sacred.
And it seems to me normal and healthy that there is give-and-take on both sides. That there's no rule that says you have to abide by their usage or that they have to suffer your usage. But rather that out of mutual respect we all both try not to offend and equally try not to take offense where none is intended.
Well yes - I don't believe that people should feel forced to use language that they don't want to.
But here's the thing: if one is offended by casual blasphemy (even when the person using the word is not intending it to be blasphemous, it is just punctuation and part of their verbal tics), then it is going to be hard to be around people who speak like that.
Which in a place like Ireland, where it is a common part of the dialect, it is going to be a large proportion of the population.
There aren't really "two-sides" to this. Those for whom individual words are religiously offensive are in a minority. So if the words are spoken without any intention to be offensive or threatening (which I'd argue is probably the majority of the time for this kind of blasphemy or the most common swearwords), then the minority has limited power in the situation.
In an ideal world, people who talk like that will realise and moderate their language if they know that an individual has a problem with blasphemy. But by the same token, the person who is so ultra-sensitive that they make a point of trying to get other people to moderate their language that they've not even met or barely know is very often being unreasonable.
It seems to me that people who react badly to other people's vocabulary and/or language are being ultra-sensitive, often as a form of spiritual or virtue signalling. When that tips into the use of phrases like "people who talk like that have a small vocabulary" or "and that just shows how ignorant those people are", it becomes a form of passive-aggression and a way to belittle others.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Only you, Cheeesy, could sound all pearl clutching and huffy over someone not liking strong language.
That's clearly a personal dig, not a criticism of a post, or series of posts. No more here, please. Hell is available if you are sufficiently pissed off to take it further.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I was blessed to be in a cult for nearly twenty years that deeply effected my thinking for nearly forty. Swearing was deeply repressed and that caused me for one - and every one else - a lot of harm. Remember never EVER even THINK the word hippopotamus. It means that you are not in control of your own mind and that the demonic has a foothold. So, every combination of profanity and blasphemy - against the Holy Spirit no less - in words, double entendres AND images WILL come to mind and rob you of your salvation.
Fuck that.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it does seem to me that when people complain about excess use of Anglo-saxon, they're often actually complaining about patter and patterns of language they associate with particular racial groups.
I think this is bollocks. I think people who complain about Anglo-Saxon (particularly the case where every noun is preceded by an Anglo-Saxon adjective that seems to be there for no purpose other than to add rhythm to the sentence) don't like to hear that word. They're not objecting to the language because it's used by people they disparage - they're disparaging the people because of the way they're using the language.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think this is bollocks. I think people who complain about Anglo-Saxon (particularly the case where every noun is preceded by an Anglo-Saxon adjective that seems to be there for no purpose other than to add rhythm to the sentence) don't like to hear that word. They're not objecting to the language because it's used by people they disparage - they're disparaging the people because of the way they're using the language.
I think the things are wrapped up together. There is general hatred of the poor by the wealthier classes and disparaging language is part of a repeated historical pattern.
The "wrong" language here in Wales (which at the time was Welsh) was a sign of ignorance, stupidity, low caste, low education and low aspiration. The "noble" worker would rise beyond his humble abode, learn to use English properly - and along with that would come a rejection of his wicked ways, alcoholism, fighting and gambling.
Meanwhile, then as now, the wealthier classes felt superior as they made liberal use of "fuck" at the races and filled their children's minds with classical examples of child abuse and patricide.
Today a particular target seems to be various forms of black culture - which often seems to have these kinds of words embedded within the punctuation and rhythm of the dialect, so that saying "I don't like hearing those words all the time" is actually code for saying "I don't like hearing black people speaking like that".
I don't think it always is that - it is absolutely true that there are forms of white trash talk that includes a lot of anglo-saxon words. But I think this is definitely a thing.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Many years ago, when working in Circumlocution Canada, we had a Director-General who, raised in 1960s Québec and educated in (private and expensive) convent schools, was a frequent swearer to emphasize her authority and to remind us that she was a tough and vigorous administrator.
The Jesus-***ing-Christs got to be a bit too much for those of us who like a more professional discourse at meetings-- it particularly bothered two seriously practising officers of Caribbean origin. Other church-going staffers (there were rather more than she thought) just raised their eyebrows figuratively and tried to ignore it.
Another manager had spoken with her privately on this and was dismissed from her presence with the advice that nobody cared, but with more syllables. However, one of our Ismaili colleagues decided to deal with it and privately spoke with the offending DG to let her know how upset some of the Muslim staff were that she used offensive language of the prophet. She said that she was certain that she never referred to Mohammed at all; he replied that Jesus was revered as a prophet by Muslims. She grew pale at the implications and apologized profusely. Language changed at meetings thereafter.
I would also note that a friend whose volunteer work focusses on women survivors of abuse tells me that the f-word can be a triggering factor as its use often figures in both physical and mental abusive behaviour. When it was pointed out to her that it was often used carelessly, she suggested that we take more care.
[ 23. September 2017, 16:11: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I see no rhythm in swearing. For me, spoken or written, it breaks the rhythm and detracts from the meaning.
I dislike it. I don't think it's 'bad' but I do think it's pointless and sloppy - similar to using 'like' or 'y'know' every other word.
Swearing in extreme pain/anger etc is fine and very useful imo. In everyday language? Nope.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I see no rhythm in swearing. For me, spoken or written, it breaks the rhythm and detracts from the meaning.
I dislike it. I don't think it's 'bad' but I do think it's pointless and sloppy - similar to using 'like' or 'y'know' every other word.
Swearing in extreme pain/anger etc is fine and very useful imo. In everyday language? Nope.
OK, but is that anything more than your (and actually my) cultural background? Where we have different types of acceptable punctuation words and where our patter does not sound like other people's?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Today a particular target seems to be various forms of black culture - which often seems to have these kinds of words embedded within the punctuation and rhythm of the dialect,
I don't think it always is that - it is absolutely true that there are forms of white trash talk that includes a lot of anglo-saxon words. But I think this is definitely a thing.
I don't see Anglo-Saxon-as-verbal-punctuation as a black thing particularly, although perhaps the use of such speech patterns in rap, a predominantly black musical form, gives that impression. But the main reason I don't think it's so much a race thing is that there are plenty of distinctive features of racial/ethnic minority speech that are not objected to.
I'll agree that you'll find some people who complain about any form of dialect speech, and bemoan the fact that "those people" don't learn proper English and so on, but I don't think the distaste for one particular Anglo-Saxon expletive and its many variants showing up as every third word in someone's speech is quite an example of that. (The latter is far more widespread.)
You'll point out that it's all related, and that's true, but everything is related. Nobody has pure untainted motives for anything.
If you want an example of widespread racial bias in the way people think about speech, you'd do better to look at the way people feel compelled to remark on how well-spoken a particular black politician is, but feel no need to make a similar comment about his white colleague who speaks in the same way.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Today a particular target seems to be various forms of black culture - which often seems to have these kinds of words embedded within the punctuation and rhythm of the dialect, so that saying "I don't like hearing those words all the time" is actually code for saying "I don't like hearing black people speaking like that".
Do black people swear more than white people? That's an interesting thought. Which black communities are you thinking of? American, British, etc?
If you're referring to the n-word, there are many black people who disapprove of that. Even among those who use it there's an acceptance that it's problematic, since it clearly has a different significance depending on who's using it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I see no rhythm in swearing. For me, spoken or written, it breaks the rhythm and detracts from the meaning.
I dislike it. I don't think it's 'bad' but I do think it's pointless and sloppy - similar to using 'like' or 'y'know' every other word.
Swearing in extreme pain/anger etc is fine and very useful imo. In everyday language? Nope.
OK, but is that anything more than your (and actually my) cultural background? Where we have different types of acceptable punctuation words and where our patter does not sound like other people's?
I don't know.
I've been thinking about this for days now and I still can't work it out.
I don't mind at all when people in my family swear because - in my view - they use the words sparingly and appropriately. But if I read a piece which is smattered with swear words I simply lose all the meaning and give up. Maybe a link there with my dyslexia too? It distracts too much for me. When I read 'cunt' or such in a piece - or repeated 'fuck this; 'fuck that' (where no real strong feelings are expressed) I find myself stopping and losing my thread, starting again and giving up
If I'm on the bus and I hear someone swearing every other word I'm not offended. But, at the same time, I'm very glad they are not part of my family/circle of friends! Why? Because it sounds so angry and aggressive to me.
Cultural? I don't know, possibly - but we are all a product of our upbringing and shouting 'cultural' at every honest reaction isn't helpful.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Goerge Carlin had a great routine on The Seven Dirty Words. As he said, the list changes from day to day, from situation to situation.
And even old words get new life from time to time.
How many of you had to look up the word "dotard" this past week?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I've been thinking bout this because I don't swear a ton, but I swear more than anyone else in my immediate family, and I swear in mixed company more than most of my immediate friends too. I couldn't figure out why. Then I realized that I spent so many years being told that I had to be a ladylike good little Christian girl who never swore. FUCK THAT.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
But it gets boring.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it is absolutely true that there are forms of white trash talk that includes a lot of anglo-saxon words.
So what's your take on that ? what's going on there ? What leads someone to pack their sentences with the f-word and the c-word ?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What leads someone to pack their sentences with the f-word and the c-word ?
Culture and competition is my experience thus far.
Some workplaces provide a good example of this. Ol' Fred uses a couple of 'effs, and ol' Joe uses a few more. Then at the end of it you get poor ol' Jack who is so easily influenced that he ends up with the f- word as a prefix to every single noun in a sentence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I've been thinking bout this because I don't swear a ton, but I swear more than anyone else in my immediate family, and I swear in mixed company more than most of my immediate friends too. I couldn't figure out why. Then I realized that I spent so many years being told that I had to be a ladylike good little Christian girl who never swore. FUCK THAT.
Yes, my missus is like that, although she tends to swear at Tories on the box. If I hear a raucous 'fuck off', it's usually at Theresa. I have known both sides in working class life - you get a certain pudeur among some people, who never swear, and obviously, the opposite. But then posh people can swear like dockers.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Today a particular target seems to be various forms of black culture - which often seems to have these kinds of words embedded within the punctuation and rhythm of the dialect, so that saying "I don't like hearing those words all the time" is actually code for saying "I don't like hearing black people speaking like that".
Do black people swear more than white people? That's an interesting thought. Which black communities are you thinking of? American, British, etc?
If you're referring to the n-word, there are many black people who disapprove of that. Even among those who use it there's an acceptance that it's problematic, since it clearly has a different significance depending on who's using it.
I my experience, swearing is more along socio-economic lines than colour lines. As you know, but many do not perceive, black culture is not monolithic. So, "black people swear more" is problematic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
How many of you had to look up the word "dotard" this past week?
I already knew what it meant. But, then, I do interact here...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
I it was the inimitable Richard Briers, by way of the Bard, that introduced me to the term.
[ 24. September 2017, 17:33: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I knew dotard, but I've been teaching Shakespeare for years.
My workplace takes a very dim view of any swearing at all, but I work in education, so I don't swear much at work. My daughter is a railway engineer, one of my sisters is a lorry driver and my father is ex-Navy and factory floor. My father's language is so bad, even in sailing circles, that he was known as Bollocks Bill, so I grew up with a stream of invective on the tip of my tongue.
But I also learned code-switching young, and would speak different dialects to school friends in the backseat of the car and my parents driving. Or picking up the phone to my parents when with other friends.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No one shall ever deny to me any word in the language. All of it, bad, good, is mine, my domain, to use as I see fit. Words are my tools, my weapons and memory and programming systems, my time machine and my FTL drive. Not a one will I ever give up. You'll have to pry them from my cold dead hands.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
Swearing can be an issue if you settle in another country; if your children learn swear words in the playground, you won't tell them off for using the words if you don't understand them yourself.
I once spent an interesting afternoon with a Japanese friend, who presented me with tea and biscuits and asked me, in confidence, to explain the meanings of various words her children were using. This included everything from explaining that "stupid" was an insult to intelligence, but not actually swearing, to the literal meeting of "bugger" which made her gasp so loudly that I thought she was about to have an asthma attack.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Two window-cleaners overheard leaving a neighbour's house:
Older window-cleaner: What's up with her?
Younger window-cleaner: She doesn't like me saying fuck.
Older window-cleaner: Well, fuck me! If you can't say fuck, what CAN you fucking say?
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on
:
From my (somewhat limited) knowledge of France and Spain*, the use of many "equivalent" everyday words (like "putain"/"joder" for "fuck" and "merde"/"mierda" for "shit") is a lot less of a taboo, at least in informal, everyday settings, which are the circumstances in which I think we are generally discussing here. I can't speak for Spain, but in France they don't have a watershed for TV, I have definitely heard "putain" on TV during the day and have also seen some racy bedroom scenes and condom adverts, none of which I would expect to experience on UK TV.
Given this example in neighbouring Christian countries (at least nominally), I tend to hold the view that this is very much a cultural issue, and actually has very little (or nothing at all depending on your views on blasphemy) to do with religion. My girlfriend, on the other hand, believes strongly that it is "not Christian" to use "bad language". I firmly disagree with this, because I think she is marrying the cultural (and only her culture at that) with the religious erroneously.
That said, I don't swear in front of her for the same reasons why I don't swear in front of my father or sister (they find it unnecessarily crass rather than blasphemous), namely I find it fairly easy leave out these words in contexts, so I don't feel it requires a big effort on my behalf not to cause offence. I always thought this was rather normal...
*I would greatly appreciate confirmation/correction from Shipmates living in these countries
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
'putain' is a word for prostitute in French.By using the word or expression 'ta mere est putain' or just 'putain' for short one is simply saying that the other person is a 'bastard'
In the same way that 'shit' in English sometimes is expressed as 'sugar' the French word 'punaise'
('bug' as well as 'drawing pin') is sometimes used instead of 'putain'
'une punaise de sacristie' is used for a type of woman who is always frequenting churches.
You don't mention the word 'con' which at times can be a word not to use too much in public as it is the same as the English word 'cunt'.However it is used much more easily simply to mean an idiot ,a stupid person.I suppose that 'pauvre con' is like 'poor bastard' in English.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
"Putain" is not a polite word for a prostitute. Best literal translation is "whore" but I don’t think people who say it are usually thinking about it’s real meaning. It’s roughly equivalent to the f-word in force and application. IME it’s not a word one says in front of one’s grandmother.
"Con" is vulgar but considerably less so. I would translate it "bloody stupid", and "pauvre con" as "poor bugger".
The Quebeckers OTOH have an entirely different set of rude words, mostly related to the Catholic church.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I find Dutch acceptance of ... filth on their immaculately clean streets, unavoidably, in your face, all over a suburban railway station and their hypocrisy of swearing in English but NOT Dutch ... interesting.
Talking of railway stations, it was only my fellow English who batted an eyelid at the Sex Messe, Homo Porn! filling the shop window welcoming you out of Bonn Hauptbahnhof 35 years ago. And worse down a really nice shopping mal where handsome German mothers walked their little girls.
God bless the English double standard I say, better than none at all.
[ 02. October 2017, 13:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0