csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
But I'm asking, how you'd react to the principal saying that. I know that you see the demarcation between vulgar and acceptable as arbitrary. I'm wondering if, knowing all that, you'd still be at least slightly discomfited by the principal's speech.

If it's equivalent to 'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through' then of course not, right? There's no meaningful difference between the two speeches. — csalisbury

If it happened, I'd laugh my ass off. I would be delighted that someone was intelligent enough to see the absurdity of arbitrarily designating certain words as bad.

I'd be laughing.

The principal would have his/her ass in a wringer, though.

Alright. And now imagine you're talking to friends about the past, about sexual escapades, whatever. And one friend seems to only use 'clean' words, and seems reluctant to use 'vulgar' language. What's the reaction to that? The principal's intelligent; is the friend stupid?

csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
Alright. And now imagine you're talking to friends about the past, about sexual escapades, whatever. And one friend seems to only use 'clean' words, and seems reluctant to use 'vulgar' language. What's the reaction to that? The principal's intelligent; is the friend stupid? — csalisbury

Not at all.

The friend would be using the words he/she chooses.

The principal would be using the words he/she chooses.

I am not sure of where you are heading with your questions.

I don't expect the say society deals with words to change. The word "fuck" will still not be accepted, but a piece of shit phrase like "making love" will be.

I'm just discussing the philosophical implications of the practice.

Pick out any acceptable word in any sentence in this thread...suppose it being designated as crude or bad for some reason...and the sentence would become inappropriate for "decent company."

@Frank ApisaWell *I* can't pick out any word and deem it unacceptable and expect a bunch of others to immediately develop similar intuitions about it. It would just be some weird thing I did. *Who* makes those decisions? You're aware of certain words being 'seen' as bad. its not something I did, of course, because I don't have that power. Who did it?


Ok. Imagine your friend tells you those things and you say it back to him in 'vulgar' language and he's visibly uncomfortable. 'oh you fucked that bitch?' you see your friend seems hurt. What happens next?

You have a misguided concept of how language actually works. It is intimately tied to norms, practices, and customs.

We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good." — Frank Apisa

We do not artificially or arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good" any more than we artificially designating certain actions or behaviors as "bad" and others as "good." You may believe that painting a swastika on a synagogue is not bad. After all the symbol was used prior to the Nazis and did not carry that connotation. The fact is though, that now it does.

Words, like other symbols, carry connotations. Their meaning is not neutral until someone arbitrarily designates them good or bad. Words, like customs and norms have a history and change over time. It is not a matter of it being arbitrary as opposed to necessary, but a matter of convention.

I take my shoes off when I enter the home of people who take their shoes off in the house. It's a sign of respect. If I enter a church and I am wearing a hat I will take it off, but if I enter a synagogue and I am not I will put one on. Such practices may seem arbitrary but out of respect that does not prevent me from conforming. In the same way, if I am talking to someone who finds certain words objectionable, out of respect I will not use those words in front of them even though I might use the same words under different circumstances. The use of certain words in certain situations is just ill-mannered. But I suspect you have no regard for good manners either since they go hand in hand.

Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped?
— Brett

My point is that any "language" should be considered acceptable...and polite. We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good." — Frank Apisa

‘Should, should, should. You’re all over the place and you ignore everyone else’s comments.

Did you chose not to answer my question.

To add to the above, how are we to insult anyone if all words are deemed ‘polite’?

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice I’m not dubious as to the effect such non-use of insults would help anyone much in the long run.

The weight of certain words expresses deep dislike and opposition. If such strong feelings were not expressed and communicated would this be better for everyone? I don’t see how it would in every circumstance, and in the circumstances that matter the most I think it would be detrimental to human society (as a society that explore and asks questions that can be quite difficult to deal with).

Yes, in fact those words are used by me on special occasions, so to speak. They have a purpose.

csalisbury
1.8k
@Frank ApisaWell *I* can't pick out any word and deem it unacceptable and expect a bunch of others to immediately develop similar intuitions about it. It would just be some weird thing I did. *Who* makes those decisions? You're aware of certain words being 'seen' as bad. its not something I did, of course, because I don't have that power. Who did it?


Ok. Imagine your friend tells you those things and you say it back to him in 'vulgar' language and he's visibly uncomfortable. 'oh you fucked that bitch?' you see your friend seems hurt. What happens next? — csalisbury

I would not do that.

I am talking about a concept here.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Can we have an actual philosophical conversation?

Fooloso4
494
↪Frank Apisa


You have a misguided concept of how language actually works. It is intimately tied to norms, practices, and customs.

We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good." — Frank Apisa


We do not artificially or arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good" any more than we artificially designating certain actions or behaviors as "bad" and others as "good." You may believe that painting a swastika on a synagogue is not bad. After all the symbol was used prior to the Nazis and did not carry that connotation. The fact is though, that now it does.

Words, like other symbols, carry connotations. Their meaning is not neutral until someone arbitrarily designates them good or bad. Words, like customs and norms have a history and change over time. It is not a matter of it being arbitrary as opposed to necessary, but a matter of convention.

I take my shoes off when I enter the home of people who take their shoes off in the house. It's a sign of respect. If I enter a church and I am wearing a hat I will take it off, but if I enter a synagogue and I am not I will put one on. Such practices may seem arbitrary but out of respect that does not prevent me from conforming. In the same way, if I am talking to someone who finds certain words objectionable, out of respect I will not use those words in front of them even though I might use the same words under different circumstances. The use of certain words in certain situations is just ill-mannered. But I suspect you have no regard for good manners either since they go hand in hand. — Fooloso4

I guess we cannot.

I like sushi
1k
↪Brett
↪Frank Apisa
To add to the above, how are we to insult anyone if all words are deemed ‘polite’?
— I like sushi

“I did not attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”
― Mark Twain

“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.”
― Oscar Wilde

“I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.”
― Groucho Marx


Winston S. Churchill
“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

[On British Labour politician Stafford Cripps.]”

“He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends.”
― Oscar Wilde

“That woman speaks eighteen languages, and can't say 'No' in any of them.”
― Dorothy Parker, While Rome Burns

“A member of Parliament to Disraeli: 'Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.'

That depends, Sir,' said Disraeli, 'whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.”

“He has Van Gogh’s ear for music.”
― Billy Wilder

I could go on...but...

Fair point. Wilde’s are killers! I get the impression that humour changes the battle ground of insults though? If I was on the receiving end of one of Wilde’s insults I would feel honoured more than insulted! Maybe it’s simply a matter of wit and/or simplicity?

If we wish to plain vicious I expect all humour drains away. Your quotes above all make people smile and I imagine only a few of the recipients of them were truly insulted (due to lack of wit and humour?)

If I was to call you a “Fucking hypocrite!” I don’t see how such could be taken as humour ... then I find myself siding on the context and situation of such speech as being a witless retort at best meant to express utter repulsion. It is good to let someone know that they’ve gone too far quickly and not everyone has the wit to come up with some of the above so “Fuckwit” suffices.

I don’t say “Hi there you old cunt!” to my grandmother because she’d be insulted. I have no real need to insult my grandmother either. Context and situation permitting I may have in the future though ;)

I guess we cannot. — Frank Apisa

No Frank, it is not that we cannot but that we do not artificially designate certain words as "bad" and others as "good. We do not each get to decide what words means, just as we do not each get to decide how one should behave in public. That is not to say that one cannot decide to be boorish or have difficultly not being so or clueless as to their own boorishness, but neither what we say nor what we do is limited to private or solitary activity.

Etiquette. I prefer a liberal attitude to language use, but it has a time and a place. I won't, for example, be complimenting customers on their lovely cunts or impressive cocks.

“A member of Parliament to Disraeli: 'Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.'

That depends, Sir,' said Disraeli, 'whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.” — Frank Apisa

Like a boss. :cool:

I would not do that.

I am talking about a concept here.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Can we have an actual philosophical conversation? — Frank Apisa

I've been having a philosophical conversation with you. But it seems like nothing registers as 'philosophical' until that person either agrees with you or sets you up for some tawdry Oscar-Wilde-clone come back. You can't just sit at the wise-misanthrope home-plate waiting for fastballs down the center. You're neither Kurt Vonnegut nor Mark Twain.

Frank, you're much older than me, and I appreciate your wisdom, but your philosophy sucks. You have some vague problem w/ censorship. I'm sorry W.C. Fields never said 'fuck.'

You have some vague, frankly stupid, ideas about how censorship works. They're not, or at least haven't been so far, interesting.

That's what my post was. Either figure out how to respond interestingly, or keep doing your 'under appreciated golf course oscar wilde' bit for no one.

I've been having a philosophical conversation with you. But it seems like nothing registers as 'philosophical' until that person either agrees with you or sets you up for some tawdry Oscar-Wilde-clone come back. You can't just sit at the wise-misanthrope home-plate waiting for fastballs down the center. You're neither Kurt Vonnegut nor Mark Twain.

Frank, you're much older than me, and I appreciate your wisdom, but your philosophy sucks. You have some vague problem w/ censorship. I'm sorry W.C. Fields never said 'fuck.' — csalisbury

That should have been, "Frank, you're much older than I."

Yeah...but my "philosophy" does not suck. And I am not interested in censorship on this issue.

I acknowledge point blank that things will not change. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of denoting certain words as "unacceptable"...a practice more pernicious than using the language some consider as unacceptable.

The word "shit" for instance should be every bit as acceptable as "feces." The arbitrary "one is acceptable the other is not" is an affront to intelligence, if not sanity.

You know the other words that should be every bit as acceptable as their "acceptable" counterparts.

I am not saying we will change and stop the nonsense any more than I am saying that "proper dress" should include a tie for "gentlemen" when on the floor of the House. I am merely attempting to discuss the issue...and not having a lot of success.

We invent these absurd "standards" and then live by them as though they make sense...when they make about as much sense as neck-banding or face tattooing or teeth sharpening.

It is a discussion about that...and appears to be so painful that some, like you at the moment, can barely tolerate it.

You have some vague, frankly stupid, ideas about how censorship works. They're not, or at least haven't been so far, interesting. — csalisbury

I have not even mentioned censorship.

A new thread of mine was censored, supposedly for being of low quality, mostly because I used some taboo words to make a point about them not being indicative of unfriendliness or anger.

So what is your point here?

That's what my post was. Either figure out how to respond interestingly, or keep doing your 'under appreciated golf course oscar wilde' bit for no one. — csalisbury

What is this about? I am not trying to be Oscar Wilde...and I AM responding interestingly. For some reason my responses bother people here...a good number of people, I acknowledge. But I am serious about the discussion and topic and truly do not understand what the fuck is going on with the reaction to me trying to make my point.

K?

Why is the word “cuff” just fine, but pronounced backwards, considered offensive? — Frank Apisa

As George Carlin said, you can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick.

fishfry
607

Why is the word “cuff” just fine, but pronounced backwards, considered offensive? — Frank Apisa


As George Carlin said, you can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick. — fishfry

Yup.

George Carlin was a hero of mine on this issue...which is an issue I have written about for decades now. He recognized the absurdity of some of the language conventions...and mocked them in an entertaining way.

The issue itself seems to set part of the world into a tizzy. (Talk about bullshit language!)

Anyway...I've given it a shot here. I may continue, but it seems the clientele is way too uptight for this kind of discussion. They'd rather pretend they understand what people like Wittgenstein, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Schopenhauer...suggested.

Gotta go with the flow!

It’s beautiful that people can be offended. Without such people where would comedy be?

Those that cling to being offended are after all the givers of Comedy. We feat on their sorry-ass flesh with decadent delight! Praise be the sensitive and frail who bemoan the woes of their circumstances above those of any other.

Such just desserts! Delicious! Yum yum :yum:

I like sushi
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It’s beautiful that people can be offended. Without such people where would comedy be?

Those that cling to being offended are after all the givers of Comedy. We feat on their sorry-ass flesh with decadent delight! Praise be the sensitive and frail who bemoan the woes of their circumstances above those of any other.

Such just desserts! Delicious! Yum yum :yum: — I like sushi

Indeed, Sushi.

Just posted in the forum and got notice of this post.

I LOVE it.

I have not even mentioned censorship. — Frank Apisa

You want to ban the idea of offensive words existing, as being offensive.

Brett
521

I have not even mentioned censorship. — Frank Apisa


You want to ban the idea of offensive words existing, as being offensive. — Brett

I want no such fucking thing...and have never suggested any such fucking thing.

I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the notion. I also am pointing out the fact that my guess is that the notion will be retained by society for as long as society exists.

Read what I write before commenting on what you want to suppose I wrote.

I want no such fucking thing...and have never suggested any such fucking thing. — Frank Apisa

Well then, just let things go, stop being so offended.

It offends me that you think he’s offended!

I am assuming this is basically about the absurdity of language and how words possess a certain weight to them when they’re merely squiggly marks on a screen/page or sounds uttered.

It offends me that you think he’s offended! — I like sushi

Or does it mean that society has decided to pick out certain words (sound, actually) and insist that “proper” people not use those words in public?

I think the latter…and I think the notion stinks like an unwashed asshole. — Frank Apisa

It’s not that I think it, he said it.

I do understand your feelings about the absurdity, but the replies to your posts point out that it’s not so absurd after all, and they’re very lucid in making their point. So then it appears you just want to be offended by the absurdity of it all.