The latest Uncle Orson Reviews Everything column (February 10, 2008) reminded me of a question that I genuinely wanted to understand for a while.
OSC and fellow boarders, why the curse words are "bad"? They are just words, with meaning, they have non-curse synonyms. I realize that we cringe when we hear the f-word simply because it is accepted that that is an inappropriate word, but that's ridiculous, isn't it? And we keep propogating this idiosyncracy to the children.
Wouldn't it be better if one teached his children all words, so a child did not perceive f- and c-words as anything out of the ordinary on the emotional level? Then - one could explain that it is customary nowadays to avoid these words in public.
It would be interesting to know, especially coming from a literary person, if OSC happens to respond, why do we have the curse words, and why we insist on keeping them? Wouldn't we do better if all words were aceptable in public?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Curse words are curse words because we've been socialized to view them as curse words, and because people use them as curse words.
If we somehow managed to remove the stigma from all current curse words, it wouldn't be long before we'd develop a new batch of words that are just as harsh, edgy, and offensive as our current batch.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
On a slightly different subject, I think you have a social advantage if you realize that swear words are ultimately meaningless. Being insulted, in my view, is one's own choice. No phrase is objectively insulting because the degree of an insult depends on how the target interprets it. Calling a true fat person a fatass can either be very offensive or not offensive at all depending on how the person takes it. For me, the only people who can insult me enough to actually make me feel hurt are my friends and family (and anyone else whose relations I value).
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
(In response to the first two posts)
Of course, this does not mean that we should start accepting curse words as part of standard vocabulary, so that they lose their offensive edge. That would say more about our society's degradation than anything else. It's not just the negative connotations that are involved in this problem--it's the motivation for using them. Trying to make them acceptable is like trying to make childporn acceptable; once that's accomplished, society will just move on to something worse.
And I know for a fact that certain fans of the English language would be appalled, if not horrified, that vulgar English has become standard.
Just because we can do something is by no means reason enough to actually do it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This discussion amuses me because English swear words are kind of wimpy and lacking in variety anyways, IMHO Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
That's what I hear. Other cultures are at least a bit creative--ours only really cover the fundamentals. Adultery and fecal matter, bah!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: Trying to make them acceptable is like trying to make childporn acceptable; once that's accomplished, society will just move on to something worse.
That's a false analogy. Child porn will always be child porn. Public perception of child porn can change but that does not matter if you think that child porn in the past is just as evil as child porn in the present. On the other hands, words are purely relative (you can also believe that morals are purely relative too but thats a different debate). There are many swear words where using them 100 years ago would be more offensive than using them today. All that has happened is that the meaning has changed.
I think what you meant to object to was the fact that certain subjects like sex and promiscuity are no longer being treated as seriously as they once were. That issue stretches way beyond the use of swear words.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
To answer the question, though--there is nothing inherently evil about stating curse words. What determines "right" and "wrong" in terms of morality is intent.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Wouldn't it be better if one teached his children all words, so a child did not perceive f- and c-words as anything out of the ordinary on the emotional level?
My initial reaction is that this seems a bit like one of the effects of Newspeak in 1984, that is, stripping language of some of its powerful meaning. I don't think I'd necessarily be against teaching children all words, but I don't like the idea of removing some of the connotative meaning of words.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If we somehow managed to remove the stigma from all current curse words, it wouldn't be long before we'd develop a new batch of words that are just as harsh, edgy, and offensive as our current batch.
Yup. The words aren't the problem, but rather our views and conceptions of certain things. If you replace a pejorative word with a euphemism, soon the euphemism becomes tainted and becomes a pejorative itself.
The s-word originally meant something like "to separate"; it's cognate to the word shed, as in shedding skin or hair. It was originally a euphemism. But over the centuries, it became tainted because crap is still crap, no matter what you call it.
You can't simply teach people that the f-word isn't bad. You'd have to first remove any negative ideas about sex from everyone who ever talks about it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I said as much recently elsewhere, but do you feel the same way about the n-word, the b-word, or the q-word?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Who are you asking?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think racial slurs are worse than curse words, but curse words don't taste so good. Why is it that sex is seen as so obscene that the dirtiest word ever also means having sex? That I don't get. If sex is supposed to be such a beautiful thing why does such an ugly word represent it?
Also which b word? I don't much mind the word queer as it can be used to describe things that are out of the ordinary. But I hate the n word even if relatives use it all the time. And they are black and so am I might I add.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
This conversation reminds me of the sketch (Monty Python?) regarding the versatility of the F word... I won't link to it nor try to find it since it is wholly inappropriate for both work and Hatrack, but you are all welcome to find it on your own if you please.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I said as much recently elsewhere, but do you feel the same way about the n-word, the b-word, or the q-word?
If you're asking me, yes, I feel the same way about other highly offensive words; I don't think we should intentionally try to change the meanings merely to make it have less of an effect.
As it is, when I hear those particular words, they often times evoke a powerful emotion or reaction in me. I don't think that should change.
Let me ask this, though, what would be the purpose of intentionally stripping words of their offsensive meanings? Would it then be acceptable to start using the n-word if we as a society intentionally and spontaneously decided that it isn't going to be offensive?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...Yup. The words aren't the problem, but rather our views and conceptions of certain things. If you replace a pejorative word with a euphemism, soon the euphemism becomes tainted and becomes a pejorative itself.
The s-word originally meant something like "to separate"; it's cognate to the word shed, as in shedding skin or hair. It was originally a euphemism. But over the centuries, it became tainted because crap is still crap, no matter what you call it.
You can't simply teach people that the f-word isn't bad. You'd have to first remove any negative ideas about sex from everyone who ever talks about it. [/QB]
That seems to be patently incorrect: you have the word "sex" which is not offensive at all, while "f-ing" is.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Syn, I'm not sure that the f-word represents the finer (or more romantic) qualities of sex so much as it does the illicit varieties. I rarely see any examples of someone using the word, in relation to sex, in a gentle and loving way. So I would say it's less a case of sex being so obscene that a dirty word represents it than it is a case of a dirty word being correlated to an intimate act to empower it. Maybe.
I agree though, sex shouldn't be associated with something HORRIBLE and EVIL.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: That seems to be patently incorrect: you have the word "sex" which is not offensive at all, while "f-ing" is.
But people talk about sex in a crude, dirty, and degrading manner often enough to make the f-word possible. I was not saying that the word "sex" is offensive per se.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I said as much recently elsewhere, but do you feel the same way about the n-word, the b-word, or the q-word?
Yes. Meaning, that I do have an emotional response to these words but I consider it a personal flaw. That by no means implies that I approve the usage of the aforementioned words. I just prefer to make an intellectual decision not to use the words rather than an emotional one.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: This conversation reminds me of the sketch (Monty Python?) regarding the versatility of the F word... I won't link to it nor try to find it since it is wholly inappropriate for both work and Hatrack, but you are all welcome to find it on your own if you please.
Of course. A rather obvious association. Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:... Let me ask this, though, what would be the purpose of intentionally stripping words of their offsensive meanings? Would it then be acceptable to start using the n-word if we as a society intentionally and spontaneously decided that it isn't going to be offensive? [/QB]
Of course. Not gonna happen any time soon though.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:But people talk about sex in a crude, dirty, and degrading manner often enough to make the f-word possible. I was not saying that the word "sex" is offensive per se. [/QB]
Exactly: the two words coexist and essentially mean the same thing. However, one is derogatory, the other is not for no apparent reason.
Posted by Legatio (Member # 11485) on :
(Just viewed the Monty Python video; distasteful but nonetheless clever)
I think that the whole problem with the so-called curse words is intent. Typically they are used to show great bursts of emotion, and it really is important to have some words in such a diverse language that we can fall back on to say, "Hey, I'm angry." While simply using that phrase might be much more constructive, it's really unlikely. And most phrases that are deemed bad really don't matter at all if it's clear that the intent isn't there for it to cause harm or show anger. But it's important we can associate several select words with this high emotional level instead of just having extremely high strung conversations.
The "f" word is typically meant to show a high amount of anger or emotion, yet when it's casually used without this intent, most people can stomach it. It allows us to focus being uncomfortable with "f"ing instead of being uncomfortable with sex.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: But people talk about sex in a crude, dirty, and degrading manner often enough to make the f-word possible. I was not saying that the word "sex" is offensive per se.
Exactly: the two words coexist and essentially mean the same thing. However, one is derogatory, the other is not for no apparent reason.
Right. Because some people talk about sex in an offensive way, while others do not. I don't see how this makes anything I said patently incorrect.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I believe that words only have the power that you allow them to have.
"Bad" language doesn't bother me, but I realize it bothers other people so I try only to use it in dire situations. When other people are around. If it's just me and my cats, all bets are off. Let the F-bombs fly. At my laundry, my bills, my laptop's crappy battery...you name it.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
The only means with which someone could truly insult/offend me wouldn't use any of the words that we currently view as "Vulgar". In fact, the presence of any of THOSE words would cause said statement to lose much weight in the way of being insulting.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...Right. Because some people talk about sex in an offensive way, while others do not. I don't see how this makes anything I said patently incorrect.
I understood your statement as that it were the actions that are offensive, not words. I suggested that since "sex" and "f-ing" relate to the same action yet produce profoundly different emotional response, your statement seemed incorrect.
You argue that "sex" and "f-ing" do not describe the same action, and I might agree to that. While "sex" is generic, "f-ing" implies a derogatory form of copulation. However, it still feels like the power is in the word itself: could you suggest any synonym or euthemism for "f-ing" that does not use an f-word, and produces similar emotional effect?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: I believe that words only have the power that you allow them to have...
That was kind of my initial idea: if you do not teach your kids that these words are "bad", then they won't be such. Yet OSC for example seems to imply that he would prefer "zero f-words" in a movie...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
"Screw" does the same thing for me. So does, well, pretty much anything that implies that one person is not necessarily a happy and willing participant, but an object.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I just prefer to make an intellectual decision not to use the words rather than an emotional one.
I guess for my own perspective, I would rephrase this. I just prefer to make an intellectual decision not to use the words based on the emotional connotation. I'd rather it be an intellectual decision to not offend rather than as an imposed limitation due to the deliberate desensitization of specific words. I'm not going to go around saying a specific word in order to offend people, but I'd also rather not be stripped of the ability to be able to use that specific word and have the listener clearly understand my full meaning with all its emotional power and offensiveness.
As has been mentioned, when you strip one word of its offensiveness, another will inevitably rise in its place. I'd rather that happened naturally as opposed to because of a deliberate attempt to make all words equal in power and meaning.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I just prefer to make an intellectual decision not to use the words rather than an emotional one.
I guess for my own perspective, I would rephrase this. I just prefer to make an intellectual decision not to use the words based on the emotional connotation. I'd rather it be an intellectual decision to not offend rather than as an imposed limitation due to the deliberate desensitization of specific words. I'm not going to go around saying a specific word in order to offend people, but I'd also rather not be stripped of the ability to be able to use that specific word and have the listener clearly understand my full meaning with all its emotional power and offensiveness.
As has been mentioned, when you strip one word of its offensiveness, another will inevitably rise in its place. I'd rather that happened naturally as opposed to because of a deliberate attempt to make all words equal in power and meaning.
Well, that's not it. I do not wish for stripping the f-word off its meaning and power, just off its stigma of being taboo. Take "a painful death of a toddler being slowly crushed by a steamroller" - that's a very powerful and emotionally charged phrase, however totally acceptable in public. How come a simple "f-ing" isn't?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, that's not it. I do not wish for stripping the f-word off its meaning and power, just off its stigma of being taboo.
The word has much of its connotation and force precisely because it is taboo. Or rather, it's taboo precisely because of it's vulgar connotations and force.
Remove one and you've removed the other, and you'll be left with a word that's equivalent to "screw" or "fornicate". And then people would figure out another word to take f***'s place as the crude way to say that.
quote:if you do not teach your kids that these words are "bad", then they won't be such.
As soon as they leave your home and go to school, they will learn that yes, those words are not just like other words that mean the same thing.
quote:Yet OSC for example seems to imply that he would prefer "zero f-words" in a movie...
I sure know that I would. I prefer the same thing in books.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ...As soon as they leave your home and go to school, they will learn that yes, those words are not just like other words that mean the same thing.
...I sure know that I would. I prefer the same thing in books. [/QB]
You don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. I do not disagree with you on f-word not being in the books or movies (although I personally do not mind at all). Nor do I try to make the world perfect f-word-wise. Nor do I deny the social influence on an adolecsent.
I simply recognize that the word itself has no intrinsic badness, and a responsible parent should not probably behave like there is one.
I do recognize that my reaction to the f-word is mostly emotional, instinctive, without any justification to it. I cringe when I hear f-word because I was taught from the start that it is bad: bad to say it, bad to hear it, bad in any possible sense. Everybody around behaves like it is bad too.
Ok, that was not all the truth. I do not feel like that about the f-word per se because English is not my native language. Instead, I feel the similar way about curse words in my native tongue. However, I was able to learn that the f-word is inappropriate, and I think that I fully appreciate the nuances of its meanings and emotional poignancy without having any idiosyncratic reaction to it.
Isn't this way better? Shouldn't parent teach children this way about curse words instead of creating neuroses in children? That would imply not guarding children from every use of such words at the least, wouldn't it?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ...As soon as they leave your home and go to school, they will learn that yes, those words are not just like other words that mean the same thing.
...I sure know that I would. I prefer the same thing in books.
You don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. I do not disagree with you on f-word not being in the books or movies (although I personally do not mind at all). Nor do I try to make the world perfect f-word-wise. Nor do I deny the social influence on an adolecsent.
I simply recognize that the word itself has no intrinsic badness, and a responsible parent should not probably behave like there is one.
I do recognize that my reaction to the f-word is mostly emotional, instinctive, without any justification to it. I cringe when I hear f-word because I was taught from the start that it is bad: bad to say it, bad to hear it, bad in any possible sense. Everybody around behaves like it is bad too.
Ok, that was not all the truth. I do not feel like that about the f-word per se because English is not my native language. Instead, I feel the similar way about curse words in my native tongue. However, I was able to learn that the f-word is inappropriate, and I think that I fully appreciate the nuances of its meanings and emotional poignancy without having any idiosyncratic reaction to it.
Isn't this way better? Shouldn't parents teach children this way about curse words instead of creating neuroses in children? That would imply not guarding children from every use of such words at the least, wouldn't it? [/QB]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Crocobar: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ...As soon as they leave your home and go to school, they will learn that yes, those words are not just like other words that mean the same thing.
...I sure know that I would. I prefer the same thing in books.
You don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. I do not disagree with you on f-word not being in the books or movies (although I personally do not mind at all). Nor do I try to make the world perfect f-word-wise. Nor do I deny the social influence on an adolecsent.
I simply recognize that the word itself has no intrinsic badness, and a responsible parent should not probably behave like there is one.
I do recognize that my reaction to the f-word is mostly emotional, instinctive, without any justification to it. I cringe when I hear f-word because I was taught from the start that it is bad: bad to say it, bad to hear it, bad in any possible sense. Everybody around behaves like it is bad too.
Ok, that was not all the truth. I do not feel like that about the f-word per se because English is not my native language. Instead, I feel the similar way about curse words in my native tongue. However, I was able to learn that the f-word is inappropriate, and I think that I fully appreciate the nuances of its meanings and emotional poignancy without having any idiosyncratic reaction to it.
Isn't this way better? Shouldn't parents teach children this way about curse words instead of creating neuroses in children? That would imply not guarding children from every use of such words at the least but a lot of explaining instead, wouldn't it?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I simply recognize that the word itself has no intrinsic badness
Words don't have any intrinsic meaning either. Words mean exactly what society has decided they should mean. The offensiveness of a word is part of that meaning that society has decided upon. Strip away the offensiveness, and you strip away part of the meaning.
In other words, it's offensive because it's meant to be offensive.
The n-word is a good example. Society decided that it's going to have an offensive meaning. Therefore, it's offensive to say because its meaning is offensive. I view the f-word the same way. It's offensive, not because we created a list of words that we arbitrarily decided should not be used in public, but because we decided that it's meaning is going to be an offensive one.
Perhaps another example would be the use of the middle finger. Obviosly there is no intrinsic meaning to raising only the middle finger in someone's direction, but it is offensive, is it not? Its very meaning is meant to be offensive. To decide that it should not be offensive would be to change its very meaning.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Naughty words are naughty because if they weren't, what would you say when you drop something expensive and break a toe at the same time? "Oh, yadda!"?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:...Words don't have any intrinsic meaning either. Words mean exactly what society has decided they should mean. The offensiveness of a word is part of that meaning that society has decided upon. Strip away the offensiveness, and you strip away part of the meaning.
In other words, it's offensive because it's meant to be offensive.
The n-word is a good example. Society decided that it's going to have an offensive meaning. Therefore, it's offensive to say because its meaning is offensive. I view the f-word the same way. It's offensive, not because we created a list of words that we arbitrarily decided should not be used in public, but because we decided that it's meaning is going to be an offensive one.
Perhaps another example would be the use of the middle finger. Obviosly there is no intrinsic meaning to raising only the middle finger in someone's direction, but it is offensive, is it not? Its very meaning is meant to be offensive. To decide that it should not be offensive would be to change its very meaning. [/QB]
Again, not to the point. I am interested neither in how the curse words came about, nor in changing their meaning. I merely question the most common way of teaching children about these words.
If one truly feels that these words are paramount to the culture, and the only way to preserve their true meaning is to create an elaborate neurosis in a child's psyche, then keeping these words "forbidden" is the way to go.
Somehow I doubt that that is what people usually try to do. They probably genuinely try to guard their children from the f-word. Only the way to do this, I believe, is not by hiding it but by destroying the word's offensiveness through treating it as any other word.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I reject your repeated assertion that it is neurotic to treat certain words as though they are more offensive than others.
[ February 23, 2008, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I reject your repeated assertion that it is neurotic to treat certain words as though they are more offensive than others.
Again and again, you _misunderstand_. Treat them as you like, as long as you have control over your reaction. My point is that the way most people are about the curse words in their native language, is that their reaction is emotional, triggered by the word itself. What's good about it? You could instead be indifferent to the word emotionally and treat it as offensive purely because you've decided to do so, not because you have to.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
I've found that not cursing is an effective way to show others that you have self control, particularly in the workplace. I've spend my time in the Army where cursing is just part of life, and without ever bringing attention to the fact that I don't curse it got noticed.
I remember I was at PLDC (a leadership course for E-5/Sergeants) and one of my platoon mates was in the same class and the topic of swearing came up. One of the females made the observation that everyone swears and the guy from my platoon was willing to bet her that she wouldn't hear me swear in the month that we were going to be there.
Now, I must admit, that I did pick up one Russian swear word (only mildly offensive) on my mission. But when I say bliin it surely doesn't have the same effect as someone using our standard English ones.
Sergeant
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
And your Russian swear word literaly means "pancake," anyway.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Wouldn't it be better if one teached his children all words, so a child did not perceive f- and c-words as anything out of the ordinary on the emotional level? Then - one could explain that it is customary nowadays to avoid these words in public.
You don't have any children, do you?
I can't get my toddler to stop climbing up on the kitchen table. I tell her not to, and she does it on purpose anyway. Any word she learns, she's gonna use whenever she feels like it. My only hope is to keep her from learning these words until she's old enough to understand for herself just why she should not use them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Toddler! Wow, time flies when it's someone else's life!
*waves to Yozhik*
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Again, not to the point. I am interested neither in how the curse words came about, nor in changing their meaning.
I don't think you truly understand why some people view offensiveness as an inextricable part of the meaning. You just assume that offensiveness is purely an emotional respone that is completely detached from the meaning. Many people disagree with that.
At the same time, I do appreciate the need for people to adjust their views of a word as the meaning and usage of that word changes over time.
quote:If one truly feels that these words are paramount to the culture, and the only way to preserve their true meaning...
I'm not sure that anyone here is making that argument.
quote:...is to create an elaborate neurosis in a child's psyche, then keeping these words "forbidden" is the way to go.
I think neurosis is a bit of an exaggeration.
quote:Only the way to do this, I believe, is not by hiding it but by destroying the word's offensiveness through treating it as any other word.
But words aren't just like every other word. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a thesaurus. Instead, we have many different words that might refer to the same thing but have different connotative meanings based on the type of emotional response they are supposed to elicit. And offensiveness is a part of that intended emotional response.
And even if you were to attempt to eliminate a word's offensiveness, others will rise in its place, because offensiveness is a real attitude and emotion, and there will always be a way or a word to represent that at its fullest level.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: And even if you were to attempt to eliminate a word's offensiveness, others will rise in its place, because offensiveness is a real attitude and emotion, and there will always be a way or a word to represent that at its fullest level.
Exactly.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by camus: And even if you were to attempt to eliminate a word's offensiveness, others will rise in its place, because offensiveness is a real attitude and emotion, and there will always be a way or a word to represent that at its fullest level.
Exactly.
Ok, let me try that a different way. Suppose you teach your kid that all words are fine. Or, rather, you do not teach them otherwise. You do not factor in the presence of these words when you try to decide whether a movie or a book is suitable for you kid.
Moreover, every time you child gets an idea that these words are "bad", you dissuade them and explain that the words are perfectly fine, it's the circumstances behind the words that matter. You also explain that people do not like these words without any good reason, but people are often unreasonable, and one has to learn to factor _that_ in his behavior.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You also explain that people do not like these words without any good reason, but people are often unreasonable, and one has to learn to factor _that_ in his behavior.
This is the case you have repeatedly failed to make in this thread: that the dislike of these words is without any good reason. Until you actually address that, I doubt anything you try will matter.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Ok, let's deal with a few special cases first. I understand that they alone do not prove the absence of reason behind f-word hate.
1. You child drops a hammer on his foot and says the f-word. How is that different from him just saying "AAA"? How is that detrimental to anything in any sense? Yet most parents would mind that, and will chastise the child for saying the word.
2. You child reads a book and in return to you inquiry says that the book was "f-ing awesome". Again, what's bad and how is it different from saying that the book was "way cool"?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: ...You don't have any children, do you?...
You're not a real hedgehog, are you? Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:1. You child drops a hammer on his foot and says the f-word. How is that different from him just saying "AAA"? How is that detrimental to anything in any sense? Yet most parents would mind that, and will chastise the child for saying the word.
The difference is that the f-word has an offensive meaning, whereas "ouch" does not. Assuming I had children, if my child uttered a racial slur in that circumstance, I would also chastise him.
quote:2. You child reads a book and in return to you inquiry says that the book was "f-ing awesome". Again, what's bad and how is it different from saying that the book was "way cool"?
Here I would be upset at the misuse of the word. It has an offensive meaning, so it should not be used in that setting. It would be the same as using a derogatory racial epithet to describe something you like.
[added] Intent isn't the only thing that determines a word's meaning.
[ February 25, 2008, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:1. You child drops a hammer on his foot and says the f-word. How is that different from him just saying "AAA"? How is that detrimental to anything in any sense? Yet most parents would mind that, and will chastise the child for saying the word.
The difference is that the f-word has an offensive meaning, whereas "ouch" does not. Assuming I had children, if my child uttered a racial slur in that circumstance, I would also chastise him.
But that's the thing: there is noone around to be offended by it (I assume that you are not offended), so the child did not do anything wrong. What are you going to teach him by chastising? N.B. Let's not include racial slurs in this discussion if we do not have to: it will only complicate it.
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:2. You child reads a book and in return to you inquiry says that the book was "f-ing awesome". Again, what's bad and how is it different from saying that the book was "way cool"?
Here I would be upset at the misuse of the word. It has an offensive meaning, so it should not be used in that setting. It would be the same as using a derogatory racial epithet to describe something you like.
[added] Intent isn't the only thing that determines a word's meaning.
No, here I believe that you are wrong. This is not a misuse of the word. This is an idiom that has a clear positive meaning and is quite widely used. I see nothing offensive about it.
I will agree that the intent is not all. I see no problem given that a child recognizes the potential offensiveness of the word, and only chooses to use it in the presence of likeminded people who wouldn't be offended given that there is no intent.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: Let's not include racial slurs in this discussion if we do not have to: it will only complicate it.
I don't really see how they are different.
quote:This is an idiom that has a clear positive meaning and is quite widely used. I see nothing offensive about it.
That's fine that you don't find anything offensive about it as long as you don't assume that everyone else should feel the same way as you do.
quote:I see no problem given that a child recognizes the potential offensiveness of the word, and only chooses to use it in the presence of likeminded people who wouldn't be offended given that there is no intent.
I agree to an extent. I think the meaning of a word is largely determined by the way in which the group of people use it. However, I don't think that the way the rest of society views it should be completely ignored either. I don't really like the idea of people making up their own definitions for words that already have very specific and very strong meanings to everyone else. I do realize that this does happen naturally, but I haven't quite figured out yet where I draw the line.
[Added] Additionally, I'm not really sure how a parent can convey to a child the full extent of the potential offensiveness of a word in such a way for the child to truly understand.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Does the child have to understand truly all shades of meaning of the f-word? Isn't that exactly what parents try to shield them from in vain?
Doesn't it look ironic that in order to reach this understanding of the "full extent of the potential offensiveness" of the f-word in a child, a parent has to strive to shield the child from the exposure to the word and fail? While following my suggestion, one does not have to shield anyone from anything, and the result will be the ultimate loss of the f-word's meaning? Seems like just the result everybody's looking for. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The goal is not necessarily to shield the child, but to prolong the learning of the word until the child is ready to understand why it's not ok to use it.
The F-word's meaning will always be remembered because it's something that constantly goes through several choice teenagers throughout middle school (or so it appears from their conversations) and it is a simple one-syllable word to express it.
We're not looking for an end to the F-word or its meaning. We're looking to minimize verbal abuse.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:... We're looking to minimize verbal abuse.
What could this possibly mean?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Does the child have to understand truly all shades of meaning of the f-word? Isn't that exactly what parents try to shield them from in vain?
No and no.
I was wondering how a parent could teach his child about the potential offensiveness of the word without teaching all the meanings of the word. I'm not sure that is possible, so I think a reasonable solution would be for the parent to forbid the use of such a word until they are old enough to understand the full meanings, including the reasons why they are offensive. Forbidding the use of the word would convey the offensiveness of the word without having to delve into all the possible meanings and uses of the word.
quote:Doesn't it look ironic that in order to reach this understanding of the "full extent of the potential offensiveness" of the f-word in a child, a parent has to strive to shield the child from the exposure to the word and fail?
No.
quote:While following my suggestion, one does not have to shield anyone from anything, and the result will be the ultimate loss of the f-word's meaning? Seems like just the result everybody's looking for.
I disagree. I've already stated that I'm not looking to strip all words of their potential offensiveness, and thus, their meaning. In any case, it's already been mentioned that other words that are intended to be offensive will inevitably appear.
I also disagree that the intent of parents is necessarily to shield their children. I think in many cases the parents are merely trying to keep their children from saying offensive things. There were many offensive things that my parents did not allow me to say regardless of the situation or the intent. Profanity was just a subset of those things.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar:
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: I believe that words only have the power that you allow them to have...
That was kind of my initial idea: if you do not teach your kids that these words are "bad", then they won't be such. Yet OSC for example seems to imply that he would prefer "zero f-words" in a movie...
Well, he's from a conservative religious group. His preference for zero f-words shouldn't be a big surprise to anybody who knows he's a relatively conservative Christian.
It's not like he's saying he thinks it should be mandated that "vulgar" language never be used. He'd just personally prefer that it not be used.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You cannot very well be teaching the rest of society that curse words are not really bad. In any case, curse words do actually serve a real function: To wit, they notify the world around you that you are angry or upset. This is useful, important information if true. To signal anger when none exists is not a good thing; it engages brains and attention that are not really needed. This is why I get annoyed at my wife's casual American attitude to the f-word; to her it signals mild annoyance, but for me it says "Major problem! Pay attention!" It is occasionally rather tiring to have to be paying ten-alarm attention to minor upsets.
Now, it's true that the precise words that signal upsetness are completely arbitrary, as in my example above. But then again so is every other word. You wouldn't teach your child to swap 'red' and 'blue' on the grounds that it is purely a social convention which sounds refer to which colour; why would you teach them that the sounds for "I am angry, watch out!" do not actually have any meaning?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In any case, curse words do actually serve a real function: To wit, they notify the world around you that you are angry or upset. This is useful, important information if true.
Absolutely. When I was a missionary, my companion made sure that I knew the most common Portuguese swear words so that when they were said, I would understand what was happening. There were several situations I was in later where knowing those words was essential.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:In any case, curse words do actually serve a real function: To wit, they notify the world around you that you are angry or upset. This is useful, important information if true.
Absolutely. When I was a missionary, my companion made sure that I knew the most common Portuguese swear words so that when they were said, I would understand what was happening. There were several situations I was in later where knowing those words was essential.
This is exactly what I am suggesting: you understood well enough the meaning of the words, without having to put up with artificial restrictions in regard to those words from early childhood.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Let me try to make myself clear one more time.
I am not waging a holy war against curse words. Let them be. Nor do I protect them in any sense.
I merely suggest that all restrictions against any kind of language in children is unnecessary and probably harmful, being it saying or hearing the words, watching movies with them etc. Let children hear it, and do some explanation as best you can.
Some things should not be said but not words. Yes, the f-word can be used in numerous offensive ways. That does not mean that one should forbid a child to use the f-word unconditionally.
A small enough child is excused from following all kinds of social rules. Could anyone be offended by the f-word coming from a 2-year-old, no matter what's the context? When the child is old enough to be responsible, he is definitely old enough to comprehend a parent's explanation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You wouldn't teach your child to swap 'red' and 'blue' on the grounds that it is purely a social convention which sounds refer to which colour; why would you teach them that the sounds for "I am angry, watch out!" do not actually have any meaning?
F--- does not always mean "I am angry, watch out!" There are many idiomatic casual usages of it as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is exactly what I am suggesting: you understood well enough the meaning of the words, without having to put up with artificial restrictions in regard to those words from early childhood.
quote:Let me try to make myself clear one more time.
Why do you assume we're not understanding you. We disagree with a basic premise: that these are "artificial restrictions."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: F--- does not always mean "I am angry, watch out!" There are many idiomatic casual usages of it as well.
In American usage, yes. Nonetheless, it generally means emphasis, pay attention to what I am saying, this is important. Except in those subcultures that have so overused the word that they've needed to invent different swears, of course. In any case the point remains: Emphasis should not be overused.
As for teaching two-year-olds the words, what is the claimed advantage? I would not teach them to use a bandsaw, either, until they were old enough to have some understanding of the dangers. While curse words are not so dangerous as all that, still they have some power which two-year-olds are probably unready to handle. They'll get the words soon enough, why go out of your way?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Point taken. I didn't mean casual enough for a two-year-old.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Nonetheless, it generally means emphasis, pay attention to what I am saying, this is important. Except in those subcultures that have so overused the word that they've needed to invent different swears, of course. In any case the point remains: Emphasis should not be overused.
As for teaching two-year-olds the words, what is the claimed advantage? I would not teach them to use a bandsaw, either, until they were old enough to have some understanding of the dangers. While curse words are not so dangerous as all that, still they have some power which two-year-olds are probably unready to handle. They'll get the words soon enough, why go out of your way?
Oh, look! Something I agree with KoM about.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
I used to think words were arbitrary too, until I started learning about them. The Language Instinct (book) is an interesting example. I'm not convinced that all swear words have arbitrary origins and meanings--though I'm not totally convinced that they don't.
I just think that some here may not tested their assumptions about language in this discussion. I don't remember enough to elaborate, but I was quite surprised how "un-arbitrary" so much of language is.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just started reading The Stuff of Thought, which is by the same author. One of the later chapters is supposed to cover taboo words, but I haven't gotten there yet. It sounds like it's going to be interesting, though.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)