Adult Language
“Adult language.”
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Does it mean language adults can use…but not non-adults?
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.
If you want to comment on a male anatomical part known to some as a penis…why are there people who will arbitrarily demand that it not be called a cock…or pecker,? Why is “erection” okay…but hard on or boner not?
Why is the word “cuff” just fine, but pronounced backwards, considered offensive?
Why designate ANY words as offensive? Why not stop being offended by people using words at all?
More to come of my thoughts. But first…I’d like to hear yours.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Does it mean language adults can use…but not non-adults?
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.
If you want to comment on a male anatomical part known to some as a penis…why are there people who will arbitrarily demand that it not be called a cock…or pecker,? Why is “erection” okay…but hard on or boner not?
Why is the word “cuff” just fine, but pronounced backwards, considered offensive?
Why designate ANY words as offensive? Why not stop being offended by people using words at all?
More to come of my thoughts. But first…I’d like to hear yours.
Comments (117)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ7l0kfDic
Not relevant to adult language, but language shapes belief. How people say things matters, because human psychology is sensitive to it.
I agree.
But, as you noted, not truly relevant to what I am suggesting. (Some considerations of it in this context will probably be made if others are willing to discuss it. But we are so deep in our feelings about adult language that many people will not even deign to discuss it.)
As for your comment, "...but language shapes belief"...I have MUCH more problem with words like "belief" or "believe" than I do with the words designated "adult."
Believe and belief seems to me to be useless words...used in so many ways as to make them unrealistic for communication.
Egad!
Because then you're confusing synonyms of 'rooster' with penis and render children's vocabularies to a few misused words. Their vocabularies are already bad as it is, and applying your whim to the world philosophy will be forgotten in a decade and replaced with 'we da realest 1hunna'.
"mortgage"
"wrinkles"
"tax season"
It's that simple to outline. The details, reasoning, and/or justification for what counts as acceptable/unacceptable is far greater in nuance.
Adult language will probably help you answer a lot of your questions.
To any of them, I say, "Just stop being offended by words."
Prick is as good a word as penis to indicate the male "member" (there's a beauty)...so why arbitrarily say one is acceptable and one is offensive?
Why agree to do that?
Coitus, copulation, intercourse...are all acceptable...but to use "fuck" for one of humanity's most enjoyable activities is offensive?
What kind of joke are we playing on each other?
Anyway...anyone who thinks use of those words (or any of the other offensive words) is indicative of a limited vocabulary...are dickheads. One can have an extensive vocabulary and still enjoy using those words. Fact is, a better case can be made that individuals who do not use those words are, de facto, more limited in vocabulary.
I didn’t say I was offended.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Go ahead, make your case.
It’s worth considering that some of the words you are talking about are used specifically to be offensive, to insult someone or denigrate them. Let’s not pretend these words are always used innocently.
Would you also call a woman a cunt with the beauty of childbirth in mind?
Shouldn't have to. It is obvious. BUT...
...all other things being equal, a person unwilling to use certain words has fewer to use than someone willing to use those words. Fewer words = a more limited vocabulary.
Egg Zacherly.
And the only way that can come to pass...is if people allow certain words to be "offensive."
In any case, if Rex Tillerson had called Trump stupid rather than a "fucking moron"...the insult would have been just as great. So why not stick with "fucking moron."
In a discussion of childbirth...rather than "...after passing through her cunt" should work just as well as "after passing through her vagina."
As for your specific question, if "woman" had become the "foul language" and "cunt" the accepted...you question would be formed in the opposite direction. Why have we decided that "cunt" is unacceptable? It is a word...a fucking word.
I don’t think these words exist by accident. You feel they should be for every day use. But if that happens then they’re no longer the word they were.
"I" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?
"Don't" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?
"Think" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?
"These" "words" "exist" "by" "accident" are all used every day...millions of times. Are you saying they no longer are the words they are?
To quote Stephen Fry when someone says to him, “I find that offensive”:
“So fucking what!?”
We can always simply say back to them “I am offended by you taking offensive!” It goes nowhere fast.
Of course I would say that in certain circles certain speech is more acceptable. I’m not saying we should, or shouldn’t, all go around purposely trying to offend each other - sometimes it’s better to cause offensive than to try to not cause offensive because life is tough sometimes so you’re going to have to deal with more than mere words (ie. If you’re starving to death or coping with the death of a loved one). In those circumstances words can help mend, but it makes us realise that words have a very limited reach in both expressing emotions, complex ideas and thoughts.
Then let's hold off the word fuck for discussions of intercourse, rather than air out our dirty laundry, using it every which way - what say you?
I directed it at everyone who had responded....because I wanted to keep everyone coming back. This has been a bugaboo with me for years.
I appreciate that you are of like mind about the issue.
Stephen Fry is my kinda guy!:wink:
Bingo!
I agree.
And of course, I do not use "adult language" (what a horrible descriptor for it) in many settings.
But the discussion here is appropriate.
I appreciate you and your comments, Sushi. As for sushi...I love California Rolls...but that barely qualifies as sushi. We have a buffet that has sushi...and I often get salmon or tuna...which most sushi eaters consider barely qualifiers also.
LOVE sushi rice. Make my own...and use it on plain on nori.
See above.
Some people do not care about offending others. They will intentionally offend.
Those are the extremes.
I do find that there are certain uses of language that ought be culled.
Edit: a threat to language and understanding.
Using these words isn’t extending a vocabulary. Those words being used are just replacing another word. But it’s interesting that you think it’s extending a vocabulary by counting the words used, because when I hear people using these words it sounds like using twice as many words as necessary:
‘ I saw the ******* **** come out of the ******* **** bar, little *** she was, the ***** with her, ***** he’s a big ******, she’s a ******* ****!
“I don’t think these words exist by accident. “
They’re purposely offensive, or maybe more accurately, contrary or rebellious . That’s what they’re for. Why? I don’t know.
Policing adult language, as well as enforcing "political correct" language falls into he category of "boor control" or "controlling other people" or maintaining a "quality atmosphere". I disapprove of that sort of shit. But... some people can get away with it and some can't.
How so, Brett?
If I exclaim, "Motherfucker!" rather than "Dog gone it!"...how do I threaten language and understanding?
If I say, "Fuckin' outta sight!" rather than "How wonderful!"...how do I threaten language and understanding?
I truly do not understand.
Language is used that way.
I am an advocate of brevity...but poets often flow on and on...some authors of prose are verbose.
So what.
In any case, you mentioned a "limited vocabulary." The more words you use...the less limited your vocabulary. That is simply how the word "limited" works.
I agree that we humans have agreed that to be the case.
BUT WHY?
Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable.
Suppose we decided to make the word "elbow" objectionable...and had to refer to it in public as "arm joint."
If we got agreement on that...the word "elbow" would be one that causes offense.
It would make no sense...and "offensive language" makes no sense either.
It truly just doesn't.
So...why not use "cock" for "penis"...and why, oh, why...would using cock be considered so offensive?
Can you not see that arbitrarily deeming certain words to be "offensive" truly makes no sense?
It seems to me that different languages regard profanity in very different ways. For example, in Spanish, the offense of profanity seems to be more closely associated with the context in which it is used, rather than through its mere utterance, as seems to be the case in English.
Because if I say ‘cock’ to people who don’t agree with its use they’ll stop listening to me. If I’m speaking to them then my intent is to communicate.
I suspect it’s because people, adults, regard them as infantile.
It threatens language by using such words as a substitute for a word that has an etymology.
As I said, it’s not extending a vocabulary, it’s just replacing a word with an alternative that has limited meaning. Most people will know what penis means, not as many will know what ‘cock’ means. It also suggests that the people choosing to use such language have no interest in reaching out to others outside their milieu.
Thank you for that. I don't know how the issue is treated in other languages.
I think the way it is handled in English...is infantile.
Obviously you are content with the notion that certain words should offend. Okay.
I'd just as soon not communicate with people too anxious to be offended. They are jerk-offs.
Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?
I think a cross linguistic comparison would be very helpful in understanding the universal essence of adult language. Mere reference to the socially improper seems insufficient.
Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language.
I prefer to use it over pussy. Oops, sorry. Please disregard that comment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfTKWwxuF1g
What makes you think I do?
I prefer to use either...and not give a damn about whether or not it "offends" someone.
Everyone should wonder about the same thing, Merk.
Yep...a tremendously useful word...that some people want to eliminate.
We didn't decide to make words objectionable. Words make themselves objectionable by filling possibilities in the discourse. One of which is the possibility to be offended. You may as well ask why we 'made' some words more intense versions of others. For example, why do we have 'overjoyed' and not just 'happy'? Answer, because it expresses a possibility in the discourse which in turn fills in a human emotion (or a shade of one) that can be usefully expressed. Being offended is just another such affective state. And as long as it is, a word will fill in that space.
I understand what you are attempting to communicate here, Baden...but I disagree with your first sentence so completely, that the remainder of the comment pales.
The only way a word can be objectionable...is if we DO decide to make it objectionable. It can only offend if we decide to find it objectionable.
Most English words have synonyms. In that first sentence you used the word "decide"...which could just as easily be written as "choose, elect, or select."
But if we had collectively decided (elected, chosen, or selected) to designate "decide" a crudity or vulgarity...that sentence would be seen as vulgar or crude.
Same thing with vulgar...which can easily be designated crude, uncouth, or unrefined. If we had collectively decided to be offended by the use of vulgar...my sentence would be seen as uncouth, crude or unrefined.
The damage to language (if there is any) is not in use of "vulgar" words...but in the notion that we can designate certain words to be objectionable...or offensive.
Really!
The notion that we should be doing this...is itself offensive.
Ok, who decided to make the word "fuck" (for example) offensive and when? And who would be the "we" that could suddenly decide to designate it as unoffensive, and in what contexts, and how would we control the visceral reactions of others to that word in particular contexts? And what form would this collective decision make? How would it be enforced? Do you believe everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will? Do you believe people would voluntarily do this on the basis of some democratic mandate or referendum to designate words differently?
In some passages of classic Greek literature, "plowing a furrow" is a more polite term than fucking.
So, why do people set up (and enforce) categories of high brow, mid brow, and low brow? It has something to do with class. People with power (social, economic, hierarchical, etc.) generally prefer to control those with less power, and that includes policing the "brow" of proceedings. So high brow tends to go along with those who have power, and low brow tends to go along with those who have very little power.
TENDS -- not a rule. Richard Nixon had plenty of power, but in the privacy of the Oval Office he used plenty of very low brow language. But, important qualification, this was in the company of peers, NOT inferiors. Lyndon Johnson also had plenty of power, and he also tended to use quite a bit of low brow language, and not just among his inner circle.
The group who is touchiest about language is the middle-class mid-brow grouping. Middle class people (and here I mean aspiring to achievement, but not secure in their material accomplishments) very much want to use the language of the more powerful group above them, and bask in that kind of decorum. Unfortunately for this middling, mid-brow group, they often have fairly recent origins in the low class, low brow level--the memory of which they very much want to forget. So strivers, aspirers, upward reaching people are often the fussiest about policing decorum and language.
What's ahead? If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for language etiquette rules to disappear. The sanctioned words might change, but the top honchos will still be policing language the riff raff gets to use in public.
Black, African American, and Negro also have fraught meanings that can't be dismissed. The history of the term clings to them, just as it does to Anglo Saxon, English and White.
Common practice…and a healthy infusion of upper crust control of what could or could not be written. The word was not even included in any English dictionary until the 1960’s. One of the MOST used words in the English language…NEVER INCLUDED IN A DICTIONARY UNTIL THE 1960’s.
That’s who.
Beats the shit out of me. (A supposedly vulgar expression that conveys a thought as well as any non-vulgar way of saying the same thing.)
I am not arguing for doing that. I am in an Internet forum devoted to philosophy…and discussing a subject that can easily be considered in a philosophical context.
I am not disposed to offer conjecture on that. Or “beats the shit out of me.” Your choice.
How would it be enforced?
I give up. How?
I do not do “believing.”
If you are asking if I suppose everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will…
…my guess would be “Some people WON’T.” Whether they CAN or not…is a different story.
I do not do “believing.” If you are asking if people COULD do this on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Yes.”
If, on the other hand you are asking if people WOULD do it on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Almost certainly…NO.”
I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden.
Well, yes, and my point is that language will go its own way regardless of what you, I or frank thinks and words will continue to offend certain people in certain contexts on a visceral level whether we (or even they) like it or not. To think otherwise is a fantasy.
Well, that's more or less what I was saying. It's something that develops organically more than is consciously controlled. Bottom-up. As to...
Quoting Frank Apisa
There may have been some top-down influence too. That would be difficult to quantify.
Quoting Frank Apisa
We differ here then. While some people may have this level of control, I don't think everyone or even most people do. We generally get offended in spite of ourselves not because we choose to.
I have a particular interest in the language-oriented threads so suits me.
I personally think there is very little chance of language etiquette rules disappearing or even relaxing significantly.
That is not my point here. I am just discussing what is...not my ideas of what should be or how to get there.
Please see above comment from me.
Perhaps.
But the pressures to be offended are so great...that it may seem it is being done the way a dog likes its own ass.
I think there is more choice involved than you do. We just disagree.
Okay.
You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.
"Fuck" is vulgar.
And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible.
My latin's not so good tbh. I went to a @Hanoverian grammar school where they only taught us how to speak proper Georgian English. :sad:
"Fuck" is vulgar and it is profane because that's what vulgar means right now, regardless of how the ancient Romans spoke.
It was multi-layered. The comedic equivalent of a lasagne. Next time I'll just throw a spud at your head.
Quoting Hanover
It has little to do with the ancient Romans.
Bring profane has a specific meaning. It means making worldly what belongs to a god.
Saying "Fuck you" is not being profane.
It is not swearing...which has a specific meaning. Swearing is the taking of an unnecessary oath...also a religious thing.
It is not cursing...which has a specific meaning. Cursing is wishing someone to eternal damnation.
Using "fuck" IS NOT being profane, cursing, swearing.
It is being vulgar...which is to say being of the common people.
It is like eating chicken only with a fork rather than using one's hands.
Rich people apparently never gnaw on chicken wings.
Now that I liked!
They have servants to do that for them.
Re: George III:
He probably had porphyria, which is a genetic disorder impairing the production of "heme" -- an essential element of red blood cells. One writer, trying to argue that George III wasn't insane said that he was merely "manic". Hypomania can be quite pleasant, but last time I checked, full blown "hypermania" is a red flag for mental illness. Acute porphyria can make one feel and be quite sick, including mental dysfunction.
I was asking because I was wondering if a person might use ‘fuck’ instead of ‘intercourse’ because the rawness feels more real, more honest.
The words have to be said first before someone can be offended. Who uses these words?
I think you’re right about this language being vulgar, ‘of the people’, as you say, the ones who eat with their hands.
They’re using it to separate themselves from a class they don’t like and they’re using it as a weapon against that class. They know it defines who they are and they know it offends people. It’s through that language that they maintain that difference. Maybe the class that uses knifes and forks are pretentious, materialistic, maybe they feel threatened by ‘the people’, but don’t feign shock when they’re offended by the language.
Quoting Brett
I think some words do speak to things with more rawness than others.
But my point here is merely that being offended by certain words seems silly to me.
It is going to happen...as several have pointed out. But it does seem a silly thing. Sorta like a child complaining to mommy, "Billy is saying 'na, na, na, na' to me. Make him stop."
When properly reserved, the verboten words pack more punch if you need them to make an emphasized point. The capacity to strike a reasonable balance is a sign of maturity (hence ‘adult language’).
:up:
The idea is an absurdity.
But...we are going to tolerate it...and pretend that some words are "dirty" for some reason.
I sure hope the word "the" never is chosen to be one of those words.
On the Chinese twitter they aren’t allowed to insult the government ... so they don’t use the actual names of their leaders nor do they use obvious words of criticism.
No matter what laws are imposed people will naturally push back against them to some degree.
To say “cunt” in the UK can be friendly. Context and tone matter more than actual specific words for sure.
Then from today start calling your father 'motherfucker' because he fucked your mother. Start calling every father 'motherfucker' under your pretense and let's see how far you make it.
Fuck you, you fucking jerkoff.
Or...Hi, Shamshir.
Your choice.
Yup.
Aretha Franklin used it at an inaugural.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4D9jQpecVo
Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped?
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."
Ummm...there you have...what?
If 'profane' language wasn't treated as profane, but normal, would you take such obvious delight in the use of profane language by yourself and others? If it's all the same, why not just use the other terms? It's exciting to sneak into a forbidden room, but its pretty boring once it's no longer forbidden. Might as well hangout in any fucking room.
Exactly! A fine demonstrate of meaning deafness.
Perhaps all true...but also besides the point.
My point is that arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" or "whatever else"...is a hell of a lot more stupid and childish than people who use that language.
Society tends to do a lot of that "arbitrary designation" of what is polite, or socially acceptable, or good mannered or acceptable.
Miss Manners say no one should ever eat chicken or anything else with their hands. A knife and fork are a must for "cultured" people.
I like chicken wings. I have no idea of how to eat them with a knife and fork. I'm nuts about baby-back ribs. Cannot figure out a way to eat them with a knife and fork either.
A tie and jacket are considered an essential for a work environment.
Are you kidding me?
Why?
I hate collared shirts, but I wear one each day because I work at a golf course and play golf. Collared shirts are a requirement.
IF there were no words arbitrarily designated as bad...one would think nothing of it.
If the words "fucking" and "shit" were not arbitrarily designated as crude, vulgar, or bad...there would be nothing wrong with it.
If the word "fucking" and "shit" in that short sentence were not arbitrarily designated the way they are...the sentence would be absolutely as benign as, "'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through."
The notion of arbitrarily designating certain words as crude...is an absurdity. It is closer to disgusting than using those words can possibly be.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Quoting 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.
‘Should, should, should. You’re all over the place and you ignore everyone else’s comments.
Did you chose not to answer my question.
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.
I would not do that.
I am talking about a concept here.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Can we have an actual philosophical conversation?
I guess we cannot.
“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...
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 ;)
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.
Like a boss. :cool:
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.
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.
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?
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?
As George Carlin said, you can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick.
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!
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:
Indeed, Sushi.
Just posted in the forum and got notice of this post.
I LOVE it.
You want to ban the idea of offensive words existing, as being offensive.
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.
Well then, just let things go, stop being so 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.
Quoting 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.