Are we allowed to swear?

[DePooperit]

 

There are other words that can describe feelings alot better

Perhaps you will then give such "good" advice to the winner of the T.S. Eliot prize, as it would seem she couldn't manage to find better words:

...from the creased Jupiter of his ar5e

to the spotted dominoes of his teeth,...

So, her words were good enough to win “the most impor­tant prize in English poetry†but not for Shetlink without switching an "s" for a "5"

 

 

Point being missed here. A*se in that context isn't a 'swear' word - it's a simple description of a part of the anatomy. Similarly, your German example of 'ficken' is a description of an activity. To refer to someone as a 'f*****g a**e is different - neither word is being used with its literal meaning. So to defend 'swearing' in general on the basis of words being used with their literal meaning is disingenuous (however you spell that.)

 

Which brings us to your comment of 'as defined where.' This seems to be intended to imply that everything is relative and just a matter of opinion. But I could say the same about your idea that the child who knew the meaning of 'ficken' was well brought up or well balanded or whatever it was (I won't check in case I lose this thrice-be-it-imprecated posting window). If you believe in the universal use of 'four-letter' words in a family context, then obviously, you're going to think that anyone who grows up using them is well balanced.

 

without ANY risk of being offended

Not quite so. I am offended by the wish to protect people from something which is inoffensive.

 

 

This is interesting. My son was once very offended by someone asking him not to swear in a restaurant in front of their children. It's obviously a serious question. When those who are offended by being asked not to swear outnumber those who are offended by swearing, does this mean that the rights of the majority must be observed, and there ought to be rules against asking people not to swear? Or does this mean that those who are offended by swearing then become a minority and can start to claim that they are being persecuted as such?

[EM]

Point being missed here.

I'll try to be clearer.

 

A*se in that context isn't a 'swear' word - it's a simple description of a part of the anatomy. Similarly, your German example of 'ficken' is a description of an activity. To refer to someone as a 'f*****g a**e is different - neither word is being used with its literal meaning.

Firstly, and most importantly, the use of any word in a derogatory or otherwise nasty way is something which is covered by the T&C separately. I made that plain in my earlier posts. Therefore to refer to someone as a "f*****g a**e" is indeed different, but not because it is not "literal".

 

Being literal is not relevant to whether something is offensive or not. "A*se" is a swear word however it is used, but the meaning will vary. Some words have mellowed over the years whereas others have hardened. Some still have their literal (or more correctly their original) meanings, others less so. Take "bugg*r" for example. The literal meaning is to "sodomise" (originally from an insult based on "Bulgarians prepared to do anything"). In the spectrum of swearing today, the noun form is about as light as it gets. I'm sure I'm not the only one who as a young kid was (inoffensively) described as "being a peerie bugg*r."

 

So to defend 'swearing' in general on the basis of words being used with their literal meaning is disingenuous (however you spell that.)

My point is not to do so. I focus on the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to pander to the notion that swearing (excluding when used to insult as noted) should be restricted to avoid offence.

 

Which brings us to your comment of 'as defined where.' This seems to be intended to imply that everything is relative and just a matter of opinion.

Ha! Such relativism is indeed ubiquitous nowadays and a very lamentable development. It seems to have come about through a total misinterpretation of the navel-gazing post-modernist philosophical movement. "Nothing can be known absolutely" becomes "Anything might be true," "Everyone's world view may be valid" becomes "Everyone's world view is equally valid." And so it goes.

No, my attention to the word "correct" is because it is an absolute value statement which I do not see having a basis with respect to swearing.

 

If you believe in the universal use of 'four-letter' words in a family context, then obviously, you're going to think that anyone who grows up using them is well balanced.

Not really the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying he is well balanced just because he has no swear-related hangups (though it probably helped). I just find that given all the really critical issues to deal with, why handicap people with an extra issue which just does not matter.

 

When those who are offended by being asked not to swear outnumber those who are offended by swearing, does this mean that the rights of the majority must be observed, and there ought to be rules against asking people not to swear?

I actually reckon people bleat about some "rights" a bit too much. Keep the list shorter and those fundamental rights might be respected more. I don't think anyone has a right not to be offended. In many moral issues with differing positions (say vegetarianism) there are arguments to be made by these camps. Norms have to adapt to suit this varied society. In the case of swearing the arguments in favour of pandering to those (supposedly) offended are based on nothing fundamental. It seems to be: "swearing is offensive because some people are offended by it" + "Some people are offended by swearing because it is offensive."

 

 

Perhaps you want to limit this forum to those who do not get offended by missuse of language.

If it were the case that people avoid Shetlink due to misuse of language, then I think they are already not here. Correct spelling and grammar is hard to find here. Being particularly inept at punctuation I confess to being guilty here too, though I try my best. I would, however, say that the use of the term "missuse" is contentious.

 

 

Next you may want us to remove those with a disibility from society, perhaps they should have their own places.

Not sure if this is addressed to me, but on the assumption it is I'll clarify that I do not. The word "disabled" does however always surprise me. Obviously I find the "Differently abled" PC term ridiculous, but given the alternatives of "Disabled" or "Handicapped" it seems the latter is preferable, though "Special needs" would seem best. The word "disabled" says "doesn't work," whereas "handicapped" says "something needs overcome but there are ways." Amazes me that some people get fussed about "handicapped" and argue that "disabled" is better.

 

Without Malice

Nice. Me too.

[Njugle]

By way of a mental excercise, as much as anything else:

 

Your regard of language use is liberal then EM.

 

Swear words are an abstract use of words outwith their literal meaning, the majority of them having sexual literal meanings.

 

Now, as a progression of this liberality and abstract use of sexually related posturing, would you equally accept someone similarly liberated using a picture of male or female genitalia to reply to a post here? There are many who find nothing 'offensive' in the naked human form and those who do "really shouldn't be offended by something so natural".

 

Progressing from that; How about tweaking that concept a little further, in that sex itself is completely natural and inoffensive, and widespread amongst the general population, so how about we include some images of the male and female forms in a state of "excitement" here too, for abstract purposes?

 

Would that be okay?

 

We've all got them, after all.

 

[Guest Anonymous]

Atil da days o Tyrannosaurus Rex

nae man really tocht o sex

nae man kent foo ta swear

no dat he wid ever dare.

 

Fur man has always hed

a moderatin force atil his bed

a wife dat said "if du says ****

du'll fin dy sell oot o luck

 

Bit noo i da days o da internet

whan a peerie click means du can get

virtual sex an dirty stories

an cocks an yudders i aa dir glories.

 

Man most tink o whit he says

baith in an oot o his claes

fur folk da hael world trow

will hear it aa twa clicks fae noo.

 

So tink a start afore du swears

tink o aa wir doots an faers

tink dat swearin isna clever

an ös dat F wird hardly ever.

[hellsbells]

I just realised that a word I was calling myself was a filtered word but I must admit I prefer the word spoot! So officially I'm now a spoot

[twscats]

The English language is so rich in its variety of words why do you find it necessary to use swear words? Are they supposed to shock? little chance of that, as someone has pointed out Scotland and many of its people do routinely swear and it no longer shocks, it just saddens me that they feel it necessary to use swear words rather than the many others that could be used.

 

Even Jonathan Ross has cut down his usage!

[EM]

The English language is so rich in its variety of words why do you find it necessary to use swear words?

I think that I've already explained above why I am in favour of fruity language, so am loathe to just repeat my points. I am, however, very interested to hear arguments for the counter position. When it comes to societal prohibitions the default case should be "no prohibition" unless it can be argued that a prohibition is in the public good. Swearing is routinely presented as being something bad, but as I've stressed, justification for this seems to be unstated.

 

By way of a mental excercise, as much as anything else:

 

Not sure how I didn't notice this post earlier. It is, I think, the nearest to a sustainable counter argument and interesting.

 

... would you equally accept someone similarly liberated using a picture of male or female genitalia to reply to a post here? There are many who find nothing 'offensive' in the naked human form and those who do "really shouldn't be offended by something so natural".

 

Would that be okay?

 

I would say, no it would not be OK. The difference lies in the debate and the arguable damaging side effects. In the case of sexual imagery the supposed moral majority have an argument which can certainly be debated. Unlike with swearing, their worry that the sexualisation of children can lead to real abuse, has to be considered. If you choose to lump swearing in with this trend, then you could argue that hearing or reading swear words which are derived from sexual meanings could lead to abuse. I personally don't see that being the case.

 

The issue for me is not if something is natural or not, it is purely whether it is bad.

[EM]

On the general topic of swearing (but not so much the argument pro- or anti-) here are a couple of anecdotes about fedder.

 

Fedder had the decidedly unusual habit of only swearing in Chinese. If, for example, he banged his thumb with a hammer then a stream of incomprehensible Chinese sounding words would pour out. He'd "learned" these from the Chinese crews when he was at sea. One has to wonder of course if he'd been taught the real words (see next story).

 

Fedder used to be pressured by his young boaty pals to teach them how to swear in Norwegian. Although far from PC, as he was a teacher of many of these people he was reluctant to do so. Eventually Charlie Hughson (later finance boss of some province in Canada) managed to get him to teach him "the hardest Norsky swearing term." Charlie routinely used this gleefully with his chums. Later he was on one of Fedder's trips to Norway. They landed at a pier in a fjord and to Charlie's amazement the commercial building at the head of the pier had a sign with the "swearing" term on it. Fedder had basically told the equivalent of "the hardest swearword in Shetland is 'LHD Net Menders'"

[twscats]

Of course people swear, people swear all the time, the choice is when. When I grew up few people swore, it was a kind of growing bridge when someone in your class did swear and they usually felt guilty afterward, that guilt soon disappears as you grow. Women did not swear, they knew the words of course, as everyone does, but for a women to swear immediately pt themselves in an invidious position, others would look sideways and distance themselves from someone who at that moment was considered common.

 

Swearing was not a natural thing, it has become so! It began to be public with comedians, notably some very talented black American comedians who managed to get 'MTF' into almost every sentence.

 

It soon spread across the Atlantic and comedians here added swear words to their on-stage act, sometimes just because they imagined that if they didn't swear they would not be taken seriously.

 

Yesteryear comedians managed to entertain without expressive sexual language, they used others ways, a walk, a look and other words, just remember how well the Carry On films were.

 

In its place, a swear word is quite natural, but written down in a forum an advert or to just try and shock NO, we all know the words, we have all used them in different situations, but in every sentence, NO, be more inventive, the American writers were, 'Gosh Darned' 'Them Damned Redskins sure Horn swaddled us'

[EM]

Of course ...

I'm sorry but I don't see any argument there why swearing is bad. You say we should not swear, but provide no reasons why.

 

...NO, be more inventive,...

Why? There are so many situations where the "right" word to use is a swearword. Why jump through hoops inventively trying (and failing) to find an alternative way of hitting the same point.

 

For example, consider the following hillarious clip:

 

My question is, what alternative non-swearing text would be as funny?

[Fifi]

^^ Northmavine strikes again.

[Frances144]

Ma's out, Pa's out, Let's talk rude!

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Dance in the garden in the nude,

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Let's write rude words all down our street,

Stick out our tongues at the people we meet,

Let's have an intellectual treat

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

 

Sunday again on CBC,

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

And Norman Mailer is coming to tea,

Pee Po Belly Bum Pants!

Alan Ginsberg reads on and on,

But we're having a happening when he's gone,

Come to the party in the john,

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

 

Disney's planning a double bill,

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Christopher Robin meets Fanny Hill,

Pooh Bear Belly Bum Drawers.

On stage and screen we can all work hard,

Throwing toilet rolls in our own backyard,

Who's afraid of the avant-garde?

Pee Pee Po Po Belly Belly Bum Bum, Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

 

What gets the prizes and wins awards?

Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

What did Prince Phillip tell the Lords?

Well, never mind that.

At Oxford and Cambridge, and Yale and all,

and at Berkely, they really have a ball,

'cos the higher the brow, the harder they fall,

For Belly Belly Bum Bum Belly Belly Bum Bum Pee Po Belly Belly Bum Bum, Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

 

Thank you, Flanders and Swann

[Njugle]

This week's "Off The Spike" covers new journalistic territory for the ST. No swear filters there. Get your pen oot EM, next weeks Readers Views could make for colourful vernacular reading! Fill your boots!

[trowie246]

I read "Off The Spike" and did think to myself - are they allowed to write that?

 

I personally don't have a problem with the word.

[Spinner72]

Whenever dealing with people swearing on the gaming sites, I point out that 3 year olds can hold full conversations, and indeed heartfelt screaming arguments all without a single swearword. What that means for the mental age of said protagonists is left for them to consider..

 

We often get the "but it just slipped out" argument as well. Whilst anyone may be excused for swearing when they trip, fall, or hurt themselves in some way, such invoulintary expressions are impossible when you have to think, type, and then decide to post...