48 replies to this topic

[jaydfox]

The fact that some people get offended speaks more about the offended than about the people expressing anger.

I think it speaks more to the fact that, for the offended people, the word carries a different connotation and emotional loading. I find more interesting that for those who aren't offended, who don't cringe at the word, that they either desensitized themselves to the word, or were never instilled with the emotional reflex in the first place. Much like a EMT who can see a mangled corpse in a car and avoid the reflex to puke. That a regular joe has that reflex doesn't say anything bad about that person, IMO. (Nor does it say anything bad about the EMT, of course. I just find the EMT's situation more interesting, as I find the situation of someone who thinks words like the f-word are perfectly fine for casual conversation and are bothered by those who take offense.)

[lightowl]

I think it speaks more to the fact that, for the offended people, the word carries a different connotation and emotional loading.

This is true, and is true for many words. Obviously the meaning also depends on the accompanying emphasis and the context.

Personally I would never say "f-word" when I am talking about the word ****, because I don't believe its necessary to protect anyone from what I am expressing. It is my opinion that if you cant stomach what someone is saying, you should either stop listening(reading) or learn to handle it. Like me or not, this is how I am.

I think masking words by reflex or automation is a pretty lame cultural thing. So is the silly bleeping of words on TV. How can you ever talk about as nasty things as war, starvation and aging when you cant handle the emotionally charged word for rough sex (which is fucking awesome by the way)? Its not all pretty in this world. Trying to hide the nastiness behind "f-word" and censorship is just trying to hide the nature of reality.

The reason is obvious I think. Its much easier to close ones eyes than to actually confront and change things.

BTW, what other words besides **** are being masked automatically by this forum software? Is there a specific policy in place for this silly attempt at context independent censorship?

http://tinyurl.com/2lljz
or.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the mere public display of **** is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and cannot be made a criminal offense. In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen had been convicted of "disturbing the peace" for wearing a jacket with "**** THE DRAFT" on it (in reference to conscription in the Vietnam War). The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals and overturned by the Supreme Court. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

Who would actually bring such a case to court? They cant be completely sane by a general definition of the word. Jesus Fucking Crist that is: Jesus actually having sex with himself

Edited by lightowl, 08 December 2006 - 03:23 PM.

[kgmax]

Gosh Derned it!
I thought people were just using the * to be kid friendly.
I really do not care about the word "****" but it is misused quite often, of course so is the word "and".

[huh]

[MichaelAnissimov]

Looks like swearing here is possible if you merely capitalize the F in Fucking. Whaddaya fucking know.

[william7]

Nobody done the f-word better than Country Joe McDonald at Woodstock. .

[lightowl]

The section on profanity on wikipedia can be quite amusing at times, while also quite disturbing to people who believe in free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in response to complaints about a 1973 broadcast comedy routine by George Carlin, called: Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television, ruled that such language could not be broadcast at times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld this act of censorship in F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

Let me see if I get this right: You can explicitly describe any act of violence and abuse of any kind in great detail at any time of the day, but you can not use these specific words in any context at specific times of the day on TV. I can see how this might be an easy way to solve the problem intended. That is to protect children from hearing disturbing things on TV ( which I don't agree is a problem ). But today this law is a joke. Please tell me this information is obsolete and that the law has been overturned. If not, well... wow, you guys have serious mental issues in high places to address.

Suck My Manboobs

Hahahahaha... Priceless

[Ghostrider]

LOL, Americans and their profanity bullshit. Get the F.U.C.K over it, PLEASE.

BTW, could someone turn off the profanity filter on this board already. WTF

I'm Canadian, and I'm not offended by the profanity. I was just making a point, which I think is at least valid enough to take a look at.

Halcyondays, I agree with you. Aubrey has a deep passion for his work that seen in few other scientists. However, swearing simply is not professional and it can cause some people (perhaps potential financial supporters) to pass judgment. I was not offended by hearing the word and I think it fit the context well, he was describing frustration and expletives are pretty useful for that utility. However, it is still unprofessional and I bet he would have changed his wording if he could. I did think that the TEDs speech was one of his best. He is very gifted at the art of verbal expression as one MIT TR journalist has mentioned in the past (I am not going to look up the extract quote, but it was when someone from MIT was interviewing Aubrey at the Eagle in Cambridge (UK)). Anyway, my main concern is that he might have caused some potential SENS / MPrize donors to pass judgment, which would be their loss and ours too.

[lightowl]

However, swearing simply is not professional...

This always depends on the context and the people you are working with. Some of the places I have worked, a heated debate was instrumental in getting good results. Using expressive words is necessary. People learn to understand what *you* mean, instead of presuming any use of specific words is bad. If someone misunderstands the intended signals, you have a wonderful opportunity to learn to know each other better.

Anyway, my main concern is that he might have caused some potential SENS / MPrize donors to pass judgment, which would be their loss and ours too.

My main concern if he did not speak his mind, is that potential donors pass judgment in that same negative sense. I think his use of words for expression *might* have attracted potential donors as well as it *might* have pushed potential donors away.

I did think that the TEDs speech was one of his best.

I totally agree. It was absolutely a joy to listen to.

[Karomesis]

The Big Lebowski Fu**ing Short Version

thanks for the laugh Don [lol] [lol]

[Ghostrider]

This always depends on the context and the people you are working with. Some of the places I have worked, a heated debate was instrumental in getting good results. Using expressive words is necessary. People learn to understand what *you* mean, instead of presuming any use of specific words is bad. If someone misunderstands the intended signals, you have a wonderful opportunity to learn to know each other better.

I respectfully disagree. I have seen staff meetings become heated, but no one resorted to profanity. Results were obtained, but no one later regretted what they had said earlier. I have never heard a college professor swear. Do they swear? Probably, maybe alone, in their heads, or with friends, but never in lecture or discussion. Profanity is not professional. Can you find the F*** word in Pubmed used as an expressive phrase? (I have not looked, let me know if you can.)

My main concern if he did not speak his mind, is that potential donors pass judgment in that same negative sense. I think his use of words for expression *might* have attracted potential donors as well as it *might* have pushed potential donors away.

You have a point, he could have grabbed some people's attention. However, I am willing to submit that he could have done so without resorting to profanity -- perhaps a clever analogy or pounding of the fist could have done the trick.

[lightowl]

I respectfully disagree. I have seen staff meetings become heated, but no one resorted to profanity. Results were obtained, but no one later regretted what they had said earlier. I have never heard a college professor swear. Do they swear? Probably, maybe alone, in their heads, or with friends, but never in lecture or discussion. Profanity is not professional. Can you find the F*** word in Pubmed used as an expressive phrase? (I have not looked, let me know if you can.)

Well, you can call it professional or not, we sometimes use harsh language (what you might call Profanity) at my work. It is used in playful moods or to express extreme discontent, among other things. College professors not swearing does not make any swearing unprofessional. Again, take it into context. You might work at a place where the atmosphere just doesn't favor arguments with harsh language. That does not make a place that does any less professional. Perhaps we are in disagreement on what professional is. Perhaps its just a matter of perspective. If you knew how silly I think it is to frown or cringe at a single word out of context, you might be able to imagine a professional conversation where the specific words are much less important than what is actually being expressed.

As for swearing in Pubmed, well, written debates are rarely as heated in the same sense as verbal ones. In written debates you have all the space you need to solidify your arguments. Emotional expression is extremely diminished. I think that is partly the reason people have a hard time debating like this. Its sometimes tough to get the right meaning through.

You have a point, he could have grabbed some people's attention. However, I am willing to submit that he could have done so without resorting to profanity -- perhaps a clever analogy or pounding of the fist could have done the trick.

Sure, he could have tried to say it some other way. But I doubt he said it to grab attention. I think he said it *like that* to express a deeply held opinion. Saying things like "resorting to profanity", makes it sound like its some kind of last resort used as tactics in a loosing battle. That is not how I see swearing. I see it as a way to express strong opinions where other words might not work as well in a particular situation.

Edited by lightowl, 14 December 2006 - 06:51 AM.

[kent23]

Ghostrider asks:

Can you find the F*** word in Pubmed used as an expressive phrase? (I have not looked, let me know if you can.)

I don't know about "as an expressive phrase", but the query returns 23 hits, many of them due to multiple authors whose last name happens to be... well, see for yourselves...

pubmed

search for... well, you know...

[Ghostrider]

College professors not swearing does not make any swearing unprofessional.

True, I regard college professors as a subset of the class of professionals, along with doctors, scientists, etc. They are an example of the class. This may be labeled as a stereotype, but I have found through my own personal experience that uneducated people swear more often than the highly educated. Therefore, I regard swearing with negative connotations. Although I myself sometimes swear, mostly in private. Consult your own experience.

Again, take it into context. You might work at a place where the atmosphere just doesn't favor arguments with harsh language.  That does not make a place that does any less professional.

Would anyone want to work in a place that favors arguments with harsh language? Why is harsh language needed at all? What results can only be obtained through abusive discourse that cannot be obtained through rational debate?

As for swearing in Pubmed, well, written debates are rarely as heated in the same sense as verbal ones. In written debates you have all the space you need to solidify your arguments. Emotional expression is extremely diminished. I think that is partly the reason people have a hard time debating like this. Its sometimes tough to get the right meaning through.

I agree that time pressures and the difficulty to formulate a concise and persuasive account can lead to frustration. I have experienced this feeling myself many times when debating even with friends over something that I am passionate about -- anti-aging for example. It would be more difficult if I was giving a lecture. However, I speculate that if Aubrey was writing the speech that he gave, which I do not think could have been improved by much, he might have chosen to use a different word at the point we are discussing. Why, well, he would have had more time to think things through and maybe realize that some potential donors might pass judgment at such a phrase. As I mentioned above, he could have thought of a more clever way of grabbing attention as he had done at other parts of the speech. I certainly appreciated the analogy of the fight on aging to the 9/11 passengers who attempted to save their plane. I think that was a point that will really stick with members of the audience and is at least less controversial.

[Shepard]

I have never heard a college professor swear.  Do they swear?  Probably, maybe alone, in their heads, or with friends, but never in lecture or discussion. 

That would be a 'yes, they do'. In my experience, the majority of college professors are rarely shining examples of anything, professionalism or intellectualism.

[lightowl]

Would anyone want to work in a place that favors arguments with harsh language?

Reversely, I wouldn't want to be required to work with people who couldn't adjust to understand that kind of expression.

Why is harsh language needed at all?

Why is emotional expression needed at all?

What results can only be obtained through abusive discourse that cannot be obtained through rational debate?

Any query that requests an emotional response. Its a psychological element of discourse that offers more than mere rational facts. Call it "shades of expression" if you like.

abusive discourse

Abusive... please... We are obviously very far apart on this issue. To me it looks like you think swearing exclusively have negative value. To me its all about context. I don't see any more value in trying to explain my perspective. I guess you'll have to experience it yourself to really get a sense of the value of swearing as a means of expression.

[Ghostrider]

I guess you'll have to experience it yourself to really get a sense of the value of swearing as a means of expression.

What makes you think that I have not experienced swearing? I mentioned that I swear myself, just not in speeches given to an audience while discussing a serious subject. Personally, I think Aubrey's choice of words did fit the context and I agree with his feelings. Aging is disgusting, undesirable, and a sure way to die. Some of his donors, however, may not agree with Aubrey's choice of words, I don't know.

Anyway, I have given this issue more attention than it deserves. Aubrey has started attracting at least a couple "big-name" donors so he is clearly doing something right.

[samson]

This thread needs more profanity filter. Seriously.

On the matter, I have to ask WTF. I mean, I curse a lot (though, as I'm finnish, i guess that's a bit different), and fuckin' hell I'm the brightest guy in the school. Though, again, it's high school, so it doesn't tell much.
Though I guess the reaction as it is (from flowerhat-ladies) is somewhat appropriate, since "profanity" by definition is, well, profanity. It's supposed to trigger that kind of response. The less the person in question uses profanity, the greater effect it has, which is quite ironic when you consider the profanity use of SOME PEOPLE.
Whatever, needs more ****.

Edited by samson, 17 December 2006 - 09:41 PM.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Spider Jerusalem for the win.

[crayfish]

Burning man sounds pretty cool, might make it down to that one. In the meantime - the shirt's a good idea but the bit that really grabbed my attention was the sword!

What better statement for stopping ageing and killing cancer than having a Katana of Immortality sticking out of your waistband? I'd buy one.