[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

re: swearing good

>>>>>>
Efforts to defend the use of obcenities in postings on CEDA negate the very
concept of communication that we have learned and that we teach in the
classroom.
>>>>>>

this presupposes the conclusion that the use of obscenities is harmful or 

degrading.  and i seriously doubt the impressionable minds of the l 
recipients will immediately and irrevocably promote the use of obscenities 
in all contexts all the time simply because korcock the barbarian or others 
defend dirty words.

>>>>>>
A basic precept of semantics and communication is the
identification of formal and informal levels of discourse-- either written
or spoken.  The informal level allows any type of discourse that is
acceptable to the entire group (usually a smaller, interpersonal group of
people who know each other and share similar attitudes about language).  For
example, the use of obscenity on an informal level can be defended because
all involved are agreeable to the usage of language that is not acceptable
on a formal level.  Obscenities, even though they permeate the media, are
still defined as "repugnant, unacceptable in mainstream society."  Thus,
when we find ourselves in a formal situation (and the internet is formal
since it is open to anyone from society), we should maintain a formal level
of discourse, i.e., avoiding obscenities that would offend some members.
>>>>>>

this is similar to the discussion as to whether this listserve is the ceda 
professional journal or the ceda-l.  and while this is an open discussion 
group, it is also a forum that one must search out at some level.  while 
subscription is not limited to the debate community, it seems highly 
unlikely that someone with no contact with the debate world would have any 
motivation to subscribe.  the desire not to offend is a poor rationale for 
limiting language choices; this assumes the ability to draw a bright line 
concerning offensive and nonoffensive language and the inability to filter 
out words that are unpleasant.  

>>>>>>
All other arguments aside, if there are some people who do not agree that
obscenities are acceptable on CEDA-L, then everyone should conform to the
formal level of discourse and concentrate on the issues of debate without
allowing language to become the focal point.
>>>>>>

whats the threshold for stopping the slippery slope?  and whats the 
distiction between use of "offensive" language and the promotion of 
"offensive" ideas?  are they equally unacceptable?

>>>>>>
Finally, I expect this posting will draw responses, both positive and
negative; to those of you who choose to respond negatively, I request that
you answer one question:  Is there ever a line to be drawn in language use?
If the public use of the "F" word, for example, can be justified, can the
same justification be used to condone the use of other "socially
unacceptable" words?
>>>>>>

personal choice.  and defending some language choices does not place a 
burden of defending all language choices.

david
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page