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

Re: swearing good


>>>>
Glen Strickland wrote:

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.
>>>>

Since when is this list-serv or CEDA debate a classroom in the sense 
that you are using? I think most students who approach this activity as 
a means of education view it as an alternative classroom where societal 
norms are not applicable when choosing language and argument style.  How 
can we as a community promote "creative and diverse" argumentation and 
reject certain language styles.  What you are referring to as the 
concept of communication taught in the classroom is not one in which we 
are expected (definitly not required) to adhere to in debate.

>>>>
  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.
>>>>


Last time I checked debate is not a formal activity. While this is not 
necessarily agreed upon by all, the large majority definitly do not 
treat it as such. Look around at tournaments, there are perhaps 20% who 
actually wear suits & ties or dresses. The informal label allows a 
diversity of attire, argumentation, etc. that the formal label would 
not. People who want formal debate should try parli.


>>>>
  Obscenities, even though they permeate the media, are still defined as 
"repugnant, unacceptable in mainstream society." 
>>>>

So are many arguments that the majority of debators use in debate 
rounds. I see the debate forum as a place where we can and should 
discard societal norms and explore all avenues of argumentation.  There 
is no impact of using slang of "obscene" language in speech. It doesn't 
disadvantage anyone involved.  Censoring so-called obscenities do exlude 
certain cultures and styles of communication.

>>>>
 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. 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 
>>>>

Hold on there. We should all conform?!? Sorry I think I must have read 
that wrong. Anyway...

>>>>
**concentrate on the issues of debate without allowing language to 
become the focal point.**
>>>>

My point exactly, why should language matter either way. When we label 
certain words as obscene or otherwise not acceptable we are focusing on 
language as opposed to argumentation.  Where do we draw the line? Ass 
and hell are allowed on t.v. however my parents would be just as 
offended at those words as shit or fuck. While others may even be 
bothered by darn or shoot.  As intelligent individuals we should not 
allow ourselves to be personally offended by others' language choices.


>>>> 
 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?
>>>>


As I said above there is no line to be drawn here, and I see no reason 
why there should be. Your main argument for not using "socially 
unacceptable" words is that we should conform to a formal level of 
discourse here on the L.  Well, MR. Strickland, there are many more 
repercusions of formal levels of discourse than just the censoring of 
these few words. It would be best to leave things be. Once we censor one 
thing where does it end?


Throwing myself in the fire,
Jennifer Lilly
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page