[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

At 11:44 AM 7/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>>>>>>>
>
>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