[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 12:49 PM 7/5/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Even though I am not a person who uses so-called foul language on a 
>daily basis, who am I to say that others' language choices are wrong? In 
>this post I am in no way justifying the use of ad-homs on the L.  In 
>most cases those are just substitutes for intelligent argumentation. If 
>people feel the need to ad-hom, I say get a backbone and ignore it! What 
>a waste of time!
>
>
>>>>>
>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
>
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page