[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Korcok the Learned..
I read with amusement Michael's learned analysis of communication theory.
Considering the difficulty of arguing against someone who has reached the
esteemed level of lecturer of communication specializing in the basic speech
course, I might want to defer comment until Michael has been able to review
Haney or Zarefsky, Patton, Galvin and Book (Borthwestern) or some of the
other authors in the field of communication. While I am tempted to refer to
my wife's basic high school speech text to educate Michael I shall not
attempt to embarass him. BTW, I enjoyed the pro wrestler comment....the
laughter it caused in my household made me forgive you for your (surprising)
lack of knowledge in the field of communication theory. Just teasing
Michael....tho you might want to give it come thought. :)
>Emporia State University
>At 07:25 PM 7/5/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>well, 2 at the top and then line x line:
>>1) the "abusive language" thang had NOTHING to do with me or Cornell
>>Debate, but i did find out about it second hand. it went to the
>>harassment committee and they dismissed it as groundless. to my
>>knowledge all four debaters involved continue to live fruitful and
>>the harassment document does indeed address harassing language: Pam
>>makes certain that all of our debaters learn it. what, pray tell, does
>>that have to do with anything? the harassment committee has set a
>>fairly clear precedent that even a stream of "fuck yourself" utterances
>>in a debate round does not constitute either SEXUAL or ETHNIC
>>if there's something else here, please elaborate.
>>2) i would engage you in a discussion of "class" but i'm afraid that a
>>korcok-strickland exchange on that topic would elicit much laughter and
>>ridicule. one of us was, after all, a professional wrestler for a time
>>the LINE x LINE:
>>1) "A basic precept of semantics and communication is the identification
>>of formal and informal levels of discourse-- either written or spoken."
>>well, either i missed this "basic precept" or Glen is just making shit
>>up. i vote Glen is making shit up.
>>2) "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
>>what the hell? so it is informal only if EVERYONE is comfortable with
>>the language and it is formal if someone decides that their delicate
>>ears are scandalized. outta thin air, presto, a theorythingy.
>>a) funniest damn use of formal and informal i've ever run across. as i
>>understand it, it is informal if you can scratch and it is formal if you
>>have to wear wool.
>>i am willing to bet Yuri Kostun's left nut that Glen's "definition" does
>>not exist in any reputable communication text.
>>b) i vote that we define "formal" as 95% of people involved demand in
>>writing that you use only "nice, communally pre-approved" words. and
>>that we define "informal" as everything else.
>>this one person veto idea is awesome, though: there we are, at the
>>SuperBowl just cursing like the pigs we wanna be. and some twit squeaks
>>in with "unh, unh, excuse me. exxccccuuuussse me. i object to the
>>profanity. this is now by definition a FORMAL event. you MUST stop
>>swearing or you will violate the very PRECEPTS of communication."
>>3) "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
>>"open to all" means "formal" for some unknown reason. the mall, the
>>bowling alley, the back alley, an anti-war protest, a book of poems, and
>>MTV and HBO and the NFL are all "open to all": why any of them are thus
>>"formal" i have no idea.
>>the slippery Strickland then hopes we're dumb as doorknobs and miss the
>>fact that he ASSERTS for no good reason at all, NONE, no justification,
>>NO attempt at argument, not a shredlet of evidence, zilch, nada, that:
>>"we should maintain a formal level of discourse..." why, Glen? why
>>should it be the case that if we are in a situation open to all that we
>>need to make sure that we offend no one?
>>it seems at least as advisable that we might want to use profanity
>>STRATEGICALLY: offending the irrelevant to entertain the relevant. or
>>perhaps to use profanity EXPRESSIVELY: offending some with the
>>expectation that most folks will understand our passion. or perhaps to
>>use profanity for the purpose of creating IDENTIFICATION: lots of folks
>>think that someone who swears can't be all boring as dirt. or perhaps
>>just plain old understanding that you can't please everyone all the time
>>and trying to makes one a toady toad.
>>4) "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
>>well, depends. if one's justification for public use of "fuck" is that
>>the "uck" sound is pleasing, then that probably doesn't justify the
>>public utterance of "Jimmy Carter".
>>it seems to me that Caucasians' use of the "N" word normally functions
>>to signal their hatred and disrespect for persons of color. if a
>>Caucasian uses the "N" word, then they shouldn't be surprised that many
>>of us will express our lack of respect for their thinking. i think the
>>same holds true of a male's use of the "B" and "C" words with respect to
>>women. and i think there is a substantial difference between
>>"offending" someone and expressing RACISM or SEXISM.
>>but i would NEVER say to someone, you CANNOT say "nigger" or "cunt" just
>>in virtue of the fact that someone might be offended. the opposite is
>>the case: if those words EXPRESS your thinking, please use them.
>>5) Answering the questions:
>>a) yes, it is sometimes appropriate to use language your opponents find
>>offensive. on occasion the judge can go to hell too. i don't coach
>>debaters to kowtow and you shouldn't either.
>>b) norms are just that: generally accepted guidelines for conduct.
>>they ain't judicially enforceable laws of the land. the LAW is that you
>>have a First Amendment right to choose your own words. the LAW protects
>>your and my right to swear: if, for example, we passed a "no swearing in
>>debates" rule, it would almost certainly be ruled as illegal by the
>>c) that taxpayers fund Emporia gives Kansans exactly ZERO right to
>>censor your speech, Professor Strickland. and if they tried, you could
>>sue the fuck out of them and win. that the state pays your salary does
>>not give it a right to decide what words you utter: should it?
>>with a grin and a fish,
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page