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

Re: swearing goodRe: Korcok the Learned..

I am sorry, its early, I am tired and I after I read Mike's post I was a 
little disappointed in the lack of argument on your part. I guess I 
thought I was going to see some intelligent conversation. Instead I see 
somebody putting down his colleague without the slightest justification.

Boy, I am burnin' up!  =-)
Jen Lilly



Glen Strickland wrote:
> 
> 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.  :)
> >
> >Glen Strickland
> >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
> >>pleasant lives.
> >>
> >>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
> >>harassment.
> >>
> >>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
> >>language)."
> >>
> >>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
> >>some members."
> >>
> >>"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
> >>unacceptable" words?"
> >>
> >>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
> >>courts.
> >>
> >>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,
> >>michael korcok
> >>
> >
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page