It's certainly possible that someday the majority of people will not have unpleasant reactions to swearing in public. Until this cultural revolution takes place and the masses are freed from the chains of polite behaviour, swearing in public around the young and old will be continue to seen as a demonstration of a loss of self control and/or a lack of respect for societal norms.

I find it difficult to equate swear words with genocide/

Well, no, because as I said I don't think it's an unacceptable form of swearing. I think it's an unacceptable form of conduct, regardless of whether swearing is present or not.

I agree with this. However, words are just words, and I still stand by that. People can't be hurt by words alone, unless they choose to be hurt by them.

In my experience， its the young and the old that swear the most in public!
Especially senior citizens, almost weekly drop f and n bombs on me.

Some words have meanings attached to them that are offensive. There's no way you can be discounting that language provokes emotion through the meanings attached through those words.
It's also pretty hard to remove those offensive meanings from words.
The only way you can argue that words can't hurt people unless they choose to be hurt by them, is if you argue that language is meaningless, and given that our society's foundation is language, it seems a pretty idiotic point to make.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

I find the incorrect use of language more painful than swear words. When I hear misplaced or misused words I cringe.

However, I've never tried to find a way of forcing people to speak better. I might think less of a person that can't use his native language correctly, but I would never think of kicking someone from a server of mine for that reason.

Whenever I read or hear about this topic, the only impression I get from at least one of the sides is "I want to impose my will on others."


If you don't like someone else doing something, I understand you liking that person less. It's when you decide to look for ways of trying to force that person to stop doing it that I think you should be more careful. You might want to consider restricting that "imposing your will" response to more serious matters than what words a person uses to express himself.

That's a false dichotomy. The options aren't:
A - respect that and not swear around them.
B - "screw other people's attitudes, I'm right and if they're offended it's their problem because there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing"

There's, at the very least, a third option:
C - I'll decide which reasons to be offended I find legit and which ones I'll ignore because I consider them childish, ignorant, stupid, unreasonable or simply too hard to abide to.


I refuse to respect each and every reason to feel offended the entire world has found. Among other reasons, because they are often mutually exclusive. I've decided to respect only the ones I consider as reasonable and serious reasons to be offended because I see that as the most intellectually sane behavior.

However, and this is the big point that you seem to be avoiding, I don't make a list of which behaviors I've decided are acceptable and then try to shove that list down everyone else's throats. It's a personal list of what offends me and what I've decided not to do because it offends others. And it's not even a fixed list; years, people, society make me revise that list often.


In conclusion, in case I didn't manage to express my reason to write all this, there's no point for me in discussing whether one should or shouldn't respect other's opinions. the only discussion is whether a reason to be offended is reasonable or not. Thus, the argument "some people are offended by it" is meaningless because it's axiomatic. Of course some people are offended by it. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing about the reasonability of that reason to be offended.

The fact that swearing offends some people can't be part of the argument about whether being offended by swearing is reasonable or not.

I think there are not many more serious matters in life than whether the society, community, family, club, company, church, group, etc. that we are currently a member of will choose to exclude us due to our decisions to conform our behavior to their written or unwritten norms or not. We may decide that unfettered profanity is an essential liberty that must be fought for. We should not necessarily be surprised that others disagree.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

C and B are exactly the same, just phrased differently.
Stripping away the attitude of the statements, they are fundamentally both ignoring other people's feelings in favor of doing whatever you want.

No, they aren't.

B - is saying "screw other people's feelings, I'm the only one that matters."
C - is saying "screw people who want to impose their feelings over others, I'll decide what feelings are respectable. (and those of people who want to impose their will over me, aren't)"

To explain myself even more bluntly:

The fact that you want me to act in a certain way for your own benefit, even if that benefit is emotional, doesn't alter my decision of acting in that way or otherwise.

Or, said in the opposite direction, once I know what behaviors hurt your emotions I will decide to behave in that way or otherwise based on the basis of that harm, not on the fact that it hurts you.

Or, said in one more way, and applied to this case. Once I discover my language hurts your feelings, that fact alone won't ever make me change my language. I will have to know the reasons of those hurt feelings and I'll decide by myself if they are legit reasons. There are many reasons I will respect and there are many I won't.

"It hurts my feelings." isn't a reason, it's the cause of me asking myself whether I change my language or not.

Neither are legit reasons: "It offends me", "I want you to speak in a certain way", "I don't like those words", "It's against my religion", etc.

However, "Your language is a simplification of The language and you using it in front of my child might make him start using the simplified version, reducing his commonly used vocabulary." is a reason I consider legit.

While I agree with speedchase - I think I understand your mantra as stated above. And I can only assume you show respect to someone following a similar mantra.

Therefore, might I paraphrase:

KGS is saying "screw people who want to impose their choices in language over others, I will decide what language is respectable. (and those who are cussing in my ear about it aren't)"

At worst, what you are complaining about is that KGS chooses to treat you as you would treat others.

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

If you only care about other people's feelings when you agree with them, then you really don't care about other people's feelings.
I see no distinction between always ignoring someone's opinon's, and ignoring them whenever you disagree with them. The only substantive difference is how often you happen to agree with them, which is completely irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

Feces, feces, feces, this thread is god placing things into eternal punishment annoying!

It's not an accident that swear words generally concern unpleasant (or pleasant but taboo) things, but it's not just true that they're unpleasant because of their meaning. The whole point of swearing is that it's a convention, where we all agree to treat the words as if they're offensive. The payoff is that we all get a slightly more powerful way to express emotion some of the time.

And my point earlier is that you can't opt out of half of that trade: you can't say "I'd like to use swear words, but I'd like to act like they're just ordinary words." That just doesn't make sense.

See a blog post with an obscene title for some further comments.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Apparently I didn't manage to explain my position even by repetition. I'll try one more time and if it doesn't work I think I'll be over with the topic.

What I am trying to explain is: "I don't mind about the decision, I mind about the reasons for it."

In your example, "(and those who are cussing in my ear about it aren't)" you don't even care to explain why. It's must just not be a part of the process for you. You think everyone decides whether something is respectable or not by pure will, without a reasoning behind the decision.

I am trying to tell you that is not the truth. Many people take decisions by reasoning them. And for us, the reasons are important.

If KGS decided to kick me because of my language I couldn't know whether I agree with that decision or not unless they told me the reasons for it. And if the reason is "those who are cussing in my ear about it aren't respectable", which is no reason but a mere statement, I would not agree.

Even if you don't agree with me, and I think you won't because we disagree even in the most basic way of deciding whether we agree with something or not, I would like to know if you understand my position.



I invite you yo go read what a "no true Scotsman fallacy" is.


Ok. I agree with that statement.


I agree with that, but there is one more difference. It's not the "how often" it's the "why".

Why do I agree with some and not with all? What criteria did I apply? Are my criteria coherent? Are my criteria defined and comprehensible? Did I apply my criteria correctly?

The reasons to agree with someone are much more important than the act of agreeing. Those reasons are what define me. Without reasons for agreeing or not, I may as well be a coin, that respects others' feelings or not based on a random toss.

Therefore, as you correctly return to a higher point of view to contemplate the purpose of this discussion, what I'm trying to convey is "Do not argue about whether language offends, argue about the legitimacy of the reasons it does."

I grew up in a family that viewed swearing as an outdated convention. Some 40 years later, it seems to me just as outdated as ever, yet certain significant portions of society still abide by it. Why? Because they are stuck in their ways, because they like to be able to filter people easily, because of the puritan influence on the development of the American psyche, because they think it's a barrier to the collapse of social norms. What difference does it make? Usually the worst that happens when you swear is that someone gives you an offended look. On the other hand, maybe they won't give you a job.

I agree that there is a good argument to be had about the whether it's right or not to prohibit swearing in places such as KGS, but I wonder to whom it's relevant. I can imagine it being relevant if someone saw the freedom to swear as a matter of their personal integrity, but I doubt any of us would take it that far. So whether you think it's right or not, a swearing prohibition might cramp or suit our style, but I don't believe that not being allowed to swear in a certain place is much of a calamity.

What is however a serious matter is as ez4u eloquently said, whether we are included or excluded from a group. Groups however are difficult to communicate with. We can surmise all we want about why cursing rocks some people's boat, but as long as we're in it, isn't it better for it not to sink? Why not just take another boat? It's certainly easier to find a group that supports and appreciates a publicly frowned-upon behavior than to get the majority to change. Society is a heavy rock to move. It's worth the trouble with some social conditions that have grave consequences, such as those in which people are ostracized for their sexuality or criminalized for their choice of pleasures - but is cursing worth fighting for?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I like to think I'm not fighting for it, merely pointing out an absurd convention in our society.

It's not always just a convention. Some people consider that certain words oversimplify the language, promoting the loss of a cultural heritage.

Kind of like painting over an existing painting; it doesn't matter how fine is the new one, you're still killing the first.

Some people just like to feel superior to others and, lacking a physical, aesthetical, intellectual, artistical, etc. superiority, search for arbitrary rules to stick to and judge others over.