Thursday, January 13, 2005
Liberals and Aggression
This is a discussion/brawl that happened at Little Red Boat. It shows why liberals are so detestable, a nice example of people who always think violence is just fine if they do it, but God, what horror, if someone does it to them.
Very unpleasant to be reminded also of how much attitudes that sustain sexual violence and a crude mentality towards sex get legitimized by conveying to people that they are breaking with a "prude" mentality, that they are more "hip", when they are exactly being quite as stupid.
Also the whole "just turn the TV off if you don´t like it" idiocy. BTW, there were dozens of articles on the BBC Springer Opera, for people who want to know more about the show that started this discussion, including some details of the aggressive content. UPDATE:
"And people who demand that programmes shouldn't be shown on publicly funded television because they're too sweary are idiots."
Why?
Posted by Alessandra at January 8, 2005 10:53 PM
Alessandra
Well, there are plenty of programmes on the Beeb that I don't feel are valuable (anything with cookery, gardening, motoring, horse racing...) but I'd rather leave it to the programme makers to do their own thing, since some of the time they come up with stuff I *do* enjoy. And presumably some of the time they are coming up with stuff that hymn-singers, motorheads, gardeners etc are enjoying. The point is (or should be) that the BBC provides the only channels that aren't ruled by the iron hand of the advertisers. This means that (just occasionally) they can come up with really brilliant stuff that the other channels aren't doing. It's like when (my hero) Richard Feynmann was invited to join the investigating committee into the Challenger disaster. He wondered what he could add to all the engineering specialists, until his wife said "Look, Richard: if you don't go, there will be a committee of people all looking at the same things, and asking the same questions, and reaching the same conclusions. If you do go, there will be a committee of people doing those things, plus there will be you, wandering about looking at totally different stuff, asking totally different questions and reaching totally different conclusions." (Which, incidentally, turned out 100% correct.) I pay a licence fee for the BBC to be the Richard Feynmann of broadcasting.
The time to worry is when nothing the BBC does appeals to you.
Rob
Posted by Rob at January 9, 2005 12:46 AM
I caught the middle and the end, which consisted of a chorus which went something like "yay, fuck for fucking motherfuckers! Yay! Hooray!" which I rather enjoyed, just cos, well, swearwords are funny, and the fact that they annoy some people is even funnier. In fact, a singer once told me that her singing teacher once told her that the way to make any song good is to include a swearword or two.
But anyway. The point is that at the rate they included them in chorus, it is just conceivable that they averaged out at least one per 30 seconds (the other bit I saw appeared to have them more than once per 30 seconds) which probably means nothing to anyone excpet me, it's just that I'm an obsessive pedant and am still itching to demonstrate that once per 30 seconds is not so surprising, as someone commented in a previous post...
oh all right then i'll shut up now.
Posted by Clare at January 9, 2005 12:58 AM
I don't really watch TV to be honest - but on Radio 4 Today we had :
-Bells on Sunday (St Edwards, Stow-on-the-Wold)
-Something Understood: Christian Ethics
-Sunday: More Christian Ethics and Morals
-Sunday Worship: From Edinburgh this week, aparently.
'Bells on Sunday' and 'Something Understood' were then repeated in the evening as well.
I Just do not understand how Christian groups feel they are in hard done by.
Posted by john Mac at January 9, 2005 12:59 AM
>And people who demand that programmes
>shouldn't be shown on publicly funded
>television because they're too sweary
>are idiots
>why?
well, they're idiots if they oppose the show purely on the basis of the swearing. it's not like it's being shown before the watershed, and it's certainly not inflated to the degree that some papers have got their bristles up about.
I don't burn my licence because the inane dross of Last of the Summer Wine continues to be shown: i just accept that someone, somewhere, thinks it's a programme worth watching.
This is people demanding the imposition of a victorian moral code a different order at the bidding of the daily mail for what is essentially popular arts programming - which is, incidentally, exactly the kind of stuff that these same people usually complain is being unfairly eradicated from the beeb.
it's just hype to push an anti-bbc agenda, and it's chosen absolutely the wrong focus for its anger (especially when there are plenty of legitimate gripes to have with the corporation)
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 01:04 AM
Yes,
very good indeed.
Highlights included Jesus admitting he was 'a little bit gay' (for loving all mankind), the Ku Klux Klan doing a tap dance routine, and the memorable chorus 'what the fuck, what the fuck, what the fucking fucking fuck'.
Satire of the highest order.
Posted by Tom at January 9, 2005 11:37 AM
OK, first I have to say that I don´t watch the BBC hardly ever, so I am asking this on a more general note, and from a few things that have been in the news.
Clare:"I caught the middle and the end, which consisted of a chorus which went something like "yay, fuck for fucking motherfuckers! Yay! Hooray!" which I rather enjoyed, just cos, well, swearwords are funny, and the fact that they annoy some people is even funnier."
Ah, this is what I was curious about, what is it about swearing the you think is so interesting.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 02:49 PM
"This is people demanding the imposition of a victorian moral code"
Just to give a different perspective, I think a lot of swearing is just crude, like really stupid. I find it ugly, it´s not elegant, and I don´t think it´s funny. For me, really good and even mildly good humor doesn´t have a lot of swearing, it may even have a little, but not much. In fact, I like when people can express themselves really precisely, wittilly, hilariously or subtly without using swearwords.
I don´t know what other critics of the swearing code think, I´m not speaking for them, just talking about how I feel very differently than you do.
About the imposition of a Victorian code, well, it seems that´s what the brawl is about. People who think heavy swearing is some kind of evolution want to impose their Crude code on tv. "Victorian" vs "Crude."
Personally, I don´t think Crude is an evolution past Victorian. And given that "Victorian" implies something more than elegance and intelligent use of words, I wonder if the label really fits.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 02:58 PM
"The time to worry is when nothing the BBC does appeals to you."
It seems that´s what the other part of the brawl is about. Who pays, who owns, who controls, who decides.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:03 PM
I don't think crude is any better than victorian, Alessandra.
But neither do I think that Victorian is better than crude. Each has their rightful place, and having seen Jerry Springer's show many times, I'd imagine the opera would seem a little strange *without* swearing.
Swearing isn't necessarily funny of itself, but often the point is the reaction to the swearing - which can be amusing. And, since the whole JS concept kind of takes the mickey out these bizarre people with mouths like sewers, I think there's a strong argument to say that you laugh *at* these people for swearing.
Profanity has always existed, and even wangles its way into great works of literature.
People have a right to say the don't like swearing very much. But they don't even have to watch the programme. What I don't get is when the step-change from "I don't like this" to "You can't do this" occurs.
What's funny about swearing? I'm sure Anna could give you a host of reasons.
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 03:10 PM
Another analogy:
Maybe posters here haven´t watched too many of the Tom and Jerry type cartoons. Cartoons of that time were basically all violence. All the characters did were to call each other names and destroy each other. And the creators would say, "isn´t that funny?"
Actually, I don´t think it´s funny, I think it´s really lame scriptwriting for kids. I think children´s quality tv shows need to have a lot more interesting content than senseless violence.
Now, if someone were to call me Victorian because of that, I don´t really think they get my perspective. There´s a lot of aggression involved in most types of these heavy swearing programs and I was just trying to understand why people find that so meaningful.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:15 PM
bobbie:
"Swearing isn't necessarily funny of itself, but often the point is the reaction to the swearing - which can be amusing."
Yep, that seems to be very central. (for the people who find it amusing). I understand.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:21 PM
'Swear' words bring to the table only that which you ascribe to them. There is nothing intrinsically 'crude' or 'wrong', for example, with the word 'fuck'.
'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. It has no more ingrained 'rightness' or 'wrongness' than the word 'stamp'. If I choose to believe that the word 'stamp' should be...well...stamped out, then that is my choice, but my belief does not impose any real world vice or virtue to the word itself.
When a viewer or reader encounters the word 'fuck', and finds it objectionable, they should ask themselves why if offends them. Is it the sound of it? The spelling? The length of the word? No...it's the commonly accepted abstract meaning of the iconography...and *this* is what makes people uncomfortable, which is what equates to the 'Victorian Morals' statement. If someone has been raised to feel that intercourse is a vulgar/crude/objectionable practice, then seeing the word in any context will bring up those same feelings.
Therefore, the true 'problem' with the word isn't the word, or what it references, but the images and feelings it conjurs in the mind of the beholder. The simplest solution to avoiding this 'problem', is for those that find it objectionable to simply avoid it. No one is forcing this commentary on them. This isn't 'A Clockwork Orange', and no one has their eyelids held open while being subjected to 'objectionable' images.
Your TV has two very useful options pre-installed at the factory: a channel selector, and--more importantly--an 'off' button. Use the fuckers.
Posted by frennzy at January 9, 2005 04:19 PM
Alessandra, mostly I agree with you about swearing. Or at least "gratuitous" swearing. I certainly don't think it makes the joke funnier.
However, this is a case where the swearing wasn't gratuitous at all. It'd be fairly impossible to do anything involving Jerry Springer without it. Here, it's part of the satire. It's part of the joke. Without it, the joke is less funny. And the satire is gone.
Posted by Jill at January 9, 2005 07:24 PM
frennzy:
'Swear' words bring to the table only that which you ascribe to them. There is nothing intrinsically 'crude' or 'wrong', for example, with the word 'fuck'.
Actually, that´s not true at all. There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression.
Secondly, in our culture we have a category of words that are "swear" words. That this is established in our culture is undeniable. Most swear words have something to do with crudeness or aggression, although the context in which they are used can change the meaning and the function of the word. That goes for other words as well.
The word "fuck" is crude, because of its ascribed meaning in culture. And it can be used as varied degrees of aggression in a variety of ways. It can also be used for other types of expressions. But there is a lot of aggression that is going on in society that is wrong, including verbal aggression or verbal abuse.
The more you ignore a problem, the worse it usually gets. That´s not the way to go at all.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 08:07 PM
"There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression."
yes and no.
fuck is offensive because of what it means. it can be deployed in an aggressive way, but without the context it's just an angry word, not an offensive one.
plenty of people use fuck etc all the time, to the point where it doesn't actually mean anything. to those people, it's not a profanity in the slightest. because they've removed the context - not necessarily the aggression.
other people, like you, would still be offended - but because you still placed the offensive context on the word.
like many people, i suppose you're particularly concerned about the use of "cunt". which, when used in the right context, can be a horribly offensive word. but just use it as part of ordinary speech and it means nothing, except an expression of the inexpressible.
i'm also interested in how through time, people have chosen to exchange a profanity for a meaningless word to avoid the shame ("blimey!", "bother!", "frick", "chuff" etc etc etc). is that any better than swearing, since the only difference is that they've substituted the bad word for a nonsense one (or manipulated the expression into something else).
after all, if i said "hey, you freaking muddyfunster", the sentiment might well be the same as if i said "hey you fucking motherfucker". but people wouldn't take me as seriously because the words aren't accepted profanities (and in our minds don't really carry the same meaning). that's the point a lot of people are at with ordinary profanity; where it just means nothing.
if language carries on evolving and sucks in old profanities, who are we to argue? people will always find new ways to swear.
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 08:39 PM
Good lord, an intelligent discussion on little red boat. I barely want to interrupt. And besides, Bobbie seems to be saying everything I want to, bless him, although having done that it would be nice if you could now go and email me, honey...
Another thing I was thinking was about how, for once, the BBC is doing as it should, presenting popular culture rather than garden makeover, and they should be encouraged to do so.
I can't think of an intelligent argument for why I say people are 'idiots' or calling for the censorship of a piece of art when they could, instead, choose not to watch it. It's funny, because I usually call people who call for censorship on flimsy religious or 'moral' grounds "dangerous idiots", or more likely "fucking dangerous idiots".
I might swear, you see, because it would make me cross.
I cannot think of an intelligent way to argue that point, because it seems so simple to me. I have no problem with people not liking swearing, I have no problem with people choosing not to watch something because someone has informed them they may well be ofended by it, the reason I was calling them idiots was for calling for censorship because they were frightened of being offended. Or for calling for it at all. I'm sorry if anyone finds that unclear.
I like bobbie's expressing the inexpressible argument. Which doesn't mean that everyone that swears lacks the vocabulary to express themselves any other way - on the contrary, often - but there are some types of anger, surprise, emotion that...
No, I really don't want to join in this debate, arguing really isn't something I can do. Whinging I can do, ranting I can do, arguing is a little too much like conflict. But do carry on. I'm really enjoying it.
Posted by anna at January 9, 2005 11:10 PM
Allesandra:
"Actually, that´s not true at all. There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression."
It is true. As an example, in my previous post, I used the word 'fuck' (very purposefully) in two different contexts. In the first, I used it exemplary, and in quotes. In the second, I used it as both a literary device (humor) and as an intentionally shocking departure, in order to make you think about your perceptions.
Did you, while reading my post the first time, feel offended by my use of the word 'fuck', especially when in quotes? Or did you take it, as you should have, in context as an object of discussion? Were you shocked when I used the modified form at the end, after a seemingly coherent discourse?
In neither case, though, was the word used with any 'aggressive' intent. Words are words, implication is implication, and inference is inference...all three are separate and distinct. If you choose to believe I am being aggressive when I say the word 'fuck', then that is your particular inference. It adds nor subtracts anything at all from the word itself, only the way in which you choose to interpret it.
Again, and in short, the problem isn't with the word...the problem is with the person.
If you don't want to hear the word on public television, don't watch a program where you are likely to encounter it. That seems a bit short-sighted to me, because it's like pretending you live in a world without murder, or war, or poverty, or hunger.
"I don't like it, so I don't want to see it."
Posted by frennzy at January 10, 2005 02:38 AM
Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it. I didn't bother watching it - come on, Match of the Day and Billy Connolly (sorry, more gratuitous fucks) were on - but that was my CHOICE - I would be gfar more aggrieved not to HAVE the choice than I would be by one side showing something inflamatory or controversial - in fact, I would be far more offended watching the sh1t on Channel Four (So-called "Celebrity" Big Brother) than Jerry Springer. That's the BIG word, Allesandrea, *choice*. You can choose not to watch things, instead of trying to impose your own moral code on others.
Posted by Andy at January 10, 2005 09:36 AM
You´re on...
"'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. It has no more ingrained 'rightness' or 'wrongness' than the word 'stamp'."
Words are tools of expression, are they not? They communicate ideas, feelings, emotional interactions, do they not? They can also express ideas that are true and ideas that are false. Your sentence is an example of words used to express an idea that is false. Every culture assigns words to certain categories, including words that are considered crude, used for insult. Have you heard of hate-speech crime?
Whether you agree with the principle, where does the idea that something is hate-speech come from? It comes from the fact that people can use words to insult, to perpetrate aggression, to denigrate others.
It also happens that people are psychological. When they want to do something that they don´t want to admit is a problem, like carrying out aggression towards others, they simply say ther aren´t doing anything at all (your case).
My question is this, why do you have a need to say fuck or hear fuck so often?
Take the example, you hate Anna and say to Anna, "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt."
Trying to say that these are all just words, and therefore they have no meaning at all, is a sign that one needs to see a psychologist. Number two, trying to deny the obvious, that this is swearing, is a sign a little powder went up the nose. Trying to say that there isn´t a social interaction going on there, and that is one of aggression, is a sign that one can´t have a serious discussion with people in denial.
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:14 PM
"When a viewer or reader encounters the word 'fuck', and finds it objectionable, they should ask themselves why if offends them. Is it the sound of it? The spelling? The length of the word? No...it's the commonly accepted abstract meaning of the iconography."
I think there is a more important questions to be asked: why are people using the word in the first place? what social context is it in? Is it a form of aggression? Is it rebellion? Is it frustration? Is it anger? Is it satire? etc...
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:18 PM
"Therefore, the true 'problem' with the word isn't the word, or what it references, but the images and feelings it conjurs in the mind of the beholder. "
Actually the problem with any word is what is the word being used for?
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:22 PM
"Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
It´s the Crude Code vs. the Moral Code. That is exactly the brawl. And my question is, what is it about the Crude Code that people find so meaningful?
I didn´t see the Opera thing, so I can´t even comment on what messages it had, and why they wanted to use swearing in these messages, but what I have seen of media content that has a lot of swearing in it is usually so stupid (regarding the content).
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:36 PM
"Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
It´s the Crude Code vs. the Moral Code. That is exactly the brawl. And my question is, what is it about the Crude Code that people find so meaningful?
I didn´t see the Opera thing, so I can´t even comment on what messages it had, and why they wanted to use swearing in these messages, but what I have seen of media content that has a lot of swearing in it is usually so stupid (regarding the content).
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:37 PM
And one can't have a serious discussion with people who, as an apparent random example, choose to unleash a tirade of abuse upon the person upon whose site they are commenting.
A person who, I have to say, does not enjoy conflict and this level of anger in discussion and who only put forward this point as a case of people calling out for censorship, censorship of a piece of culture that has as much right to be broadcast on publicly funded television as any religious programming. This was my point.
Alessandra, for someone who claims to dislike swearing so much, your random example of someone hating me, and wanting to say to me: "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt." Was phrased with great aplomb and seemingly heartfelt venom.
I would like to state, for the record, that I have never been whore to a pig.
I realise this forceful and hateful outpouring may have been a terribly clever way of encouraging healthy debate about swearing by my geting upset by your use of language, but it's the meaning behind the words that would, if anything, upset me. It sounds violent, and really very pointedly aggressive toward me. And I don't quite understand why that might be the case, I having never done anything to personally offend you, but if that's the way you feel so be it.
I am a dumb shit, a dumb fuck, people may hate me, for sure. But I have never, Ever been whore to a pig.
Thank you.
Posted by anna at January 10, 2005 12:40 PM
"unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
the words you use and what some other people here have said bring up a certain picture. Have you seen a fight between an adolescent and their parents that go something like this:
Parent: Don´t you ever try cocaine!
Boy: I´ll do anything I want! You can´t tell me what to do!
Parent: You will not! Cocaine is going to kill you and you we´re telling you what to do!
Boy: Oh yeah? I going to sniff cocaine till I burn my brains out! Hah!
The boy is so worked up about his parents telling him what to do, that he just wants to do it anyway because of that. He doesn´t stop to think if it is worthwhile to do it or why he has a need for cocaine in the first place.
I see a lot of parallels with this BBC thing.
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:44 PM
"Alessandra, for someone who claims to dislike swearing so much, your random example of someone hating me, and wanting to say to me: "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt." Was phrased with great aplomb and seemingly heartfelt venom."
First of all, I wasn´t saying it to you as you stated. In my example, it was Frennzy who said these words to you. Because it was Frennzy who exactly claimed if someone is offended with swear words, the problem lies solely with the offended!
What nonsense.
You have just proved my point. To say you have a problem for not liking to be offended is what the problem is.
You have a right not to be objected to swear words but so do other people. So my question from the beginning was, why were people thinking it´s so important to swear more and more on tv? what is going on?
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:51 PM
"And one can't have a serious discussion with people who, as an apparent random example, choose to unleash a tirade of abuse upon the person upon whose site they are commenting."
Why is this a tirade of abuse and what was on the BBC is not? Why is this different than a lot of rap music that says the same thing? Why is it different than pornography that says even more violent things?
So if I say these swear words on tv, it´s OK? but if I say it here, it´s not? what is this?
I don´t think, Anna, you understood what I wrote. Given how upset you were.
Posted by a at January 10, 2005 12:59 PM
I feel at this point, we should ALL concede that Allesandra is far too clever for all of us, (or unable/unwilling to see Anna's original point like WE all can, anyway) and we should therefore exercise our right of choice to turn her off and watch the other channels
Posted by Andy at January 10, 2005 01:13 PM
Ok, that's it.
I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all, so I give up. You win. I never invited this level of argument, This has moved a fair way from my original point, I don't think anyone is going to change their mind on anything, so I think it's best if it just stops now. You win.
Thanks for coming. Having said that, while still believing that all swearing is wrong, I will, probably, continue to swear on this site, (although never in a pointed or angry fashion, never directed toward people or aimed to hurt)and I should like to suggest that for anyone uncomfortable with swearing, this is probably not a site they will enjoy reading.
This matters to me not at all, there are plenty of other sites in the world to read, and while I'm sorry that I do something that people abhor, I will be happier thinking people are reading something that does not make them angry/offended/upset.
(Incidentally, the BBC is different from this site in that mine is a small, personal site, run by one person, written for 'fun' and funded by them, whereas the BBC is a large publicly funded body who have a commitment to providing programming that reflects the social and cultural landscape of Britain - swearing at me, even hypothetically, on this site is different from a rap song in so many ways I can't be arsed to go into, it's also extermely different from pornography. Really, wildly different. If I don't seem to understand what you're saying I apologise, but your arguments are a little over the head of this dumb shit)
Can we stop now?
Posted by anna at January 10, 2005 01:21 PM
I'm sorry Anna, but I need to say at least one more thing.
Allesandra, your example of me saying those things to Anna is flawed. You show *an* aggressive use of the word, but that does not mean that the word itself is aggressive. It's not solid logic.
As an example, *I* could say, "Allesandra is so prude, that every night she masturbates to a grim and cheerless orgasm because she is incapable of enjoying physical pleasure."
Did I once use the word 'fuck'? No. Is the sentence constructed aggressively and with hurtful intent? Obviously. So which word is it that makes it aggressive? None of them. It is the tone and context of the statement.
Again, 'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. In fact, it is a quite versatile and remarkable word. Let's look at some non-aggressive uses of it in context:
Wife to husband during sex: "Oh, yes! Fuck me!"
Mild annoyance on discovering you have a flat: "Aw, fuck."
Confusion: "What the fuck?"
Surprise: "Fuck me!"
Emphatic modifier: "That is fucking cool!"
It can be a verb, a noun, an adjective, an interjection, and even a place holder.
The aggression you ascribe to it is quite obviously, despite your protests to the contrary, a result of your Victorian Morals. *You* can only perceive it as an aggressive verbal assault. A reasoning adult is not so limited.
In the interests of peace, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Somehow, I feel you won't be able to resist getting the last word. Feel free.
(again, Sorry to continue the argument, Anna)
Posted by Frennzy at January 10, 2005 03:45 PM
I'm going to try to limit myself here: Alessandra, you asked "Why is this a tirade of abuse and what was on the BBC is not? ... So if I say these swear words on tv, it´s OK? but if I say it here, it´s not? what is this?"
Well, ONE difference is that the Springer thing did not specifically identify, even facetiously, Anna as the target of the profanity.
More to the point: On television, one (you, Anna, me, anyone) has the choice to turn the TV off if one finds the the language offensive. Anna doesn't have the option of "changing the channel" here, because this is HER website. What you've done here is roughly the equivalent of stopping by Anna's house and spraypainting on the walls. Your post and your subsequent "what'd I say?!" reply were incredibly rude, and if you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be commenting on anyone's personal site.
Whether or not swear words have any intrinsic value TO YOU is not the point; whether you think they add anything to the content of a work is irrelevant. If YOU don't like it, YOU shouldn't watch it - no one will come to your house and force you to. But one can't make the "don't like it, won't allow it" decision for the entire rest of the world, nor demand like a spoiled six year old that God, the universe, and public television cater to one single person's delicate sensibilities.
Posted by elayne at January 10, 2005 03:50 PM
Personally I dont like swearing, either to use those words myself or to hear other people say them, but hey, I know it exists. And occasionally I do use them, although generally in their anatomically correct place, if you know what I mean. But I try to avoid it if possible by not coming into contact with the type of person who swears, or by not swearing myself I hope to set a good example. If they want to swear, well so be it, its a free country. Or as Billy Connolly once said (I think it was him) introducing an act, the man who put the cunt in country. Does swearing count if you type it?
Posted by Debster at January 10, 2005 10:13 PM
Ok,
I think I am about the only person here who actually watched the whole thing. Alessandra - you just can't complain about there being more and more swearing in the media. You have a right to be offended by it, but you also have the choice to no listen/watch/read it. Yes, swear words can be hateful and representative of anger and aggression directed against another. But they are also an eloquent and effective use of language in the right context - irreplaceable by other words. And any words can be hateful put in the right context, should we ban all words?
This kind of prudishness stems directly from the origins of taboo words (which don't exist in all cultures) - Victorian morality. Swear words generally describe genitalia or the sexual act because they were considered shocking according to the Victorian code of morality. But then again so were inappropriate table legs.
Basically JS the opera was SATIRISING the show, and using swear words to real comic effect by puting them in an unusual and shocking context (formal opera). It had appropriate warnings throughout. There are more important issues than swearing in the media surely (unless we're all going to be affected by the far right religious agenda coming drectly from the states). For instance, free speech. People don't think it is more important to swear more and more on TV, but when there is a significant and excellent piece of populare culture that includes swear words (by the way, on the last count 117 fucks and only 7 cunts), why on earth should the BBC not show it?
(Sorry for continuing this one Anna - keep on swearing, I think it is funny, and, more importantly normal)
Posted by Tom at January 10, 2005 11:18 PM
What a ruckus...
Anna said: "You win."
Actually, I don´t win. And that´s why I posted my question in the first place.
To the people who say you can just turn the TV off if you don´t like it, the point is you can´t turn the world off, not if you think you also have a right to live in society, and you don´t think war is a solution. If you turn the TV off, but when you talk to people, they are no different than the TV, and TV does socialize people majorly, you see that the problem is a lot bigger.
To Frennzy: read Posted by frennzy at January 9, 2005 04:19 PM
You changed your argument 180 degrees around. in your first post, you completely erased the aggressive uses of the word Fuck to say it was just a bland thing, that "prude" people have a problem with. From what I read, the BBC thing has a lot of aggression, that´s what a lot of the swearing is for. And it is directed specifically towards certain people or groups of people. To say the people who are upset at that are just silly prudes, is to say Anna is just upset I didn´t follow a Victorian code of language in my post. Ignoring aggression is not a solution. But, hey, I take it you´re not interested in the subject.
One more comment, a lot of the violence in the world that refers to the sexuality sphere is not commited by "prude" people. You seem to have such a hatred of this Victorian stereotype of people, yet it probably is because you are so blind at so much of the seriously grave stuff that happens in society. Thanks, in part, to the fuck-in-your-face-aren´t-we-modern guys and gals, sexual violence is not diminishing!
I found this blog a few days ago, and had thought it was really nice, still do, actually.
But, you win, I lose. big ruckus, big conflict. no possibility for dialogue. Congrats, society has more trash-violence, violence-trash, trash-violence with each passing day. You are right in everything you do.
Posted by Alessandra at January 11, 2005 11:32 PM
Very unpleasant to be reminded also of how much attitudes that sustain sexual violence and a crude mentality towards sex get legitimized by conveying to people that they are breaking with a "prude" mentality, that they are more "hip", when they are exactly being quite as stupid.
Also the whole "just turn the TV off if you don´t like it" idiocy. BTW, there were dozens of articles on the BBC Springer Opera, for people who want to know more about the show that started this discussion, including some details of the aggressive content. UPDATE:
The program, "Jerry Springer: The Opera," contained hundreds, maybe thousands of swear words, depending on what words were counted, said groups opposed to the broadcast. By any measure, the show had the highest profanity count of any ever broadcast on British television.
The program also included a diaper-wearing Jesus who declares he is "a bit gay" and gets into a fistfight with Adam and Eve; a tap dance by Ku Klux Klan members; and songs with titles such as "Pregnant By A Transsexual" and "Here Come The Hookers."
Anna:
And people who demand that programmes shouldn't be shown on publicly funded television because they're too sweary are idiots.
Not quite up to the level of incisive commentary I was hoping to write, but still. They are. Idiots. Big cunting idiots. I want to make up a better argument, I really fucking do. But I can't be titsed. Sorry. I will just say this. I have been successfully managing to not watch Songs of Praise every week for 27 years, and detest the fact that my licence fee goes toward this unquestioning, shamelessly biased religious programming - with no similar alternative provided for any other religion but this dying Christian-breed. I just don't watch it.
Perhaps they could just try Not Watching the one-off airing of Jerry Springer the Opera.
In the name of anti-censorship, and because I'm very bored and very grumpy, having lost my beloved to some goddamned geekfest in San Francisco, I will be going to a friend's house and watcing the Jerry Springer Opera thing for principle's sake.
I may even count the swearwords. If I can see my notepad through the bottom of the wineglass.
Idiots.
"And people who demand that programmes shouldn't be shown on publicly funded television because they're too sweary are idiots."
Why?
Posted by Alessandra at January 8, 2005 10:53 PM
Alessandra
Well, there are plenty of programmes on the Beeb that I don't feel are valuable (anything with cookery, gardening, motoring, horse racing...) but I'd rather leave it to the programme makers to do their own thing, since some of the time they come up with stuff I *do* enjoy. And presumably some of the time they are coming up with stuff that hymn-singers, motorheads, gardeners etc are enjoying. The point is (or should be) that the BBC provides the only channels that aren't ruled by the iron hand of the advertisers. This means that (just occasionally) they can come up with really brilliant stuff that the other channels aren't doing. It's like when (my hero) Richard Feynmann was invited to join the investigating committee into the Challenger disaster. He wondered what he could add to all the engineering specialists, until his wife said "Look, Richard: if you don't go, there will be a committee of people all looking at the same things, and asking the same questions, and reaching the same conclusions. If you do go, there will be a committee of people doing those things, plus there will be you, wandering about looking at totally different stuff, asking totally different questions and reaching totally different conclusions." (Which, incidentally, turned out 100% correct.) I pay a licence fee for the BBC to be the Richard Feynmann of broadcasting.
The time to worry is when nothing the BBC does appeals to you.
Rob
Posted by Rob at January 9, 2005 12:46 AM
I caught the middle and the end, which consisted of a chorus which went something like "yay, fuck for fucking motherfuckers! Yay! Hooray!" which I rather enjoyed, just cos, well, swearwords are funny, and the fact that they annoy some people is even funnier. In fact, a singer once told me that her singing teacher once told her that the way to make any song good is to include a swearword or two.
But anyway. The point is that at the rate they included them in chorus, it is just conceivable that they averaged out at least one per 30 seconds (the other bit I saw appeared to have them more than once per 30 seconds) which probably means nothing to anyone excpet me, it's just that I'm an obsessive pedant and am still itching to demonstrate that once per 30 seconds is not so surprising, as someone commented in a previous post...
oh all right then i'll shut up now.
Posted by Clare at January 9, 2005 12:58 AM
I don't really watch TV to be honest - but on Radio 4 Today we had :
-Bells on Sunday (St Edwards, Stow-on-the-Wold)
-Something Understood: Christian Ethics
-Sunday: More Christian Ethics and Morals
-Sunday Worship: From Edinburgh this week, aparently.
'Bells on Sunday' and 'Something Understood' were then repeated in the evening as well.
I Just do not understand how Christian groups feel they are in hard done by.
Posted by john Mac at January 9, 2005 12:59 AM
>And people who demand that programmes
>shouldn't be shown on publicly funded
>television because they're too sweary
>are idiots
>why?
well, they're idiots if they oppose the show purely on the basis of the swearing. it's not like it's being shown before the watershed, and it's certainly not inflated to the degree that some papers have got their bristles up about.
I don't burn my licence because the inane dross of Last of the Summer Wine continues to be shown: i just accept that someone, somewhere, thinks it's a programme worth watching.
This is people demanding the imposition of a victorian moral code a different order at the bidding of the daily mail for what is essentially popular arts programming - which is, incidentally, exactly the kind of stuff that these same people usually complain is being unfairly eradicated from the beeb.
it's just hype to push an anti-bbc agenda, and it's chosen absolutely the wrong focus for its anger (especially when there are plenty of legitimate gripes to have with the corporation)
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 01:04 AM
Yes,
very good indeed.
Highlights included Jesus admitting he was 'a little bit gay' (for loving all mankind), the Ku Klux Klan doing a tap dance routine, and the memorable chorus 'what the fuck, what the fuck, what the fucking fucking fuck'.
Satire of the highest order.
Posted by Tom at January 9, 2005 11:37 AM
OK, first I have to say that I don´t watch the BBC hardly ever, so I am asking this on a more general note, and from a few things that have been in the news.
Clare:"I caught the middle and the end, which consisted of a chorus which went something like "yay, fuck for fucking motherfuckers! Yay! Hooray!" which I rather enjoyed, just cos, well, swearwords are funny, and the fact that they annoy some people is even funnier."
Ah, this is what I was curious about, what is it about swearing the you think is so interesting.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 02:49 PM
"This is people demanding the imposition of a victorian moral code"
Just to give a different perspective, I think a lot of swearing is just crude, like really stupid. I find it ugly, it´s not elegant, and I don´t think it´s funny. For me, really good and even mildly good humor doesn´t have a lot of swearing, it may even have a little, but not much. In fact, I like when people can express themselves really precisely, wittilly, hilariously or subtly without using swearwords.
I don´t know what other critics of the swearing code think, I´m not speaking for them, just talking about how I feel very differently than you do.
About the imposition of a Victorian code, well, it seems that´s what the brawl is about. People who think heavy swearing is some kind of evolution want to impose their Crude code on tv. "Victorian" vs "Crude."
Personally, I don´t think Crude is an evolution past Victorian. And given that "Victorian" implies something more than elegance and intelligent use of words, I wonder if the label really fits.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 02:58 PM
"The time to worry is when nothing the BBC does appeals to you."
It seems that´s what the other part of the brawl is about. Who pays, who owns, who controls, who decides.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:03 PM
I don't think crude is any better than victorian, Alessandra.
But neither do I think that Victorian is better than crude. Each has their rightful place, and having seen Jerry Springer's show many times, I'd imagine the opera would seem a little strange *without* swearing.
Swearing isn't necessarily funny of itself, but often the point is the reaction to the swearing - which can be amusing. And, since the whole JS concept kind of takes the mickey out these bizarre people with mouths like sewers, I think there's a strong argument to say that you laugh *at* these people for swearing.
Profanity has always existed, and even wangles its way into great works of literature.
People have a right to say the don't like swearing very much. But they don't even have to watch the programme. What I don't get is when the step-change from "I don't like this" to "You can't do this" occurs.
What's funny about swearing? I'm sure Anna could give you a host of reasons.
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 03:10 PM
Another analogy:
Maybe posters here haven´t watched too many of the Tom and Jerry type cartoons. Cartoons of that time were basically all violence. All the characters did were to call each other names and destroy each other. And the creators would say, "isn´t that funny?"
Actually, I don´t think it´s funny, I think it´s really lame scriptwriting for kids. I think children´s quality tv shows need to have a lot more interesting content than senseless violence.
Now, if someone were to call me Victorian because of that, I don´t really think they get my perspective. There´s a lot of aggression involved in most types of these heavy swearing programs and I was just trying to understand why people find that so meaningful.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:15 PM
bobbie:
"Swearing isn't necessarily funny of itself, but often the point is the reaction to the swearing - which can be amusing."
Yep, that seems to be very central. (for the people who find it amusing). I understand.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 03:21 PM
'Swear' words bring to the table only that which you ascribe to them. There is nothing intrinsically 'crude' or 'wrong', for example, with the word 'fuck'.
'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. It has no more ingrained 'rightness' or 'wrongness' than the word 'stamp'. If I choose to believe that the word 'stamp' should be...well...stamped out, then that is my choice, but my belief does not impose any real world vice or virtue to the word itself.
When a viewer or reader encounters the word 'fuck', and finds it objectionable, they should ask themselves why if offends them. Is it the sound of it? The spelling? The length of the word? No...it's the commonly accepted abstract meaning of the iconography...and *this* is what makes people uncomfortable, which is what equates to the 'Victorian Morals' statement. If someone has been raised to feel that intercourse is a vulgar/crude/objectionable practice, then seeing the word in any context will bring up those same feelings.
Therefore, the true 'problem' with the word isn't the word, or what it references, but the images and feelings it conjurs in the mind of the beholder. The simplest solution to avoiding this 'problem', is for those that find it objectionable to simply avoid it. No one is forcing this commentary on them. This isn't 'A Clockwork Orange', and no one has their eyelids held open while being subjected to 'objectionable' images.
Your TV has two very useful options pre-installed at the factory: a channel selector, and--more importantly--an 'off' button. Use the fuckers.
Posted by frennzy at January 9, 2005 04:19 PM
Alessandra, mostly I agree with you about swearing. Or at least "gratuitous" swearing. I certainly don't think it makes the joke funnier.
However, this is a case where the swearing wasn't gratuitous at all. It'd be fairly impossible to do anything involving Jerry Springer without it. Here, it's part of the satire. It's part of the joke. Without it, the joke is less funny. And the satire is gone.
Posted by Jill at January 9, 2005 07:24 PM
frennzy:
'Swear' words bring to the table only that which you ascribe to them. There is nothing intrinsically 'crude' or 'wrong', for example, with the word 'fuck'.
Actually, that´s not true at all. There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression.
Secondly, in our culture we have a category of words that are "swear" words. That this is established in our culture is undeniable. Most swear words have something to do with crudeness or aggression, although the context in which they are used can change the meaning and the function of the word. That goes for other words as well.
The word "fuck" is crude, because of its ascribed meaning in culture. And it can be used as varied degrees of aggression in a variety of ways. It can also be used for other types of expressions. But there is a lot of aggression that is going on in society that is wrong, including verbal aggression or verbal abuse.
The more you ignore a problem, the worse it usually gets. That´s not the way to go at all.
Posted by Alessandra at January 9, 2005 08:07 PM
"There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression."
yes and no.
fuck is offensive because of what it means. it can be deployed in an aggressive way, but without the context it's just an angry word, not an offensive one.
plenty of people use fuck etc all the time, to the point where it doesn't actually mean anything. to those people, it's not a profanity in the slightest. because they've removed the context - not necessarily the aggression.
other people, like you, would still be offended - but because you still placed the offensive context on the word.
like many people, i suppose you're particularly concerned about the use of "cunt". which, when used in the right context, can be a horribly offensive word. but just use it as part of ordinary speech and it means nothing, except an expression of the inexpressible.
i'm also interested in how through time, people have chosen to exchange a profanity for a meaningless word to avoid the shame ("blimey!", "bother!", "frick", "chuff" etc etc etc). is that any better than swearing, since the only difference is that they've substituted the bad word for a nonsense one (or manipulated the expression into something else).
after all, if i said "hey, you freaking muddyfunster", the sentiment might well be the same as if i said "hey you fucking motherfucker". but people wouldn't take me as seriously because the words aren't accepted profanities (and in our minds don't really carry the same meaning). that's the point a lot of people are at with ordinary profanity; where it just means nothing.
if language carries on evolving and sucks in old profanities, who are we to argue? people will always find new ways to swear.
Posted by bobbie at January 9, 2005 08:39 PM
Good lord, an intelligent discussion on little red boat. I barely want to interrupt. And besides, Bobbie seems to be saying everything I want to, bless him, although having done that it would be nice if you could now go and email me, honey...
Another thing I was thinking was about how, for once, the BBC is doing as it should, presenting popular culture rather than garden makeover, and they should be encouraged to do so.
I can't think of an intelligent argument for why I say people are 'idiots' or calling for the censorship of a piece of art when they could, instead, choose not to watch it. It's funny, because I usually call people who call for censorship on flimsy religious or 'moral' grounds "dangerous idiots", or more likely "fucking dangerous idiots".
I might swear, you see, because it would make me cross.
I cannot think of an intelligent way to argue that point, because it seems so simple to me. I have no problem with people not liking swearing, I have no problem with people choosing not to watch something because someone has informed them they may well be ofended by it, the reason I was calling them idiots was for calling for censorship because they were frightened of being offended. Or for calling for it at all. I'm sorry if anyone finds that unclear.
I like bobbie's expressing the inexpressible argument. Which doesn't mean that everyone that swears lacks the vocabulary to express themselves any other way - on the contrary, often - but there are some types of anger, surprise, emotion that...
No, I really don't want to join in this debate, arguing really isn't something I can do. Whinging I can do, ranting I can do, arguing is a little too much like conflict. But do carry on. I'm really enjoying it.
Posted by anna at January 9, 2005 11:10 PM
Allesandra:
"Actually, that´s not true at all. There´s another very important component of words and how they are used that you´re erasing from the picture. And that is aggression."
It is true. As an example, in my previous post, I used the word 'fuck' (very purposefully) in two different contexts. In the first, I used it exemplary, and in quotes. In the second, I used it as both a literary device (humor) and as an intentionally shocking departure, in order to make you think about your perceptions.
Did you, while reading my post the first time, feel offended by my use of the word 'fuck', especially when in quotes? Or did you take it, as you should have, in context as an object of discussion? Were you shocked when I used the modified form at the end, after a seemingly coherent discourse?
In neither case, though, was the word used with any 'aggressive' intent. Words are words, implication is implication, and inference is inference...all three are separate and distinct. If you choose to believe I am being aggressive when I say the word 'fuck', then that is your particular inference. It adds nor subtracts anything at all from the word itself, only the way in which you choose to interpret it.
Again, and in short, the problem isn't with the word...the problem is with the person.
If you don't want to hear the word on public television, don't watch a program where you are likely to encounter it. That seems a bit short-sighted to me, because it's like pretending you live in a world without murder, or war, or poverty, or hunger.
"I don't like it, so I don't want to see it."
Posted by frennzy at January 10, 2005 02:38 AM
Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it. I didn't bother watching it - come on, Match of the Day and Billy Connolly (sorry, more gratuitous fucks) were on - but that was my CHOICE - I would be gfar more aggrieved not to HAVE the choice than I would be by one side showing something inflamatory or controversial - in fact, I would be far more offended watching the sh1t on Channel Four (So-called "Celebrity" Big Brother) than Jerry Springer. That's the BIG word, Allesandrea, *choice*. You can choose not to watch things, instead of trying to impose your own moral code on others.
Posted by Andy at January 10, 2005 09:36 AM
You´re on...
"'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. It has no more ingrained 'rightness' or 'wrongness' than the word 'stamp'."
Words are tools of expression, are they not? They communicate ideas, feelings, emotional interactions, do they not? They can also express ideas that are true and ideas that are false. Your sentence is an example of words used to express an idea that is false. Every culture assigns words to certain categories, including words that are considered crude, used for insult. Have you heard of hate-speech crime?
Whether you agree with the principle, where does the idea that something is hate-speech come from? It comes from the fact that people can use words to insult, to perpetrate aggression, to denigrate others.
It also happens that people are psychological. When they want to do something that they don´t want to admit is a problem, like carrying out aggression towards others, they simply say ther aren´t doing anything at all (your case).
My question is this, why do you have a need to say fuck or hear fuck so often?
Take the example, you hate Anna and say to Anna, "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt."
Trying to say that these are all just words, and therefore they have no meaning at all, is a sign that one needs to see a psychologist. Number two, trying to deny the obvious, that this is swearing, is a sign a little powder went up the nose. Trying to say that there isn´t a social interaction going on there, and that is one of aggression, is a sign that one can´t have a serious discussion with people in denial.
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:14 PM
"When a viewer or reader encounters the word 'fuck', and finds it objectionable, they should ask themselves why if offends them. Is it the sound of it? The spelling? The length of the word? No...it's the commonly accepted abstract meaning of the iconography."
I think there is a more important questions to be asked: why are people using the word in the first place? what social context is it in? Is it a form of aggression? Is it rebellion? Is it frustration? Is it anger? Is it satire? etc...
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:18 PM
"Therefore, the true 'problem' with the word isn't the word, or what it references, but the images and feelings it conjurs in the mind of the beholder. "
Actually the problem with any word is what is the word being used for?
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:22 PM
"Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
It´s the Crude Code vs. the Moral Code. That is exactly the brawl. And my question is, what is it about the Crude Code that people find so meaningful?
I didn´t see the Opera thing, so I can´t even comment on what messages it had, and why they wanted to use swearing in these messages, but what I have seen of media content that has a lot of swearing in it is usually so stupid (regarding the content).
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:36 PM
"Mmmmm. Me too. Over here. I've been using the Songs of Praise argument all weekend too. But the BBC isn't trying to impose it's own "moral code" on anyone just because it chooses to screen this Opera thingy - unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
It´s the Crude Code vs. the Moral Code. That is exactly the brawl. And my question is, what is it about the Crude Code that people find so meaningful?
I didn´t see the Opera thing, so I can´t even comment on what messages it had, and why they wanted to use swearing in these messages, but what I have seen of media content that has a lot of swearing in it is usually so stupid (regarding the content).
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:37 PM
And one can't have a serious discussion with people who, as an apparent random example, choose to unleash a tirade of abuse upon the person upon whose site they are commenting.
A person who, I have to say, does not enjoy conflict and this level of anger in discussion and who only put forward this point as a case of people calling out for censorship, censorship of a piece of culture that has as much right to be broadcast on publicly funded television as any religious programming. This was my point.
Alessandra, for someone who claims to dislike swearing so much, your random example of someone hating me, and wanting to say to me: "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt." Was phrased with great aplomb and seemingly heartfelt venom.
I would like to state, for the record, that I have never been whore to a pig.
I realise this forceful and hateful outpouring may have been a terribly clever way of encouraging healthy debate about swearing by my geting upset by your use of language, but it's the meaning behind the words that would, if anything, upset me. It sounds violent, and really very pointedly aggressive toward me. And I don't quite understand why that might be the case, I having never done anything to personally offend you, but if that's the way you feel so be it.
I am a dumb shit, a dumb fuck, people may hate me, for sure. But I have never, Ever been whore to a pig.
Thank you.
Posted by anna at January 10, 2005 12:40 PM
"unfortunately people like Allesandra ARE, by castigating the BBC for daring to show it."
the words you use and what some other people here have said bring up a certain picture. Have you seen a fight between an adolescent and their parents that go something like this:
Parent: Don´t you ever try cocaine!
Boy: I´ll do anything I want! You can´t tell me what to do!
Parent: You will not! Cocaine is going to kill you and you we´re telling you what to do!
Boy: Oh yeah? I going to sniff cocaine till I burn my brains out! Hah!
The boy is so worked up about his parents telling him what to do, that he just wants to do it anyway because of that. He doesn´t stop to think if it is worthwhile to do it or why he has a need for cocaine in the first place.
I see a lot of parallels with this BBC thing.
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:44 PM
"Alessandra, for someone who claims to dislike swearing so much, your random example of someone hating me, and wanting to say to me: "Oh fuck you Anna, you dumb shit, you fucking pig whore, you dumb cunt." Was phrased with great aplomb and seemingly heartfelt venom."
First of all, I wasn´t saying it to you as you stated. In my example, it was Frennzy who said these words to you. Because it was Frennzy who exactly claimed if someone is offended with swear words, the problem lies solely with the offended!
What nonsense.
You have just proved my point. To say you have a problem for not liking to be offended is what the problem is.
You have a right not to be objected to swear words but so do other people. So my question from the beginning was, why were people thinking it´s so important to swear more and more on tv? what is going on?
Posted by Alessandra at January 10, 2005 12:51 PM
"And one can't have a serious discussion with people who, as an apparent random example, choose to unleash a tirade of abuse upon the person upon whose site they are commenting."
Why is this a tirade of abuse and what was on the BBC is not? Why is this different than a lot of rap music that says the same thing? Why is it different than pornography that says even more violent things?
So if I say these swear words on tv, it´s OK? but if I say it here, it´s not? what is this?
I don´t think, Anna, you understood what I wrote. Given how upset you were.
Posted by a at January 10, 2005 12:59 PM
I feel at this point, we should ALL concede that Allesandra is far too clever for all of us, (or unable/unwilling to see Anna's original point like WE all can, anyway) and we should therefore exercise our right of choice to turn her off and watch the other channels
Posted by Andy at January 10, 2005 01:13 PM
Ok, that's it.
I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all, so I give up. You win. I never invited this level of argument, This has moved a fair way from my original point, I don't think anyone is going to change their mind on anything, so I think it's best if it just stops now. You win.
Thanks for coming. Having said that, while still believing that all swearing is wrong, I will, probably, continue to swear on this site, (although never in a pointed or angry fashion, never directed toward people or aimed to hurt)and I should like to suggest that for anyone uncomfortable with swearing, this is probably not a site they will enjoy reading.
This matters to me not at all, there are plenty of other sites in the world to read, and while I'm sorry that I do something that people abhor, I will be happier thinking people are reading something that does not make them angry/offended/upset.
(Incidentally, the BBC is different from this site in that mine is a small, personal site, run by one person, written for 'fun' and funded by them, whereas the BBC is a large publicly funded body who have a commitment to providing programming that reflects the social and cultural landscape of Britain - swearing at me, even hypothetically, on this site is different from a rap song in so many ways I can't be arsed to go into, it's also extermely different from pornography. Really, wildly different. If I don't seem to understand what you're saying I apologise, but your arguments are a little over the head of this dumb shit)
Can we stop now?
Posted by anna at January 10, 2005 01:21 PM
I'm sorry Anna, but I need to say at least one more thing.
Allesandra, your example of me saying those things to Anna is flawed. You show *an* aggressive use of the word, but that does not mean that the word itself is aggressive. It's not solid logic.
As an example, *I* could say, "Allesandra is so prude, that every night she masturbates to a grim and cheerless orgasm because she is incapable of enjoying physical pleasure."
Did I once use the word 'fuck'? No. Is the sentence constructed aggressively and with hurtful intent? Obviously. So which word is it that makes it aggressive? None of them. It is the tone and context of the statement.
Again, 'Fuck', in and of itself, is simply a word. In fact, it is a quite versatile and remarkable word. Let's look at some non-aggressive uses of it in context:
Wife to husband during sex: "Oh, yes! Fuck me!"
Mild annoyance on discovering you have a flat: "Aw, fuck."
Confusion: "What the fuck?"
Surprise: "Fuck me!"
Emphatic modifier: "That is fucking cool!"
It can be a verb, a noun, an adjective, an interjection, and even a place holder.
The aggression you ascribe to it is quite obviously, despite your protests to the contrary, a result of your Victorian Morals. *You* can only perceive it as an aggressive verbal assault. A reasoning adult is not so limited.
In the interests of peace, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Somehow, I feel you won't be able to resist getting the last word. Feel free.
(again, Sorry to continue the argument, Anna)
Posted by Frennzy at January 10, 2005 03:45 PM
I'm going to try to limit myself here: Alessandra, you asked "Why is this a tirade of abuse and what was on the BBC is not? ... So if I say these swear words on tv, it´s OK? but if I say it here, it´s not? what is this?"
Well, ONE difference is that the Springer thing did not specifically identify, even facetiously, Anna as the target of the profanity.
More to the point: On television, one (you, Anna, me, anyone) has the choice to turn the TV off if one finds the the language offensive. Anna doesn't have the option of "changing the channel" here, because this is HER website. What you've done here is roughly the equivalent of stopping by Anna's house and spraypainting on the walls. Your post and your subsequent "what'd I say?!" reply were incredibly rude, and if you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be commenting on anyone's personal site.
Whether or not swear words have any intrinsic value TO YOU is not the point; whether you think they add anything to the content of a work is irrelevant. If YOU don't like it, YOU shouldn't watch it - no one will come to your house and force you to. But one can't make the "don't like it, won't allow it" decision for the entire rest of the world, nor demand like a spoiled six year old that God, the universe, and public television cater to one single person's delicate sensibilities.
Posted by elayne at January 10, 2005 03:50 PM
Personally I dont like swearing, either to use those words myself or to hear other people say them, but hey, I know it exists. And occasionally I do use them, although generally in their anatomically correct place, if you know what I mean. But I try to avoid it if possible by not coming into contact with the type of person who swears, or by not swearing myself I hope to set a good example. If they want to swear, well so be it, its a free country. Or as Billy Connolly once said (I think it was him) introducing an act, the man who put the cunt in country. Does swearing count if you type it?
Posted by Debster at January 10, 2005 10:13 PM
Ok,
I think I am about the only person here who actually watched the whole thing. Alessandra - you just can't complain about there being more and more swearing in the media. You have a right to be offended by it, but you also have the choice to no listen/watch/read it. Yes, swear words can be hateful and representative of anger and aggression directed against another. But they are also an eloquent and effective use of language in the right context - irreplaceable by other words. And any words can be hateful put in the right context, should we ban all words?
This kind of prudishness stems directly from the origins of taboo words (which don't exist in all cultures) - Victorian morality. Swear words generally describe genitalia or the sexual act because they were considered shocking according to the Victorian code of morality. But then again so were inappropriate table legs.
Basically JS the opera was SATIRISING the show, and using swear words to real comic effect by puting them in an unusual and shocking context (formal opera). It had appropriate warnings throughout. There are more important issues than swearing in the media surely (unless we're all going to be affected by the far right religious agenda coming drectly from the states). For instance, free speech. People don't think it is more important to swear more and more on TV, but when there is a significant and excellent piece of populare culture that includes swear words (by the way, on the last count 117 fucks and only 7 cunts), why on earth should the BBC not show it?
(Sorry for continuing this one Anna - keep on swearing, I think it is funny, and, more importantly normal)
Posted by Tom at January 10, 2005 11:18 PM
What a ruckus...
Anna said: "You win."
Actually, I don´t win. And that´s why I posted my question in the first place.
To the people who say you can just turn the TV off if you don´t like it, the point is you can´t turn the world off, not if you think you also have a right to live in society, and you don´t think war is a solution. If you turn the TV off, but when you talk to people, they are no different than the TV, and TV does socialize people majorly, you see that the problem is a lot bigger.
To Frennzy: read Posted by frennzy at January 9, 2005 04:19 PM
You changed your argument 180 degrees around. in your first post, you completely erased the aggressive uses of the word Fuck to say it was just a bland thing, that "prude" people have a problem with. From what I read, the BBC thing has a lot of aggression, that´s what a lot of the swearing is for. And it is directed specifically towards certain people or groups of people. To say the people who are upset at that are just silly prudes, is to say Anna is just upset I didn´t follow a Victorian code of language in my post. Ignoring aggression is not a solution. But, hey, I take it you´re not interested in the subject.
One more comment, a lot of the violence in the world that refers to the sexuality sphere is not commited by "prude" people. You seem to have such a hatred of this Victorian stereotype of people, yet it probably is because you are so blind at so much of the seriously grave stuff that happens in society. Thanks, in part, to the fuck-in-your-face-aren´t-we-modern guys and gals, sexual violence is not diminishing!
I found this blog a few days ago, and had thought it was really nice, still do, actually.
But, you win, I lose. big ruckus, big conflict. no possibility for dialogue. Congrats, society has more trash-violence, violence-trash, trash-violence with each passing day. You are right in everything you do.
Posted by Alessandra at January 11, 2005 11:32 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
