Plan B Forum

Stephen Fry is brilliant, clever, witty, wise etc etc ... . He's one of my favouritest people.

I love this quote, attributed to him ...

"It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that' as if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more... it's simply a whine. It's no more than a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -Stephen Fry

and on the topic of swearing:

I agree with Mr Fry 100%

I swear when exasperated, and appropriate. An example would have been just prior to the ACT election. After I had questioned some suspiciciously inaccurate information that had been provided to me, I professionally finished the conversation, hung up the phone and shouted "FUCKING COCK-BUCKET" at my screen.

It was an instant panacea and I was able to immediately leave behind any issues I had concerning the professionalism of the officers concerned and go about obtaining the correct information.

The only people present for my out-burst were my team, and they are like family and accept each member with all foibles. Though my acting manager had only known me (to manage me) for under a month, as such I apologized to her for my brief, succinct rant. She was not shocked and thought it was an excellent solution to ensure negativity is not internalized.

I am not known to internalize ANY of my feelings.

Fucking telling me!!

I'm a WYSIWYG-person, in a dag-wrapping.

Hmmm, I guess Stephen Fry is offended by people who say they are offended by something that doesn't offend him.

I definitely use some bad language when inanimate objects refuse to cooperate - keys that wander from where I know I put them, things that fall off of other things when I have just so carefully tossed them on the pile, taking the Queen of Spades with the three of diamonds and so on.

However, I see no reason to inflict my own standard of useful language upon other people, whether verbally or in print, because I do rather assume they have a right not to have their air polluted by second-hand vulgarity. One might wish they would get their comma and apostrophe use under similar control.

Meade

PS

The Hen wrote:I agree with Mr Fry 100%

I swear when exasperated, and appropriate.

Me too.

I don't swear very often, and even less often in public, but if I'm really angry or frustrated, I find it very helpful to let loose with a couple.
Or if in pain ... the more pain, the longer and louder the swearing. It's very beneficial as a pain relief!!

...
I professionally finished the conversation, hung up the phone and shouted "FUCKING COCK-BUCKET" at my screen.

It was an instant panacea and I was able to immediately leave behind any issues I had concerning the professionalism of the officers concerned and go about obtaining the correct information.
...
The only people present for my out-burst were my team, and they are like family and accept each member with all foibles.
...
I am not known to internalize ANY of my feelings.

I ... and my work colleagues ... have been known to do much the same
I work with a great bunch of people - which is fortunate because I think I see more of them than my own family.
The job has its stresses, and it's good that I'm able to 'be myself' around my work colleagues.

I'm, generally pretty easy to get along with, and i don't get 'rattled' often, but when I do, it's good to 'externalise' the feelings!!

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Hmmm, I guess Stephen Fry is offended by people who say they are offended by something that doesn't offend him.

My interpretation wasn't that he was offended. My interpretation was that he couln't give a shit if people were offended by swearing. He said that if people say 'I am offended by that,' his feeling is "well so fucking what?"

I definitely use some bad language when inanimate objects refuse to cooperate - keys that wander from where I know I put them, things that fall off of other things when I have just so carefully tossed them on the pile, taking the Queen of Spades with the three of diamonds and so on.

However, I see no reason to inflict my own standard of useful language upon other people, whether verbally or in print, because I do rather assume they have a right not to have their air polluted by second-hand vulgarity. ...

I don't tend to swear a lot, but that's just me ... I'm not the least offended by being around other people swearing. I don't find it 'pollution' at all. I enjoy the individuality of people - their languages, cultures, world views etc. Part of the individuality includes the way different people speak - the regional differences, the tones, inflections, choice of words, ways of describing etc etc. I don't 'judge' people by their choice of words or way of constructing their sentences. Some very good and decent people may speak very colourfully indeed, and some of the biggest arseholes will speak very 'properly' - it is their actions that prove their character, not their use (or non use) of swearing.

[[Similarly, I wouldn't ever 'judge' people by the way they write. I know that you don't actually 'judge' people as such, but you find it irksome to try to read through bad spelling or grammar. Personally, I tend read through that sort of thing and hardly even notice - I am focused on the content and not the construction. Maybe this has a lot to do with the fact that I have a son who is one of the smartest people I know, who is dyslexic. He busted his guts to overcome this and nowadays his writing would comes across as average, and he gets by just fine with nobody needing to know that he has any issues. However that took so much work, from him and from me helping him, and his 'averageness' of writing doesn't give any indication of his actual level of intelligence or his true 'worth'. You would probably have a 'field day' correcting him, but for me that would be hard to watch. For me it would be quite sad if you did, because I would feel that it would be akin to paying out a physically disabled person for looking awkward while trying to do their best effort within the constraints of their disability.]]

I have found (and I'm back to talking about swearing now ) that those who are the most judgemental tend to have very narrow views in other areas as well. Those who are able to 'take people as they are' tend to be more open in their general life outlook.

"It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that' as if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more... it's simply a whine. It's no more than a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -Stephen Fry

Just fuck off, please.

Alice, FWIW. Actually I don't find bad spelling and grammar particularly irksome - but I do enjoy appearing to do so (keep this very secret please) and poking fun in particularly amusing cases.

Our minister this morning said "This does not affect you and I" in his discourse when he should have said "This does not affect you and me" - evidently forgetting the simple tool of eliminating the other person and trying the sentence with only "I" or "me". I noticed his awful blunder but it impeded neither my understanding nor my appreciation of his message; this too let pass. (He also says "foof-ill" instead of "fulfil" and I have considered dropping an anonymous note about that, written with the pen in my left hand naturally). He's English - the English are all twats (since I became a USian).

Rest assured that I would not have a field day correcting a person who has difficulty with language. Only those who know better deserve the occasional guffaw. I'm particularly eligible for correction (in fact the first sentence of this paragraph began with "And" until I slapped myself in the face).

As to Mr. Fry, he is a highly intelligent, extremely witty and amusing fellow (as evidenced by Blackadder and QI; among my favourites). In defence of swearing he undoubtedly values his own opinion above any other (not unusual) since "so what?" is stated as being of a higher value than another's preference for not hearing him swear gratuitously (which he and so many others do).

It is a sad day when the amazingly witty achievement of choosing to utter "fuck" amongst people who would prefer not to hear it is applauded and their choice is regarded as of no significance whatever

Meade

Controlling one's use of language is a useful personal discipline and one positive way of showing respect for the people around you. It is no more an imposition that it is not to eat a really garlicky fart-inducing meal right before spending hours in a research group meeting or to shower and change clothes on a regular basis.

It isn't just avoiding cursing or using sexually inappropriate language I would also not describe in detail how an animal corpse left outside in the heat will bloat up with gas as the skin rots so that the smallest touch can make it burst open with gout of aromatic gasses which can induce immediate and uncontrollable vomiting spasms just as the runny green liquids filled with wriggling maggots pour out onto your boots. See? Its called consideration. That's why I would never relate how I spent a day cleaning up animals killed by a heatwave no matter how vivid and memorable the experience nor how it might enrich the lives of people deprived of such experiences.

yrs,
rubato

Controlling one's use of language is a useful personal discipline and one positive way of showing respect for the people around you.

The point of offensive language is that we agree that it is offensive and act on that agreement. Once we have language (or other communicative behavior) which we generally agree is offensive then we can by using, or refraining from using, such language communicate in a richer way than we could without it. It is an inherent part of human communication that this is so.

Saying "fuck you, asshole" only has useful meaning if both the speaker and the audience agree that "fuck you, asshole" is an offensive means of address.

But all of this is predicated on the idea that the users of a language all understand it in somewhat the same way. And this is not always true.

To give a different example, men 50 years ago nearly all wore hats and there were customs having to do with hat-wearing which were a part of communication. To show respect, men took off their hats when going indoors. And if they did not take off their hats they were being deliberately offensive and saying "you don't matter to me" or "this is not a place with people I respect". People from that generation and before had a language based on whether they took their hats off or not which everyone understood and which everyone expected others to understand. But when the custom of wearing a hat disappeared sometime in the 1960s all of the customs which went it were no longer taught. So by the late 70s if a young man affected wearing a hat because it was stylish he might offend a 70-ish Russian woman because he did not know that leaving it on indoors was considered deliberately offensive to her ( I witnessed this confrontation ). Unintentionally he was speaking a language her upbringing and customs interpreted as meaningfully offensive.

So Stephen Fry is really not being very perceptive in his little rant.

The degree to which these boundaries are useful as communication is related to the degree to which they are observed and understood. So that the more common violation of such boundaries just bleaches out their pungency and usefulness. To give an example: if people used the word "cunt" all the time it would have less power.

yrs,
rubato

it is a rare day that I swear AT a person in real life.

In fact, I am not sure I ever remember swearing AT a person.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Alice, FWIW. Actually I don't find bad spelling and grammar particularly irksome - but I do enjoy appearing to do so (keep this very secret please) and poking fun in particularly amusing cases.

I'll keep it a secret, seeing as you said please.

As to Mr. Fry, he is a highly intelligent, extremely witty and amusing fellow (as evidenced by Blackadder and QI; among my favourites). In defence of swearing he undoubtedly values his own opinion above any other (not unusual) since "so what?" is stated as being of a higher value than another's preference for not hearing him swear gratuitously (which he and so many others do).

It is a sad day when the amazingly witty achievement of choosing to utter "fuck" amongst people who would prefer not to hear it is applauded and their choice is regarded as of no significance whatever

Meade

I don't think it's so much a matter of 'choice' when a person claims offence. A person claiming offence most certainly believes their opinion matters most. As you said, believing in the heightened importance of your own opinion isn't unusual. But it's more a matter of mutual tolerance. How far do we each relax a little and learn to live with a bit of 'give and take' when it comes to tolerating all our litle niggles and annoyances. And I think - being amazingly overly globally generic - the world is becoming less and less tolerant over so many little things. Not just swearing. In many, many instances one only has to state offence and the offender is supposed to immediately cease whatever it is that offends. If the offender does not cease, they are immediately in the wrong and labelled rude, inconsiderate, etc etc. For example - I find lord Jim's yellow smiley offensive because it portrays a naked backside, and any display of nudity, cartoon or otherwise, is just so rude and disrespectful. If Lord Jim refuses to remove his offensive picture and cease using such images, then he is extremely inconsiderate - not just to me, but also to 'anyone else' who might be offended. And if he dares to answer me back, or worse, deliberately exacerbate the situation by finding a more explicit picture ... well, then it will just show that he is a person of low morals, poor breeding and bad manners. It can't be me being a narrow minded, pompous prude. If i am offended it must be him that's in the wrong.

rubato wrote:The point of offensive language is that we agree that it is offensive and act on that agreement. Once we have language (or other communicative behavior) which we generally agree is offensive then we can by using, or refraining from using, such language communicate in a richer way than we could without it. It is an inherent part of human communication that this is so.

Saying "fuck you, asshole" only has useful meaning if both the speaker and the audience agree that "fuck you, asshole" is an offensive means of address.

But all of this is predicated on the idea that the users of a language all understand it in somewhat the same way. And this is not always true.

To give a different example, men 50 years ago nearly all wore hats and there were customs having to do with hat-wearing which were a part of communication. To show respect, men took off their hats when going indoors. And if they did not take off their hats they were being deliberately offensive and saying "you don't matter to me" or "this is not a place with people I respect". People from that generation and before had a language based on whether they took their hats off or not which everyone understood and which everyone expected others to understand. But when the custom of wearing a hat disappeared sometime in the 1960s all of the customs which went it were no longer taught. So by the late 70s if a young man affected wearing a hat because it was stylish he might offend a 70-ish Russian woman because he did not know that leaving it on indoors was considered deliberately offensive to her ( I witnessed this confrontation ). Unintentionally he was speaking a language her upbringing and customs interpreted as meaningfully offensive.

So Stephen Fry is really not being very perceptive in his little rant.

The degree to which these boundaries are useful as communication is related to the degree to which they are observed and understood. So that the more common violation of such boundaries just bleaches out their pungency and usefulness. To give an example: if people used the word "cunt" all the time it would have less power.

yrs,
rubato

I take your point, and agree (except for the Stephen Fry bit )

My mother doesn't turn a hair at the usual swear wors, but finds blasphemy a bit personally offensive. Which is a funny thing, because out of respect many people would not swear directly around her, but would think nothing of saying 'Jeeeesus', or 'Oh my God', or 'Damn it' in front of her (sometimes instead of their usual swear words!).

And here in Australia we've always used the term 'bugger' to mean 'oh darn', or 'bugger me' to mean 'well, who would have thought'. And it's so much a part of our speech and culture that a certain company thought nothing of doing an entire ad campaign around a dog saying 'bugger me' in certain situations. So it was just so ridiculous when the ad had to be removed because some certain people took offence - not even trying to understand or accept, or tolerate the Australia-wide acknowledged general use of the word, and instead forcing an perceived offence by applying the other meaning.

And then there was that stupid Lara Bingle Australian tourism ad that said 'where the bloody hell are you', that created so much offence overseas, and yet was just using a bit of wll known Aussie slang.

The 'taboo' words seem to change over time, and it also depends on the area you come from and the religious or other cultural upbringing. I agree that constant usage helps to dilute the 'power'. I actually can't say the 'c' word, but my Army son certainly can!! Having said that, he'll use it around his mates, and his brothers, but not around public areas or in the company of older people. There's that level of understanding that the word is still - at the moment - a bit more taboo than the other swear words. It comes back to the mutual tolerance thing ... respecting a balance.

And the Stephen Fry's of the world do follow that balance. He might stick his middle finger up at people who loudly state offence at swearing, but he has the consideration of people, place and circumstance to know when not to swear.



I hope that made sense ... my son is home from the Army for a couple of days and my train of thought is being constantly distracted

or worse, deliberately exacerbate the situation by finding a more explicit picture ...

Don't tempt me Alice...

http://wthr.m0bl.net/w/sports/story/77419609/


I have tried to substitute the term "vexed" and its variations for some of my potty words. Husband is amused by that.

Cursing, swearing, and vulgarity are a form of oral punctuation, denoting emphasis, mood, viewpoint, and a host of other things. Much of it makes no sense, or has had its meaning metamorphosed into something completely different from the actual meaning of the words. Note Meade's points on "bugger," above.

The ultimate insult in the U.S. is to be called a "mother fucker," but for most people it is simply an absurdity. Women biologically cannot be mother fuckers. And why did this escalate to #1? #2 on the list for the longest time was to be called a "cock sucker." The implication for a man was that he was a homosexual. There you go. The second worst insult.

The worst insult to a black person was to be called a "black bastard." "Black" was insulting because in the days before "black is beautiful," to be described as "black" or "dark" by another Negro was a gross put-down. As for the "bastard," one need look no further than the old Supremes' song, "Love Child," which describes the contempt in which bastards ("love children") were held in the "black" community at that time. Now, 70% of the births in the American "black" community are "black bastards." Hmmm. This is progress, indeed.

Consider the ubiquitous use of the expression, "to get The Shaft." It is another expression focused on homosexuality, and originally referred to a man who was forcibly raped by another man or men. "Punk" is a similar expression, originally referring to a victim of unwanted sexual advances by a bigger, stronger person.


In most cases, the word "fuck" is a pure expletive, meaning that if the word were deleted from the sentence, it's meaning would not change.

My nominee for the most creative user of profanity in media today is Dexter's sister, "Deb." If you haven't heard her dialog, you are missing something. Her preferred insult is to call someone a fuck-tard.

Well, dgs49 and I agree on something.

dgs49 wrote:My nominee for the most creative user of profanity in media today is Dexter's sister, "Deb." If you haven't heard her dialog, you are missing something. Her preferred insult is to call someone a fuck-tard.

Deb's use of "fuck" is a constant source of amazement ("Holy Frankenfuck!"). Her elevator scene in a recent episode is an absolute riot.

For best use of a substitute for "fuck," my nominee is Battlestar Galactica's use of "frack". It works in every context -- "frack, that hurts," "this fracking thing," "motherfracker" "get the frack out of the way," "are you still fracking him?" -- and the censors didn't bat an eye.

Oh, and let's not forget "jizz-bucket" ....

The elevation of scum - it had to happen

Always floats to the top....