Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: On Language  (Read 7253 times)

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
On Language
« on: May 16, 2014, 03:02:46 pm »

In a heated topic now closed cursing was brought up and used. Once in the form of initials and then the words. For me, I grew up a street kid in NYC cursing was a way of life. However I see no difference in using initials or the words. I also feel like if someone talks to me like I am a piece of garbage they are doing the same as cursing. This is not an attempt to justify or bring up the topic discussed but how do we see our language affecting others. David
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: On Language
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2014, 01:05:50 am »

Language is a very is a very personal topic...but it's a complicated social phenomena. Different people will respond to different language in radically different ways.

As a "habitual swearer" (spend time with me personally and you'll hear all manner of expletives uttered except the "C" word that my wife does not allow me to use) I've learned that in a small, personal conversation, pretty much anything goes. However, in public, I've learned that there are lines one does not cross.

At one point, I did a workshop in NYC called Digital Imaging For Photographers. In the audience were New York City photogs–a lot of them my personal friends. During the workshop (since I was in front of my NYC friends) I liberally used the "F" word a lot...(some of my best friends were sitting in front and they "got it"). At the end of the day, one of the sponsors came up to me and said "ya know, I lost count of the number of times you said the "F" word before lunch. The count was 80 times...he told me something that day that has stuck with me ever since...if you have no self discipline in your language, you loose the attention of the audience. If you pick and choose when and if to use certain words, they actually garner more importance and have greater impact. If you say those word all the time, their meaning and value diminish.

After that discussion, I vowed to never say the "F" word when I was wearing a mic. Why? Because in almost all cases, the "F" word isn't needed if you can find an alternative. Saying the "F" word turns some people against you regardless of the audience (although inside of NYC it's less of a problem than the rest of the country).

Ever since, I've been very careful of the words I choose to use...and I literally quit using the "F" word in public. I found alternatives that were equally effective and weren't as socially unacceptable.

So, I became a master of using terms like "F'ing", "Friggin" and even tended to over-use "fracking" (which started as a reference to Battlestar Galactica before fracking became associated with a more derogatory anti-envoronmental terms for raping the earth to get oil & gas).

As an author, I can tell you that exactly what words you choose matter. You can choose to go full bore and type the entire actual "F" word (sorry, I'm not gonna do it) or you can choose to use alternative language. Yes, the alternatives get the same point across without the tendency to offend the listeners (or readers).

Is using a euphemism for a certain word the same as using the word? Of course not–otherwise we wouldn't have euphemisms. DOH...I mean if you don't understand the differences then your brain ain't working.

There are lines you can cross in private that you shouldn't cross in public (although with the recent brouhaha with the Clippers owner talking to his girlfriend, I'm not so sure what's private vs public).

LuLa is a public forum...when you type some words, they go out to the internet never to be removed. It's exists for ever...so, if you want to make a point, it behooves you to understand the implications of what you type.

You can type the full word or you can type the euphemism (or alternative words). Is there a different? For darn sure tooting...

Try using the full "N" word in public surrounded by black people and see if the full word and the euphemism, "N Word", results in different physical injuries.

Yeah the words you type here on LuLa make a difference...using a euphemism vs the actual words makes a world of difference. In once case (the euphemism) you are giving the reader a degree of respect that the euphemism is enough of an emphasis that you don't need to use the full typed word. Nobody should be upset with the euphemism, even if everybody knows the meaning...using the full typed word is a sign of disrespect to the reader.

So, you might wonder why me (as the "pit bull of LuLa") should be so offended by somebody actually typing out the full "F" word, I'll tell you...it shows a lack of respect for the community and the reader. Allowing that to continue brings down the value and usefulness of the community because to sends the forums down a dark, stinky hole.

If you don't have the creativity or language skills to get your meaning across without resorting to typing out words that offend, then we really don't need you around here IMHO.

Also, if you think that I'm a obnoxious arse (note I didn't type a$$), that's ok...I can live with that. I write aggressively...I don't take prisoners and I don't suffer fools graciously. But I don't do Ad Hominem attacks (as a general rule unless an  Ad Hominem attack is first launched at me). I attack ideas...and yes, I'm pretty good at doing that, and yes that can piss people off (am I allowed to type piss?).

Look...some people loose control over their emotions when posting on line. I don't...I've been posting online since the very early AOL and Compuserve days...I get right up to the line, but try really hard not to cross lines.

And yes, I understand the irony that my complaining about somebody typing the "F" word lead to the closing of a thread...but that thread had died way before.

So, think before you type (I always do) and see if you can craft your language to get you point across without using offending language. I mean WTF? I know some people here are not native English speakers (and I congratulate then for the English–cause I can't read their native tongues–I'm just a dumb American).

LuLa is Mike's (and now Kev's) place...they set the rules. But it would be useful for everybody here to respect the LuLa community and do nothing to soil it.

To finish off my story about no "F" words when a mic is on (you never heard me say that on any of the LuLA videos). Epson wanted to tape an interview with me to promote one of the new printers with new inksets. The video would ONLY be used in-house and not shown publicly. The video director wanted me say "With this new Epson inkset, I'm upset because with the new inks, it means I'll need to reprint my whole friggin' portfolio (insert full "F" word here). Normally, I can get something in 2-3 takes...but since I had a mic on, I had a real hard time getting the line right. I kept fumbling over the "F" word...I was really upset but the Epson guy (the same guy that mentioned my 80+ "F" words before lunch) thought is was incredibly funny!

Come on folks...you all know better. Be careful what you type...it can't be undone (but it can be edited by the moderators if need be and I suspect it will be for the foreseeable future based on this latest locked thread).
Logged

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: On Language
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2014, 01:30:34 am »

i agree language is personal and as someone who does take initials or euphemisms for the real thing I ask everyone am I the only one when I read POS or other terms in initials I hear in my head as I read, the words. I appreciate the time you took Schewe . I can tell you if someone uses initials or euphemisms at me I will take it as the actual words. i do appreciate this site greatly. In one of my responses I almost took a words that I would've regretted I took a moment and stopped my self, so easy on the web to react and not think. I just want people to know how someone else might feel, over something that someone else might think is no big deal.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: On Language
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2014, 01:46:04 am »

i agree language is personal and as someone who does take initials or euphemisms for the real thing I ask everyone am I the only one when I read POS or other terms in initials I hear in my head as I read, the words.

But...that's the baggage you are personally carrying...

If somebody uses a euphemism, it's unfair to read that as the actual, fully typed words. If you choose to ignore the euphemism and read the full words, that's on you. If one types the full words (and crosses that line), it's on them.

There is a huge difference (or should be).

None of this "writing on an internet forum" is easy...different people have different rules and pain points. Using a euphemism shows a degree of respect that typing the full words doesn't.

So, I gotta ask, if I type WTF, is that really the same to you as WHAT THE F@#K?

Really? Then that's on you...not me.

(note, I still couldn't type the full four letter word in public).
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: On Language
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2014, 03:23:35 am »

So, I gotta ask, if I type WTF, is that really the same to you as WHAT THE F@#K?

Really? Then that's on you...not me.

Nonsense.

If you don't want your words to be read as "WHAT THE F@#K" don't type "WTF".
Logged

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: On Language
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2014, 04:04:35 am »

For me the point is to try and not degenerate into something not constructive so what do you want to accomplish, say something is on me, or trying to understand others ,and have a informative dialogue? I suspect with most here if they examine there hearts will say to be constructive with others. The dry written word on the internet can come across so harsh.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: On Language
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2014, 04:22:39 am »

If you don't want your words to be read as "WHAT THE F@#K" don't type "WTF".

So, ask yourself, why did you type "WHAT THE F@#K"?

Why didn't you type it all out?

Chicken?
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2299
Re: On Language
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2014, 04:48:12 am »

Language is a very is a very personal topic...

Very nice anecdote.  But your (lack of) command of the English language is not the issue here.  

You conveniently miss the seminal point in the thread you're referring to – context.   'jjj' typed the full version of Andrew's BFD because, I suspect, he was tired of seeing the unrelenting and repetitive use of the initialism. That's what Andrew was saying and he spelt it out.

Typing the odd WTF or BFD can be used as emphasis  – in some circumstances, not all. In some cases it can even be humorous. The repetitive use, however, crosses the line. Is it offensive ? Yup. I'd argue that the repeated usage is just as offensive as writing the full word or expression and frankly, it's both unnecessary and uncalled for.  When the connotation and tenor are offensive – there is NO difference.

LuLa is Mike's (and now Kev's) place...they set the rules.

Michael put it well:
“ Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table. “

Are you trying to argue that repeated use of some initialisms don't constitute 'gratuitous profanity' ?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 04:56:04 am by Manoli »
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2299
Re: On Language
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2014, 04:49:49 am »

If you don't have the creativity or language skills to get your meaning across without resorting to typing out words that offend, then we really don't need you around here IMHO.

Delete 'words' insert 'expressions'.
Logged

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: On Language
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2014, 05:04:06 am »

The more vulgar a word, the greater it's linguistic flexibility and besides
Quote
In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the mere public display of fuck is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and cannot be made a criminal offense.
. Made me wonder though about this saying "de minimis not curat lex,"that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles. ;D


Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: On Language
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2014, 07:39:31 am »

Well-chosen use of generally taboo words can provide very effective emphasis.

Accidental use is often merely funny: http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/05/legal-pic-of-the-day-30/

Jeremy
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: On Language
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2014, 01:34:52 pm »

Why didn't you type it all out?

Because I was quoting your words!

There's nothing complicated about this -- if you don't want people to be distracted by vulgarity don't use vulgarity.

Apparently you wish to provoke by using vulgar expressions, but you don't wish to be censured for doing so. I don't think many people are fooled by the charade.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:54:38 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: On Language
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2014, 01:52:16 pm »

Apparently you wish to provoke by using vulgar expressions, but you don't wish to be censored for doing so.

I think you mean "censured", although I suspect he doesn't want to be censored, either.

Jeremy
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: On Language
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2014, 01:54:32 pm »

In case you missed it in another thread (about acronyms):

 ;)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: On Language
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 02:02:18 pm »

Some time ago, I proposed to replace the vulgar RTFM with a polite RTMF*. See? The same letter, different place, world of difference.


*Read The Manual First

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: On Language
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2014, 02:08:03 pm »

RTM (a TLA)
Logged

John McDermott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Re: On Language
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2014, 03:48:24 pm »

I always thought RTFM meant Read The Friendly Manual  ;D
Logged
John E. McDermott

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: On Language
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2014, 04:17:55 pm »

But...that's the baggage you are personally carrying...

If somebody uses a euphemism, it's unfair to read that as the actual, fully typed words. If you choose to ignore the euphemism and read the full words, that's on you. If one types the full words (and crosses that line), it's on them.


I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to language, but long ago realized that some others do not. It's not right or wrong, it's just one way that people differ. So, in the spirit of civil conversation, I do my best to avoid using words (or euphemisms, etc.) that might offend others. Is it "on them" if they are offended when I meant no offense? Perhaps, but that's beside the point. If you (generic "you") want to have a respectful and intelligent conversation (as opposed to braying about how smart and cool you are and how dumb the other guy is), then show restraint. Use of potentially offensive language, quite frankly, comes across as immature and, given the immense richness of English, shows an unfortunate poverty of expression.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: On Language
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2014, 07:12:56 pm »

You conveniently miss the seminal point in the thread you're referring to – context.   'jjj' typed the full version of Andrew's BFD because, I suspect, he was tired of seeing the unrelenting and repetitive use of the initialism. That's what Andrew was saying and he spelt it out.
And BFD could stand for Big Friggin Deal. jjj typed the full version, I didn't because I understand the rules. If and when Michael and company spell out that BFD or RTFM is not tolerated, I'll be happy to refrain from their use. FWIW, I doubt the thread was closed down due solely to jjj spelling out what he did.
BFD also an acronym for Bakersfield, Boston and Buffalo Fire Department. While RAW stands for nothing to do with a raw camera format despite the number of people who use it that way. RAW could easily be interrupted creatively with "dirty" words too. So what?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: On Language
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2014, 07:20:37 pm »

And BFD could stand for ...

Indeed, as WTF could stand for "Well, That's Fantastic"  ;)
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up