Swearing in the Workplace: To Restrict or Not to Restrict?

[rootX]

Talking evil for some people can be saying something truly horrific like "homosexuality is ok".

Sure.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not sure where this bias stuff came from.


Again, this isn't under the realms of the paper.


I agree there, so does the paper.


I'm not entirely sure what this is in regards to the paper either.

I addressed a specific example (do you know how difficult it is to find papers on this matter?). The paper addresses using profanity in discussion, specifically when trying to be persuasive. It shows it doesn't work to improve and can even have a negative effect. This particular example does apply in a work place scenario. And so far is the only real substance that's been put into this thread.


I'm currently on a document which discusses swearing and it's ability to relieve pain, I'll try to get that up soon. Still, nothing to do with the paper.

Peed off = p*ssed off. Just a 'polite' way of putting it.

re: bold: And when someone says, "N Word" what is that then? When you say peed off, I know now that you're not kidding. Your INTENT and tone matters, not a curse. If you look at DanP and I in the gun thread, as we "part"... I'd say that's pretty hostile on both sides... no curses though.

I think we each got the point however..."I'll pray for you" in the "bite me" sense.

I'd add, when I began to make Muslim friends, I learned that you do NOT say, "son of a *****" even in the way that Americans greet each other. Even, "son of a gun"... it was just a matter of showing respect for their families. To them, that was hurtful and offensive, so I respect that.. and I don't talk like a jocular Texan rancher either.

My point is that we should focus on the content, not the delivery.

After all, look at the paper... what OTHER things can you talk about that would turn women off? Maybe the issue is a preoccupation with cursing as sexual innuendo, and then as pressure... again, situational.

Look...

If a rapist is in court, and has just been convicted, he screams the "c" word at a woman on the jury. I think we'd all have a VERY visceral reaction to that word alone, and when you add the context it's chilling.

Flex is in the workplace, and he's chatting at the "watercooler... he remarks that he had the best ******* burrito last night. OK, not he most decorous delivery, but so what? No hostility, no group is being targeted, the curse itself doesn't demean women for instance, by its very nature.

If you call someone a bastard in the wrong part of the world, you'll pray you'd just sworn at them. One you separate swears from slurs, you're left with the verbal equivalent of smiles and emoticons. Nobody seems to respect them either, yet they're ubiquitous for their ability to convey context that normal language alone lacks.

 

[apeiron]

I would say that, for better or worse, hearing swears is a part of life for a grown woman or man. If she is so impaired by words, then like an irrational fear of anything, she should seek treatment...

...We GIVE words this power with every tiny act of personal and mass cowardice,.

This is rhetoric rather than argument now. You want to say that I am irrational and cowardly if I see neurobiological justifications for constraints on swearing.

So yes, you agree by implication I am having an unavoidable emotional reaction. But it is the "wrong one", an illegitimate one. So one that you don't need to regard.

But I am arguing at a level below this. If there is an unavoidable emotional reaction that is part of expressive speech, then this does raise the legitimate issue of where we should draw the line. Is it rational or irrational to object. Brave or cowardly to have sent out an email of complaint?

You have to actually make the argument now one way or the other, rather than just employ emotionally-charged language to produce a rhetorical conclusion.

I can easily agree with most of what you otherwise say here about the reality of swearing. In practice, it is no big deal as we are all fairly world-wise and multicultural. And from that point of view, this complaining worker could be considered overly-parochial.

But that does not get away from the deeper story - which is always the actually interesting one to me. It is telling the human brain still betrays its underpining of "centres" for expressive vocalisation. And that free speech philosophical debates appear not to have dealt with this bit of neurobiological knowledge in an explicit way.

If you thought the free speech debate is a done deal, then this says not. Unless you can brush it under the carpet by calling it irrational, cowardly and other emotional terms of abuse.

 

[nismaratwork]

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

I don't believe onomatopoeia like "Ow!" or "Aah!" are uncommon exclamations in response to stubbing one's toe. You are likely to hear me follow up with repeated utterances of "Pain! Pain! Agony!" and possibly more "Ow!" mixed in, but uttered more as a word than as a noise.

If Bob says, "Ow, Ah! Owie wowie heck! Oh no, oh heck!" (real quote from me once, needle stick, but around juveniles)... with few exceptions bob is expressing:

Pain. Dismay. Fear. Distress.

If Alice says a litany of curses... it's the same thing. Pain, fear, distress, dismay.

What makes one manner of expression better than another, especially when what is a swear changes all the time?

There is an instinct to let go of an emotional outburst with common content... the dressing doesn't matter. I'd add, to claim that I'm saying there's an instinct to anything except grunting and pointing is just to show what you have and have no read. I did make a case a while ago about the origin of rude gestures in the lexicon of communication.

Are you a filthy beast when you order chicken "breast", which at one time was a taboo thing to say? Will we be wrong to say X, Y, or Z "taboo" word today, which tomorrow is meaningless?

If so, it's not the words, or sounds: it's the context and the meaning behind them, and how you communicate that. If you communicate, "go to hell" with a speech or a gesture, the result is stil, "go to hell".

 

[Evo]

So, I got a very passive aggressive note from a fellow employee, not directed towards me specifically since it was in an e-mail to everyone in the group, saying: "I think less use of profanity in the office would be appropriate."

We all swear in different degrees (except for this guy)... even our mutual manager gets fairly profane. This is the first time he's expressed displeasure. I am very much opposed to restriction of speech at work.

I was thinking of replying with "If you think you have a workable set of rules..."

Any thoughts forum?

EDIT: Also considering making a joke about how "painful" it is to work here, and providing this as a reference: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear).

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is rhetoric rather than argument now. You want to say that I am irrational and cowardly if I see neurobiological justifications for constraints on swearing.

So yes, you agree by implication I am having an unavoidable emotional reaction. But it is the "wrong one", an illegitimate one. So one that you don't need to regard.

But I am arguing at a level below this. If there is an unavoidable emotional reaction that is part of expressive speech, then this does raise the legitimate issue of where we should draw the line. Is it rational or irrational to object. Brave or cowardly to have sent out an email of complaint?

You have to actually make the argument now one way or the other, rather than just employ emotionally-charged language to produce a rhetorical conclusion.

I can easily agree with most of what you otherwise say here about the reality of swearing. In practice, it is no big deal as we are all fairly world-wise and multicultural. And from that point of view, this complaining worker could be considered overly-parochial.

But that does not get away from the deeper story - which is always the actually interesting one to me. It is telling the human brain still betrays its underpining of "centres" for expressive vocalisation. And that free speech philosophical debates appear not to have dealt with this bit of neurobiological knowledge in an explicit way.

If you thought the free speech debate is a done deal, then this says not. Unless you can brush it under the carpet by calling it irrational, cowardly and other emotional terms of abuse.

No, anymore than people need to be held responsible for the abnormal psychology of any other type. Should we all be compelled to kill spiders because we work with an arachnophobe? All we KNOW, is that swearing evokes an emotional reaction... so what? Why isn't that a good thing... in fact, isn't that the point? You wanted to convey an extreme emotion, and you have; that some are emotionally reactive to ANY such displays (children of abuse especially) should inform our MANNERS, not our RULES and LAWS.

You make a case in my view, for a new kind of therapy and treatment, NOT another eggshell to walk on.

 

[nismaratwork]

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

Evo: That just means your policies are different, not better, or worse. You said it: it's on the walls... you signed up for the job, and agreed to the rules.

We sign up here, and we can't swear... fair enough. Neither argue against cursing, they just describe the reaction people have to the possibility of lawsuits and loss of advertising.

Frankly, I don't swear a lot, but when I do, I MEAN it. I'm sure as hell not going to lose my job over it, any more than I'd walk up to a co-worker and tell them that they had a nice rear.

That doesn't mean I don't want to hear that from my honey... or that it's BAD... it's context.


BTW... "that makes anyone else uncomfortable". So, if I curse in a language that nobody knows at your company, with a smile on my face and a spring in my step... nobody is uncomfortable, and all is well.

By the same token I assume that sending an email to my boss saying, "you're dead!" is going to land me in jail. So... where's the curse issue? It just sounds like a need for more secrecy and discretion, and that's how you get, "old boy clubs".

 

[JaredJames]

re: bold: And when someone says, "N Word" what is that then? When you say peed off, I know now that you're not kidding. Your INTENT and tone matters, not a curse. If you look at DanP and I in the gun thread, as we "part"... I'd say that's pretty hostile on both sides... no curses though.

I think we each got the point however..."I'll pray for you" in the "bite me" sense.

Huh? I only used it there because I couldn't be arsed to type "p*****" (or any derivation to prevent filters going off). It wasn't meant to be seen as peed, but p*ssed. Shorthand if you will, not an attempt to be polite, no hidden intent. Looking at it now, I wished I'd just stuck with the usual.

My point is that we should focus on the content, not the delivery.

Which is what the paper does, and it shows the content does impact on the listeners perception of what you are saying - badly. We are dealing with a discussion / debate style affair only within the paper (seriously, getting papers on this ain't easy so I'm working with what I've got).

Everything past this point has nothing to do with the paper. We've seen how far debates go when we only have opinions flying about, so now I'm trying to source some research on the subject. All the stuff below isn't relevant to the context of the paper and so I don't know if you meant it in response to the paper or not.

After all, look at the paper... what OTHER things can you talk about that would turn women off? Maybe the issue is a preoccupation with cursing as sexual innuendo, and then as pressure... again, situational.

Look...

If a rapist is in court, and has just been convicted, he screams the "c" word at a woman on the jury. I think we'd all have a VERY visceral reaction to that word alone, and when you add the context it's chilling.

Flex is in the workplace, and he's chatting at the "watercooler... he remarks that he had the best ******* burrito last night. OK, not he most decorous delivery, but so what? No hostility, no group is being targeted, the curse itself doesn't demean women for instance, by its very nature.

If you call someone a bastard in the wrong part of the world, you'll pray you'd just sworn at them. One you separate swears from slurs, you're left with the verbal equivalent of smiles and emoticons. Nobody seems to respect them either, yet they're ubiquitous for their ability to convey context that normal language alone lacks.

 

[apeiron]

No, anymore than people need to be held responsible for the abnormal psychology of any other type.

Again, where is the line between normal and abnormal here? My argument was that it is evolutionarily normal to respond to expressive vocalisations. And just as normal to become habituated to them if they are not actual threats of course. Possibly abnormal to be oversensitised to them - or possibly not, depending on circumstances.

If swearing aggressively is being read as an aural assault by this worker, then the lack of an adequate response on the part of the workplace would quite rationally be read as reinforcing the aggressive impact. The longer the swearing is allowed to continue, the greater the perceived threat.

Do rights come without responsibilities when it comes to speech? But I think we are only talking about where to draw the line, not where the line should be drawn.

Like you probably, I would in fact draw the line pretty liberally (and I live in a society that does too - even newsreaders here say crap, bugger and piss-poor without bothering the population). But this was a question about the dynamics of a particular workplace. And I simply wanted to draw attention to a missing ingredient in the debate.

 

[Jack21222]

And TBH, I would generally find "It was ******* awesome" to be much less of a recommendation than a mere "It was awesome".

I believe you're one of the only speakers of the English language on this planet who feels that way. Everybody else seems to know that the f-word is used as an intensifier.

 

[JaredJames]

I believe you're one of the only speakers of the English language on this planet who feels that way. Everybody else seems to know that the f-word is used as an intensifier.

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

 

[nismaratwork]

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

You see, I find the opposite: I swear most at those who wouldn't understand or stand for a more detailed or eloquent response. You adapt to be polite, and you adapt to be rude... you adapt, and respect your environment at all times.

 

[nismaratwork]

Huh? I only used it there because I couldn't be arsed to type "p*****" (or any derivation to prevent filters going off). It wasn't meant to be seen as peed, but p*ssed. Shorthand if you will, not an attempt to be polite, no hidden intent. Looking at it now, I wished I'd just stuck with the usual.


Which is what the paper does, and it shows the content does impact on the listeners perception of what you are saying - badly. We are dealing with a discussion / debate style affair only within the paper (seriously, getting papers on this ain't easy so I'm working with what I've got).

Everything past this point has nothing to do with the paper. We've seen how far debates go when we only have opinions flying about, so now I'm trying to source some research on the subject. All the stuff below isn't relevant to the context of the paper and so I don't know if you meant it in response to the paper or not.

re: bold: I hear you, I'm not having luck finding much to put up against your paper either. I completely accept and believe that you meant the other word... it really does make more sense. My point is that being polite can mean swearing along with someone, or it can mean refraining from those words you don't consider swears around some people.

I'm advocating respect for the people around you, assuming that respect is mutual, and often when it isn't. That really has nothing to do with swearing, or language. How I express racism doesn't matter next to the RACISM. How I express love is second to how well the recipient of my expression understands my love.

The words are the Enola Gay, and a separate entity from the bomb.

 

[JaredJames]

those who wouldn't understand

So these people would be in the category of "the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive".

All you did was switch it around to you swearing not them. It's the same underlying issue though, not the opposite.

or stand for a more detailed or eloquent response.

Again, generally as above but then I'm not dumbing down for anyone.

I have a fairly consistent attitude towards everyone. I treat everyone the same. I don't care if you stand in front of me and swear like a trooper, I won't return the favour.

 

[apeiron]

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

I don't believe onomatopoeia like "Ow!" or "Aah!" are uncommon exclamations in response to stubbing one's toe. You are likely to hear me follow up with repeated utterances of "Pain! Pain! Agony!" and possibly more "Ow!" mixed in, but uttered more as a word than as a noise.

I would always use the vulgar alternatives in such circumstances. This is precisely because they are maximally aggressive and threatening. I would be blaming the rock for its malicious act and making it clear I am ready for all out war if it doesn't back off immediately.

Going ow and aah is what the helpless victim of such an assault would say . These are the kinds of expressive vocalisations intended to evoke sympathy from others.

It may indeed be silly to shout F**** C**** at a rock. But it does go directly to the particular nature of the emotional response. And so in turn to the possibly legitimate feelings of the worker in the OP.

 

[JaredJames]

I would be blaming the rock for its malicious act and making it clear I am ready for all out war if it doesn't back off immediately.

I tried to 'deck a brick pillar' once when walking home drunk because it shoved me onto the floor.

It may indeed be silly to shout F**** C**** at a rock. But it does go directly to the particular nature of the emotional response. And so in turn to the possibly legitimate feelings of the worker in the OP.

It's not the words themselves, it's what they do in your mind that helps the pain. For different people the words can be different. In some, "ow" and "ah" can do it. (It's in the paper I'm working through now.)

 

[Jack21222]

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

Hurkyl did NOT say there's no difference. Hurkyl said he'd find the description with the swear LESS of a recommendation. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

 

[Hurkyl]

If Bob says, "Ow, Ah! Owie wowie heck! Oh no, oh heck!" (real quote from me once, needle stick, but around juveniles)... with few exceptions bob is expressing:

Pain. Dismay. Fear. Distress.

If Alice says a litany of curses... it's the same thing. Pain, fear, distress, dismay.

What makes one manner of expression better than another, especially when what is a swear changes all the time?

Only the denotation is the same; Alice connotes an offense through her choice of words, Bob does not.

Alice may not have intended an offense, but that doesn't change the fact she uttered one.


Eve violently flails about when she gets hurt. It's still the same thing -- pain, fear, distress, dismay. Would you have us pretend Eve isn't being violent just as you would have us pretend Alice isn't being offensive?

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, where is the line between normal and abnormal here? My argument was that it is evolutionarily normal to respond to expressive vocalisations. And just as normal to become habituated to them if they are not actual threats of course. Possibly abnormal to be oversensitised to them - or possibly not, depending on circumstances.

OK, I'm with you. When someone is extremely angry to the point of losing it, I'd love a little verbal warning. I also bolded, "aggressively", because you added that... nowhere in flex's story have I heard about someone swearing "Aggressively".

If swearing aggressively is being read as an aural assault by this worker, then the lack of an adequate response on the part of the workplace would quite rationally be read as reinforcing the aggressive impact. The longer the swearing is allowed to continue, the greater the perceived threat.

That is entirely situational, which is why HR exists. If someone is knows that X person hates to hear Y word, and you make it your mission to shove Y in X's face as often as possible... you're assaulting them verbally. You could do the same by just saying, "hey man, you know how much I respect you? Some kind of wizard, that's what you are... smarter than god and twice and bright!" They're going to get the sarcasm I hope, and when they boil that sentiment down, it's the intent behind a hostile, "**** you!".

Again, the case is made here that specific words have power that we give them, and that we need to reinforce that power by buying into this superstition around words. Neurologically, GREAT... you SHOULD react to hostility, or extreme joy. If you react in a manner that deviates from DSM and EU norms to the point of "Clinical Significance", then you need help. If the content of conversations that don't involve, concern or are directed at you disturb you to the point of perceived assault, that is a clinically significant symptom of PTSD.

Do rights come without responsibilities when it comes to speech? But I think we are only talking about where to draw the line, not where the line should be drawn.

There is no line here, just a shifting and undulating barrier that retreats, then advances, then retreats again. If you're invoking the neurological response again, I'll say again: if it's clinically significant that person needs help. If not, then deal with it directly, or through the company.

Like you probably, I would in fact draw the line pretty liberally (and I live in a society that does too - even newsreaders here say crap, bugger and piss-poor without bothering the population). But this was a question about the dynamics of a particular workplace. And I simply wanted to draw attention to a missing ingredient in the debate.

Oh, I have no delusion that we're somehow separated by a vast gulf of sensibilities here: I get it, you don't debate at half speed, and I like that. By all means, defend and make your point vigorously, and independently of your own sensibilities; I respect hat.

Personally, the "N" and "C" words make me cringe. No rhyme or reason... just a reaction. I respect and love women, and I hate racism and bigotry. If a comic is trying to find the "edge" with those words, and they're genuinely funny and making a point? I'm not cringing anymore, but only in that context.

In this workplace, a mass-mailing is a passive-aggressive act, rather than the appropriate response: confronting the people bothering you, or going to HR so they do their job and confront them for you. There is something to be said, not just for acceptance, but just plain TOLERANCE; if it's not (insert Asimov RULES) then by all means... tolerate it. I tolerate body odor from some, and ugliness.

Humans have quite a reaction to ugly people, and feel stressed and uncomfortable around initially around those who are obviously disabled. Some never get over that discomfort. I don't think a spike on an EEG, or a suffused region of the brain = perceived assault and trauma... I think it's just that curses are the closest we have (next to touching) to limbic-limbic contact. So, it's more intense than less emotionally charged language, for good and ill.

 

[JaredJames]

Hurkyl did NOT say there's no difference. Hurkyl said he'd find the description with the swear LESS of a recommendation. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

Limiting vocab? He added a number of words in the example without the swear in comparison to the one with. How is that limiting your vocabulary?

If I find "It was amazingly brilliant" a good recommendation and "It was f****** brilliant" less so, how does that make less sense? More vocab in the first - two beautifully descriptive, innocent words instead of one that may cause offence.

Choosing an alternative is not limiting your vocabulary in any way. It is simply choosing to use something else.

 

[nismaratwork]

Only the denotation is the same; Alice connotes an offense through her choice of words, Bob does not.

Alice may not have intended an offense, but that doesn't change the fact she uttered one.


Eve violently flails about when she gets hurt. It's still the same thing -- pain, fear, distress, dismay. Would you have us pretend Eve isn't being violent just as you would have us pretend Alice isn't being offensive?

I would be concerned that Evo isn't acting in a manner consistent with an adult of her age, gender, and background, and I'd be concerned.

Lets back up however... you said, "she uttered one"... an offense. You just opened up the world of, when is an offense offensive, and when does it STOP? How do words move up and down that scale, and if not through feedback and use...?

I'd say she uttered a word that carried the same feeling we all have when we feel pain, and in combination with gestures and flailing, Bob might TAKE offense (if he's utterly unaware of the situation), but there's nothing special and offensive about a pattern of utterances. If you can formulate an axiom for that however, I'm all ears, but I think you'll find it always comes down to the listener and context.

The ATTEMPT to formulate universal rules around profanity is just a means of limiting your expression... and I could care less. I've made my point, the history of language as a means of separating classes is there along with which words are now, "offensive".

So no Hurkyl, unless you can somehow support the idea that offense originates in the word... not the intent OR the listener... you've made one of the few factually incorrect statements here.

 

[apeiron]

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

Is it stretching a point to say there is still a latent aggressive intent here? - ie: you really better agree with me about the awesome-ness. That is how it comes across to my ears anyway. It intensifies the assertive tone. And in some cultures, that is pretty rude.

Awesome is of course a fabuously fatuous term, used so reflexively it usually equates to "quite good" in practice. So no surprised if it has to be intensified by expletives.

 

[nismaratwork]

Limiting vocab? He added a number of words in the example without the swear in comparison to the one with. How is that limiting your vocabulary?

If I find "It was amazingly brilliant" a good recommendation and "It was f****** brilliant" less so, how does that make less sense? More vocab in the first - two beautifully descriptive, innocent words instead of one that may cause offence.

Do you have any doubt in your mind that I could, given a chance, deeply offend a number of people here without cursing... and I believe I already have. I would rather live in a world where we care for those who need help, and when it comes to expression we aren't so quick to judge based on old notions of proper language.

Unless you're saying that having the option to say BOTH phrases is somehow not more options that just the "polite' version?

My argument, in essence, boils down to this: would you rather have Winston Churchill or Oscar Wilde try and offend you without curses, or would you rather they call you a **** and move on? Nothing has changed... they still feel the way they feel, it's just a matter of your awareness of that.

I prefer to know how people feel, and where they stand; artificially polite language shows a preoccupation with image over substance in my view, sending its own negative signal.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl did NOT say there's no difference. Hurkyl said he'd find the description with the swear LESS of a recommendation. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's because you are not just asserting the concert was awesome in an intense manner -- you are modifying the meaning by adding the taint of profanity. While I can easily imagine some would disagree, I find that much less appealing than a pure expression of joy.

There is a secondary aspect -- you convey an attitude of casual obscenity, which has a mild implication that your tastes are quite misaligned with mine.

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

He didn't say "more descriptive", he said "suitably descriptive". It doesn't help to be "more descriptive" if your choice of descriptive words don't match the description you are trying to convey.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's because you are not just asserting the concert was awesome in an intense manner -- you are modifying the meaning by adding the taint of profanity. While I can easily imagine some would disagree, I find that much less appealing than a pure expression of joy.

There is a secondary aspect -- you convey an attitude of casual obscenity, which has a mild implication that your tastes are quite misaligned with mine.

"taint of profanity". Social taint because of class-standards? Taint of rudeness? Taint of idiocy? What?

As for less appealing... I agree, but that's a decent self-reinforcing reason that most leave a concert saying, "that was great!", and not, "That was ******* awesome!". By the same token, if the lead trombone was drunk. the cellist was palsied, and the conductor was on acid... maybe you don't want to waste time describing anything... you just say, "that was pure "doo-doo" "

Your assumption that taste and profanity somehow align in a predictable way is unproven and highly personal... really it just says what you think of apeiron based on what he's said. To me, it says you value form over function in language for reasons you're yet to explain or demonstrate other than an allusion to a taint, and an appeal to aesthetics.

 

[nismaratwork]

He didn't say "more descriptive", he said "suitably descriptive". It doesn't help to be "more descriptive" if your choice of descriptive words don't match the description you are trying to convey.

You have an axiom for suitability?... EXCELLENT. We can file this under "taint", and you're on your way to really leaving solid ground behind.

 

[Hurkyl]

Quite a demonstration that one need not curse to be offensive. But then, nobody claimed otherwise.

"taint of profanity". Social taint because of class-standards? Taint of rudeness? Taint of idiocy? What?

Taint, noun: "a contaminating mark or influence". Also, verb: "to touch or affect slightly with something bad" -- a synonym of contaminate that emphasizes the loss of purity. (reference, www.m-w.com)

Such as when describing a profanity as a modifier, thus influencing the meaning of a word to include the profane / offensive nature of the profanity.

Your assumption that taste and profanity somehow align in a predictable way is unproven and highly personal...

If nothing else, I would expect a decent correlation between the casual usage of profanity and the tolerance/preference for gratuitous use of profanity by others.

 

[Hurkyl]

I would be concerned that Evo isn't acting in a manner consistent with an adult of her age, gender, and background, and I'd be concerned.

(Eve is the person who traditionally eavesdrops on Alice and Bob's conversations)

Lets back up however... you said, "she uttered one"... an offense. You just opened up the world of, when is an offense offensive, and when does it STOP? How do words move up and down that scale, and if not through feedback and use...?

You said she uttered a curse. If her utterance wasn't somehow profane, obscene, or otherwise offensive, then it wouldn't be a curse.

I'd say she uttered a word that carried the same feeling we all have when we feel pain, and in combination with gestures and flailing, Bob might TAKE offense (if he's utterly unaware of the situation),

If I get hit in the face by someone flailing about in pain, I don't think I could take it any other way than feeling that I've been hit in the face.

So no Hurkyl, unless you can somehow support the idea that offense originates in the word...

While I am quote familiar with the notion

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

I am also quite aware that words have established meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate very effectively.

Even if Eve didn't mean to hurt me by flailing around, that doesn't stop me from being hurt.

 

[caffenta]

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

I'd say this is true at pretty much every company. I can't believe this thread even exists. Is this even an issue? Restriction of speech at work? Try that at your exit interview. See if it gets you hired back.

If you're around like-minded coworkers, it's fine to swear, but as a general rule? Right...

 

[nismaratwork]

Quite a demonstration that one need not curse to be offensive. But then, nobody claimed otherwise.

Good, then you got my point, and I think the converse holds true.

Taint, noun: "a contaminating mark or influence". Also, verb: "to touch or affect slightly with something bad" -- a synonym of contaminate that emphasizes the loss of purity. (reference, www.m-w.com)

Such as when describing a profanity as a modifier, thus influencing the meaning of a word to include the profane / offensive nature of the profanity.

You could just as easily say, "the taint of the lower class," and you'd be in place in this country not that long ago. The reality of course, is that (a la "Good Will Hunting"), you tend to find a lot of cursing (as well as, "um", and "like") amongst less educated people raised in areas that are less affluent than those lucky few of us. Beyond that, what purity is being lost, and what is it being TAINTED, or "contaminated" with?... and don't just circle back and say profanity.

Is it the taint of: Ignorance? Stupidity? Poor Langauge Skills? A Temper? What conclusion will you reach about someone who curses, "like a sailor," while someone with a smile and a kind word goes about telling you politely to go to hell? Then again, I suppose the world needs aesthetes.

If nothing else, I would expect a decent correlation between the casual usage of profanity and the tolerance/preference for gratuitous use of profanity by others.

So what? I'd say polite language tend to have the same effect, but I still haven't made a case for either. Once again, as with all forms of communication, this is a matter of taste, situation, and respect for your environment, including the people in it. Beyond that...


I'll buy that, but that just goes to show that it's like any linguistic phenomenon, and as its subject to rapid and gradual changes. It ALSO goes back to the point that the usual people who are "messed", and curse casually as a part of speech... tend to be less educated. So yes, obviously linguistic trends like profanity would naturally build, peak, and then new words would come to replace them. We've enshrined at least Carlin's Seven "dirty words" (and there was a bright man who swore casually) and all that does is reduce the impact of those words and drive the creation of neologistic curses.

 

[nismaratwork]

(Eve is the person who traditionally eavesdrops on Alice and Bob's conversations)

OK, that's good to know. I'll stick to convention.

You said she uttered a curse. If her utterance wasn't somehow profane, obscene, or otherwise offensive, then it wouldn't be a curse.

That is the linguistic equivalent of, "If a tree falls in the woods.." It's a curse because it was obscene and offense, so it's a curse."

Daddy Hurkyl, if that logic is a closed loop, where do baby curses come from?

If I get hit in the face by someone flailing about in pain, I don't think I could take it any other way than feeling that I've been hit in the face.

I agree, so it then comes down to how you express a universal experience we can't describe with words. We can communicate through out body language (flailing, tears... I like to fill my pants to the brim just to add a sense of desperation...) the content of our words, and the fact that we choose at that moment to use whichever words are currently considered "taboo". We have taboo words of varying degrees in part, for that reason... or maybe the first really distinct, "Ooga!" that started going around the caves was having an effect on the young cave-boys an cave-girls was the first curse? I get the strong feeling whatever it was, someone else took offense because of the emotionally evocative nature of the exclamation... and some people don't like that kind of thing at all.

While I am quote familiar with the notion

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

I am also quite aware that words have established meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate very effectively.

Even if Eve didn't mean to hurt me by flailing around, that doesn't stop me from being hurt.

No... I'm not saying that you can reverse the process of imbuing a word with meaning "lone ranger" style. I'm not saying that you could smile and curse and Evo, and she should get the hint that, hey, it's just Hurkyl being Hurkyl!

What I'm saying is that your argument presupposes, at a basic level, an objective negative quality to curses, which are words. I'm not trying to dance on the head of a pin with, "I'm the cock of the walk, but don't watch me whip out my... chicken." In fact, that just supports the point I'm making. There CAN be a taint of rudeness, or of disrespect, or contempt, but that is loaded into words for rapid use. While they are widely considered meaningful, they ARE meaningful because they accurately communicate the underlying feeling.

It's how you express those feelings that matters, and not the style you choose. You shouldn't rip Evo using polite language, and you if she takes offense, you shouldn't compliment her with a curse. That is about mutual respect and communication, and goes to your point about being hurt. Yours is a case for respect, and to make that clear through language... fair enough, but that isn't a case to damn all curses, just a reason to not NEED or WANT to curse.

 

[FlexGunship]

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

And not everybody is raised to fear vulgarity reflexively!

I mean, seriously, you can't see your own socio-cognitive bias here?! It's almost staggeringly obvious.

 

[FlexGunship]

This is rhetoric rather than argument now. You want to say that I am irrational and cowardly if I see neurobiological justifications for constraints on swearing.

So yes, you agree by implication I am having an unavoidable emotional reaction. But it is the "wrong one", an illegitimate one. So one that you don't need to regard.

But don't you see how easily your house of cards falls? What if a family raises their child to fear certain colors? Or fear the phrase "Safety glasses." That's exactly what we're talking about here, is an irrational fear of certain sounds and ideas.

We're not talking about racial slurs, gender slurs, or anything of the sort... just profanity.

 

[JaredJames]

And not everybody is raised to fear vulgarity reflexively!

I mean, seriously, you can't see your own socio-cognitive bias here?! It's almost staggeringly obvious.

Whats all this fear BS? Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I fear it.

Now, I have shown a source that indicates profanity having a negative effect on speech, I'm working through two others now. Unless you can show me a source that indicates a positive effect (pf guidelines and all that) I'm not really interested in anecdote and opinion.

 

[FlexGunship]

Whats all this fear BS? Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I fear it.

Now, I have shown a source that indicates profanity having a negative effect on speech, I'm working through two others now. Unless you can show me a source that indicates a positive effect (pf guidelines and all that) I'm not really interested in anecdote and opinion.

Are you joking. The entire thread turned to PTSD, harassment, and how people feel when someone swears around them. If this thread had anything to do with "disliking" something, then there would be no thread. I dislike religious icons, but there's a guy with a big Ichthys on his cubicle wall. I dislike the smell of burnt popcorn and the woman at the end of the row has not figured out how to pop it without burning it in the last 4 years.

Jared, this thread is not about disliking something. It's about irrational reactions to certain words (whether you agree with those reactions or not).

Now... about your source.

"Swearing is such a common response to pain that there has to be an underlying reason why we do it," says psychologist Richard Stephens of Keele University in England, who led the study. And indeed, the findings point to one possible benefit: "I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear," he adds.

(Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear Link to original paper available there)