Why Cursing is Unwise

[ajqtrz]

I thought I'd share what I often share with the young people who come to my classes, many of whom have experienced a whole lot of habitually used "blue" language. I tell them the following two reasons to drop their use of such language to almost nil or even nil if they can.

1) We are constantly speaking to people. Many of our conversations are in public. Thus, there may be many people who we don't know around us. Some of those people may be offended by our dropping the "f-bomb" or other colorful language. Since nobody is offended by my NOT using such language (Has anybody ever complained to you that they hate it that you don't use such language?) why take the chance of offending somebody needlessly.
2) We are constantly speaking to people to persuade them to do something. Part of that persuasion is giving them a sense of how important the thing we are trying to get them to do is to us. In other words, we want them to feel it's important to us. There are only three ways to do that. First,. you can use gestures. Second, you can raise your voice. Third, you can use words. The first is useful but not always as clear as the second. The second works pretty well, but may not be heard. The third can always work -- provided the words used are of the type that get people's attention...the colorful type. The problem being that when you use colorful language all the time, those who know you and whom you would like to understand just how upset you really are, aren't going to notice you dropping an "f-bomb" because you use it all the time! When you use such language all the time you have nothing more forceful in your arsinal of words with which to really have an impact when you need it.

So from a practical point of view the overuse of colorful language may offend others needlessly and gives you no way to use words to get people to understand just how upset you are or the importance of what you are saying.

I use such language on average once a year. When I do everybody drops what they are doing and PAYS ATTENTION! And I never offend anybody with the language I use exactly because when I use such language it's pretty much understood that the situation is such that such language is called for.

Just some thoughts.

AJ

Bonus thought: Using abbreviations in place of the actual language is not an improvement in text. "WTF" is not repeated in the receivers head as "W" "T" "F" but "What The F..... " and so they "hear" the word, not the abbreviation.

 

[DeletedUser11886]

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/healthy/stress/i-swear-its-good-for-you

 

[ajqtrz]

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/healthy/stress/i-swear-its-good-for-you

Good article. And there is nothing in it with which I disagree. I especially love the ending, which reads:

"But please allow me one small plea for temperance (it’s the Catholic guilt, you see). Much as I love my predilection for the language of the sewer now it has a bona fide health benefit, I know it is nevertheless something to be cherished, not abused. Like other habits that tax reward centres, its use brings diminishing returns. “People who swear most in everyday life get less benefit,” says Stephens. “It seems that its emotional effect wears off through overuse.”

I love it that after telling us how good cursing is for us, one of the last things he says is: "It seems that its emotional effect wears off through overuse." His focus is on the swearer and how it effects the one swearing. Mine is on how it effects others (overuse lessons the effect it has) and how it may effect the opinion of other about us (other MAY be offended needlessly). In the end our two perspectives are mostly running parallel since no where do I take the puritan position of "no swearing ever, dammit!" -- LOL)

Thanks for the input.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

. The problem being that when you use colorful language all the time, those who know you and whom you would like to understand just how upset you really are, aren't going to notice you dropping an "f-bomb" because you use it all the time!

I have 1 friend where I can't help but occasionally count the F-bombs as they make up close to a quarter of his vocabulary. When I'm not counting they do have very little to zero impact now.
I think part of the reason people swear a lot is that we abuse the rest of our language too much.
“As humans, we waste the ___out of our words. It’s sad. We use words like “awesome” and “wonderful” like they’re candy. It was awesome? Really? It inspired awe? It was wonderful? Are you serious? It was full of wonder? You use the word “amazing” to describe a goddamn sandwich at Wendy’s. What’s going to happen on your wedding day, or when your first child is born? How will you describe it? You already wasted “amazing” on a_____sandwich.-Luis CK

Bonus thought: Using abbreviations in place of the actual language is not an improvement in text. "WTF" is not repeated in the receivers head as "W" "T" "F" but "What The F..... " and so they "hear" the word, not the abbreviation.

I agree, even though when reading I personally don't hear the words (or letters) in my head, they're just understood. If people are actually speaking abbreviations out loud, which I've heard a few times, that's ridiculous for 2 reasons.
1. Like you said, everyone knows what you are actually saying anyways, those who are offended will be regardless, and it carries less impact.
2. Abbreviations that take longer to say than the words irritate me. "Double-yoo Tee Eff" isn't faster than the real thing.

One thing I've never understood is the perceived connection between religion and words. There aren't any actual bible verses that prohibit certain words that I can find, other than using the lord's name in vain, and general "Say nice things" like
Matthew 15:11 “[It is] not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
Colossians 3:8 “But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.”

 

[Ashrem]

We use words like “awesome” and “wonderful” like they’re candy. It was awesome? Really? It inspired awe? It was wonderful? Are you serious? It was full of wonder? You use the word “amazing” to describe a goddamn sandwich at Wendy’s.

I've considered collecting a book called "Epics of the Information Age" so that historians of the distant future can have a reference to see exactly how many of the "Epic Concert"s and "Epic Fail"s are actually still having stories and poems written about them by bards a thousand years from now.

To be accompanied by "The Uniqueness of Modern Man" A similar collection of everything that ever gets called "really unique" or "very unique" for checking on how many of them really were the only one of their kind, or if they were actually only a "little bit unique" or "kind of unique" or maybe only "slightly unique"

 

[teddeler]

There is also:
Matthew 5:34-36 "Swear not at all; neither by heaven...nor by the earth...neither by Jerusalem...neither shalt thou swear by thy head..."
But I think it's talking about a different type of swearing.

Fan that I am, I've thought about why the Doctor (Doctor Who ) doesn't swear. I decided that swearing is, by definition, offensive to somebody and a word that will just emphasize what you're saying in one era will get you a punch in the nose in another and burned for a heretic in another. So, yeah, nurture a habit for not swearing just in case a police box shows up at your door to sweep you off to the Italian renaissance.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Fan that I am, I've thought about why the Doctor (Doctor Who ) doesn't swear. I decided that swearing is, by definition, offensive to somebody and a word that will just emphasize what you're saying in one era will get you a punch in the nose in another and burned for a heretic in another. So, yeah, nurture a habit for not swearing just in case a police box shows up at your door to sweep you off to the Italian renaissance.

This is hands down my favourite argument for not swearing now, well done.

 

[teddeler]

This is hands down my favourite argument for not swearing now, well done.

You're welcome.

 

[ajqtrz]

@SoggyShorts

I agree that we exaggerate things much more than we need and thus, by implication, to REALLY make it stand out we may find ourselves tempted to use more colorful expressions. The problem is, I believe, like what happened in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3, if you'd like to look it up.). In that story Eve faces off with the serpent and when asked if God said that they couldn't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, replies that, (paraphrased), "No, we can't eat of that tree or even touch it, lest we die." Now the command was to not "eat" of the tree and said nothing about touching it. From this I surmise (perhaps wrongly) Eve want's to add emphasis to the force of the command that she not eat of the tree, or that, when Adam told her of the command (for she was not present when it was issued) he added the "or touch it" for the same reason. Our desire to make our utterances more powerful then they are, so that we persuade those around us to do, think or perceive things differently is understandable, but in the end the use of exaggeration actually undermines clear and effective communication. Just as in a negotiation if you are asked "what's the lowest price you can give me for this" quote a price, and then, when the potential buyer walks, quote and even lower price, you undermines credibility in general (since the next time the buyer will be less inclined to believe your "lowest price"), so to buy exaggeration you undermine the clarity of your words and put doubt into the mind of others. I suspect when Jesus said, "let your yea be yea and your no be no," he may have meant you should be as clear and truthful as you can when you communicate. But that's just my interpretation.

As for the abbreviations being, in essence "words" since they trigger in you the thought and you don't "say" the words the represent in your head, I would suggest two things: First, that they didn't start out that way the first time you saw them...or for a few times after; and second, that not everybody is so familiar with them that they don't have to "say" them to know what they mean. If both cases using them in public amounts to risking offense needlessly. In my opinion risking offense needlessly is not a serious crime but just something not wise to do as you may find moments later you need to make a good impression upon that person.


AJ

 

[DeletedUser12423]

So many good points. And when I say good points, I mean really good ones. Here's one of my faves:

An answer when mild, turns away rage.

Infact, I like it so much that I actually try to live by it. I consider threads like this really imortant. When I was younger I used profanity all too often, but as I grew older I guess I grew out of it. That or life just does that to some people. But I agree with this entire thread, thank you!

 

[ajqtrz]

There is also:
Matthew 5:34-36 "Swear not at all; neither by heaven...nor by the earth...neither by Jerusalem...neither shalt thou swear by thy head..."
But I think it's talking about a different type of swearing.

Fan that I am, I've thought about why the Doctor (Doctor Who ) doesn't swear. I decided that swearing is, by definition, offensive to somebody and a word that will just emphasize what you're saying in one era will get you a punch in the nose in another and burned for a heretic in another. So, yeah, nurture a habit for not swearing just in case a police box shows up at your door to sweep you off to the Italian renaissance.

I suspect you are right that this "swearing" refers to a emphatic promise by which you guarantee your fulfillment by implying a failure to do so would be to forfeit the thing by which you swear -- OR, that the promise you are making is as reliable as the thing by which you are swearing. BUT in both case and in the more general "swearing" you are using words to add emphasis to the the force of your speech. You wish to persuade others to believe you and thus can be easily tempted to exaggeration -- a form of miss-representation. Thus, in the end, I think, both types are related and both dangerous.

And you are correct I think in that the Doctor -- (the article "the" has been debated many times as to if it's "The Doctor" or just "Doctor" -- episodes have been quoted in support of both forms, btw) -- never uses colorful language. It may be that he couldn't as it's a BBC production (or was when it started as a children's show, I believe). In any case, I doubt anyone has ever been offended and wanted to say to him, "I'm offended because you never use the "F" word!" LOL

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

So many good points. And when I say good points, I mean really good ones. Here's one of my faves:

An answer when mild, turns away rage.

In fact, I like it so much that I actually try to live by it. I consider threads like this really important. When I was younger I used profanity all too often, but as I grew older I guess I grew out of it. That or life just does that to some people. But I agree with this entire thread, thank you!

And it helps in debate too. When your opponent begins his or her personal attacks, keep answering calmly and mildly. It's pretty amazing how this particular technique does what it says in most cases as usually they calm down and get back on track. I like to think of debate in terms of if your opponent is throwing stones, be water. Water absorbs the blows and keeps on flowing while the stones sink to the bottom and go no where.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser12423]

It's pretty amazing how this particular technique does what it says in most cases as usually they calm down and get back on track.

It's helped prevent family fights, and helped me even at work in the past. It really is effective, but it's not always easy ^ ^

 

[SoggyShorts]

@ajqtrz
With the Eve&apple I would interpret that as Adam having added the "no touching" rule as a safety precaution. If the rule is not to eat the apple, best not to even go near the tree sort of thing. That's just as likely to be wrong as any other interpretation of an oft-translated centuries old text though.

For the salesman, if they quote $x,xxx as their lowest price, and then go lower than that they are outright lying in an effort to deceive you, and I'm not sure that lines up with cursing for emphasis.

And for the Doctor not swearing I don't know what BBC allows, but it makes sense if it was originally for an all ages audience. I must say though I do find it refreshing on some shows when something major happens and a character says "Holy ****" if that fits with how I see the character. From a hardcore character "Holy cow" sounds unrealistic to me.
Other shows have been clever about it like BSG where they use "Frack" as an expletive. I find that to be a nice compromise.

 

[mucksterme]

On a side note
I have no respect for people who cannot tailor their language to their audience/surroundings.
My father worked most of his life on construction sites. He spent the day in a world where profanity was common language.
But when he came home none of those words left his mouth.
I hate when I see parents swearing around, and worse yet, at their kids.
Then when the kid naturally repeats one of those words they punish them and loudly exclaim to each other, "SEE that is what they learn in these "effing" schools today."
I spent time working construction, I have been no stranger to locker rooms, and I spent years as a volunteer fireman. All of these places use a vocabulary that would be quite at home in the mouth of a drunken sailor.
Yet, somehow I managed to avoid 'those' words when I sat behind a library desk.
Never once did I say, "Why yes Mrs O'neill, I did get that ****** book for you."

And for the Doctor not swearing I don't know what BBC allows, but it makes sense if it was originally for an all ages audience. I must say though I do find it refreshing on some shows when something major happens and a character says "Holy ****" if that fits with how I see the character. From a hardcore character "Holy cow" sounds unrealistic to me.
Other shows have been clever about it like BSG where they use "Frack" as an expletive. I find that to be a nice compromise.

This is something I have preached for years. Realism of language in movies.
If you are watching a movie where a dock worker drops a hammer on his foot and says "gosh darn that hurt" it is just as unrealistic as a movie with a nun dropping f bombs.
The unrealistic language is distracting and pulls you out of the story.

 

[ajqtrz]

On a side note
I have no respect for people who cannot tailor their language to their audience/surroundings.
My father worked most of his life on construction sites. He spent the day in a world where profanity was common language.
But when he came home none of those words left his mouth.
I hate when I see parents swearing around, and worse yet, at their kids.
Then when the kid naturally repeats one of those words they punish them and loudly exclaim to each other, "SEE that is what they learn in these "effing" schools today."
I spent time working construction, I have been no stranger to locker rooms, and I spent years as a volunteer fireman. All of these places use a vocabulary that would be quite at home in the mouth of a drunken sailor.
Yet, somehow I managed to avoid 'those' words when I sat behind a library desk.
Never once did I say, "Why yes Mrs O'neill, I did get that ****** book for you."



This is something I have preached for years. Realism of language in movies.
If you are watching a movie where a dock worker drops a hammer on his foot and says "gosh darn that hurt" it is just as unrealistic as a movie with a nun dropping f bombs.
The unrealistic language is distracting and pulls you out of the story.

The difficulty with making movies or any artistic endeavor "realistic" is that the artist usually draws upon his or her experience. This means that if the dockworkers in Jersey are more prone to use expletives than those in LA, and the artist is striving for realism in LA he or she may not actually be realistic at all. In fact, most "realism" is nothing more than stereotyping as if the stereotype reflects the actual conditions. For instance, most movies concerning young people of high school age create characters that are representative of what the writers think is a typical teenager. Thus, ALL teenagers want to be popular. ALL teenagers will get drunk if they can. And ALL teenagers are rebellious. (Other desires are also assumed as dominating the life of a teenager). But the high school campus is much more complex than the half a dozen "types" represented in these "realistic" works. And while the lack of realism may seem harmless, many teens see these presentations and think that if they aren't like those characters they are "wierd" or "different." Which is the real problem with "realism" in any work of art: it tends to be normative.

Take the portrayal of smoking in movies. In California a bunch of money was spent getting the portrayal of cigarette smoking out of television. They didn't "ban" it so much as they put pressure on studios to only use it when needed for the plot. Within a few years you seldom saw a character smoking. This happened in the mid 1990's. During that period there was a 25% drop in new teen smokers. In other words, 25% of the teen they expected to start smoking, didn't. But then in 2000 the program was de-funded. By 2005 the number of teens taking up smoking rose 25%. It was, of course, a correlation and therefore it may not be, strictly speaking, claimed that the program of getting cigarettes out of the hands of television personalities caused the drop, but the correlation is pretty strong.

More to the point is that when teens or anybody see their peers acting a certain way there is a natural desire to fit in and thus the pressure to act that way. Sociological studies indicate that people go through "stages" of life whereby they sense they are expected to do this or that or to accomplish this or that in that stage. When those stages a portrayed stereo-typically they have a normalizing tendency. So the normalizing effect of art cannot be ignored and we must ask ourselves if what is portrayed as "realistic" really is, and if it's what we want that group to be?

Finally, it is one thing to have the appopirate use of expletives, as in the case described. However, what about the use of language in places where it's use is not warranted by the actions and it seems to be just there to paint a nice stereotypical picture of the character? It may surprise you to know I have a good friend who has been a dockworker in Seattle for years and years and I've never heard him use that language. It may be typical, but it isn't always necessary and might do some good if avoided except in extreme cases...which would give it more power because it wasn't used in everyday language.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

I don't think varied experience is the primary motivator in using stock characters. It's a bit much to expect movies to reflect a specific set of real-life people when viewers may have never experienced that particular set. Fiction usually has a message the creator is invested in, and attempts to draw the reader/viewer in to understanding that message by making them part of the action. Stereotypes they may be, but without those stereotypes, the audience doesn't know what they are experiencing. It's a big investment for an art-creator to draw characters that are not instantly recognizable. Each deviation from the expected requires more investment in establishing character and scene and requires a larger buy-in from the audience. The cursing dockworker who goes home to have a beer, and the football player or cheerleader who's life is devoted to being popular and fitting in allow more of the medium's time to be invested in the particular events and details that the creator is aiming to display.

I will specifically refute your capitalized "All teenagers" by drawing your attention to "Stranger Things" in which very few of the characters fit the norms you describe, and in fact, those that do are most likely to be caricatures to draw attention to the traits that the primary characters eschew.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I will specifically refute your capitalized "All teenagers" by drawing your attention to "Stranger Things" in which very few of the characters fit the norms you describe, and in fact, those that do are most likely to be caricatures to draw attention to the traits that the primary characters eschew.

I'd say there has been a big shift in movie/tv portrayals of high school in the last 20 years, and both then and now pretty closely reflected how they were/are.
When I was in HS almost 20y ago Most (not "ALL") kids did fit into 6 stereotypes, and those that didn't were by definition different. In the last couple of decades being part of a stereotype has become somehow undesirable, and that is also reflected on new TV shows.
BTW in my HS the group you belonged to could be noticed instantly based on where you were at lunch break.

• Jocks in the caf
• G's at one smoking door ("G" for gangster- pretty much trying to emulate hip-hop style while being really white, and having rather wealthy parents)
• Skaters&weed smokers at the other smoking door (included a few fringe types like the handful of punks and even a goth)
• Nerds spent lunch in the library
• Drama Geeks in the drama room
• Cos girls in the cosmetology room

Those 6 groups accounted for about 98% of the 1500 kids at my school. Sure there were some that belonged to more than 1, I myself was a skater kid who played football.

So for me, when I see a 1990's movie about high school with a lot of stereotyping I can totally relate and it seems realistic.

And while the lack of realism may seem harmless, many teens see these presentations and think that if they aren't like those characters they are "wierd" or "different." Which is the real problem with "realism" in any work of art: it tends to be normative.

Maybe we watch different movies, but from what I've seen, the "outsider" is often the protagonist, which would be a good thing for a kid who was worried that they are weird or different. Doesn't the quarterback with the cheerleader girlfriend "lose" in most movies, balancing things out since they were winning in real life? (as far as anything in HS can be considered "winning")

 

[ajqtrz]

@SoggyShorts

The problem being exactly that: "the quarterback with the cheerleader girlfriend" losing most of the time. It's unrealistic in that it's predictable. Life is unpredictable for most people and it is just as likely the quarterback will dating the art freak as the cheerleader -- but stereotypes allow the movie or show to be encapsulated so that we "instantly" understand the social dynamics and the story of the "quarterback with the cheerleader girlfriend" getting their comeuppance is a sort of lesson on why you should have the "proper" attitudes of a democratic and civil society.

In the end the real "outsider" are as predictable as the "insiders" and the whole thing generally strikes me as shallow and preachy. Reality is neither shallow and if there's any preaching going on it's usually a boot applied to the seat of the pants.

But humans love stories and stories, as Aristotle said, must have a beginning, middle and end. Life doesn't but stories do and you get the morals when the proper heroes are rewarded at the end and the villains punished.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's impossible to tell a story without distorting reality and miss-representing it to some degree.

@Ashrem

I agree that it is impossible to get into the details enough to make the moral of the story applicable to the listener. And all stories have morals -- some of which are told to show that there aren't any morals. But to use stereotypes and then insist they reflect "reality" is like starting a race between a tortoise and a hare and then expecting them to actually follow the race course so you can give the proper moral. In the end you might as well have the dock workers say "darn, that hurt!" as what you might think the stereotypical dockworker would say because neither is a reflection of a particular reality -- they are completely imagined.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the British poet of the early 19th century thought that the reader should provide a "willing suspension of disbelief" and the writer a 'semblance" of truth for a story to be told effectively. We do it all the time when we listen to stories, watch TV, read fiction, etc. We do it for entertainment and we are quite willing to do so. But to argue therefore that you cannot willingly suspend your disbelief when it comes to the lack of authenticity" in the language used by an imaginary dockworker, is to bring your critical faculties into the work. So unless that worker MUST speak as they do (for some literary or artistic reason beyond sounding "authentic") why do it? In my opinion it's much like the gratuitous sex in many shows. I don't really need to see to people going at it to understand the depth of their physical relationship, do I? It's "authentic" perhaps, but it's not needed. I'll suspend my disbelief on the matter if you just imply it.

@at Both above.

Great comments. I've really enjoyed your contributions to the forum in general.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the British poet of the early 19th century thought that the reader should provide a "willing suspension of disbelief" and the writer a 'semblance" of truth for a story to be told effectively...............So unless that worker MUST speak as they do (for some literary or artistic reason beyond sounding "authentic") why do it?

I think a character cussing in a cuss-worthy situation helps to prevent the viewer from drifting out of their suspended disbelief. I can accept it when a handgun magically has a clip with 25 rounds in it, but if on top of that when the gun is finally empty, the macho protagonist exclaims "Cheese and Rice" or some other silly sounding replacement for a 4-letter word, that's a step too far.
If an F-bomb seems like something most of the audience can accept the character saying, why not have them say it?