Why Cursing is Unwise

[Ashrem]

I don't think stereotypes have to reflect even a preponderance of reality, only a large enough subsection of it to be quickly recognizable as such, in order to act as a shortcut for communicating information. I'm sure there are some people who believe that every longshoreman curses and drinks too heavily. I don't think that the fact it's not true means it's wrong to use that as a shortcut in movies and books. It gives a shortcut to establishing the backdrop, and is not an unreasonable variation from the actual average within that context. I'd prefer there be examples of longshoremen in the movie who behave differently, but I'm okay if there aren't. I don't feel like creators should cater exclusively to the lowest common denominator, so why should I expect they cater exclusively to me?

I think stereotypes specifically do "reflect" reality because reflections are, by their nature, superficial representations of reality, just as a photograph or a stereotype is. It is up to the observer to understand that the reflection is not everything.

 

[ajqtrz]

@SoggyShorts

The question is not of if the character would, in "real life" say it or not, but if it detracts from the character if he or she doesn't say it. Salty language is acceptable if, as I've said, it's necessary for the plot or character, but does the audience miss anything if the character uses less than perhaps he or she may have under "real life" condititions?

More to the point though is if the character uses it more than absolutely necessary, does it not have a normalizing effect? I noticed that in Stranger Things, both the first and second season, the children use "colorful" language more than necessary and perhaps more than a normal group of kids of that age might. It's not that they use it more or less, but is it necessary for the plot or the character? My judgement is that the characters rarely gain anything by such language and thus ought to lessen their use so that when they do the language has the impact the writers apparently wish it to have. Effective writing is using the right words in the right places to achieve the right impact.

Thus, that they can 'accept' it, is not the right question. Is it necessary and effective for the plot and character is more the right question.

Along these lines I've often thought of sending Netflix a 1,000,000 print out of the f word in all it iterations. I would suggest they use them judiciously since to me almost all their shows (adult "Mature" rated) go way overboard. I suspect they would be gone in about a week or less. It's not that they shouldn't use them at all, but when they do overuse them I think because the writers of the show are just taking shortcuts. It's much easier to simply use an f-bomb than to have the character actually express his or her frustration in creative and descriptive ways, as people also do in "real life." While it may be that in the "real world" some people cannot help but drop the f-bomb every other word or sentence those are not the type of people I find interesting or entertaining AND I suspect that if the writers were to put more effort into their characters instead of taking shortcuts in the name of "realism" their characters would be more interesting and entertaining as well.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

I don't think stereotypes have to reflect even a preponderance of reality, only a large enough subsection of it to be quickly recognizable as such, in order to act as a shortcut for communicating information. I'm sure there are some people who believe that every longshoreman curses and drinks too heavily. I don't think that the fact it's not true means it's wrong to use that as a shortcut in movies and books. It gives a shortcut to establishing the backdrop, and is not an unreasonable variation from the actual average within that context. I'd prefer there be examples of longshoremen in the movie who behave differently, but I'm okay if there aren't. I don't feel like creators should cater exclusively to the lowest common denominator, so why should I expect they cater exclusively to me?

I think stereotypes specifically do "reflect" reality because reflections are, by their nature, superficial representations of reality, just as a photograph or a stereotype is. It is up to the observer to understand that the reflection is not everything.

Whenever we put the onus of responsibility on the observer we weaken the responsibility of the creator. But it is the creator who creates and the observer just observes what was created.

You are, I think, correct to see it as a "shortcut" to establish character. But if so why that iteration of the varied iterations of the character? Why the "foul mouthed" thug instead of the "less foul mouthed" thug? Do we need an extreme example to establish the stereotype? If you want evil think of Hannibal Lecter who, if my memory serves me, didn't use "colorful" language at all or very rarely. Stereotypes may do as you say, establish character, but the use of such language may, even then, not be necessary.

Finally, do we really want to reinforce the stereotype? We live by our experiences and if you are constantly exposed to a stereotype of a particular type of person you eventually begin to believe that all such persons are like that. All longshoremen curse and drink too much. All housewives are overworked and unfulfilled. All minorities are.... Stereotypes, I think, therefore, are generally useful but once they become uniform can lead to applying them to real life as if they actually do reflect it.

Still, I doubt it could be any other way. You only have so much time to tell a story and you can't spend a lot of it delving into the actual character of every minor character. Maybe more creativity in presenting these stereotypes would be a good thing and that means, I think, a bit more flexibility in the language they use -- or don't use.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

Whenever we put the onus of responsibility on the observer we weaken the responsibility of the creator. But it is the creator who creates and the observer just observes what was created.AJ

And conversely, whenever we put the onus of responsibility on the Creator, we weaken the responsibility of the observer. And let's be honest, the creator is already putting out more effort, while the average observer is only too happy to rely on stereotypes so they don't have to think as hard. Starting with the stereotype of expecting happy endings.

 

[SoggyShorts]

does the audience miss anything if the character uses less than perhaps he or she may have under "real life" condititions?

Only if it seems unnatural to the audience, and that will differ from person to person. As long as they don't replace an F-bomb with something I personally think is silly sounding, I'm fine with it.

Pretty much everyone in my life uses at least the occasional cuss, obviously some more than others, so for me, any character that never uses one requires an explanation for it not to sound off.
I imagine that for someone who rarely ever hears a cuss in real life that they would need the opposite: a good reason why the writer felt the need for that character to use such a word.

I have no idea what the average level of desensitization is among all English speakers, so maybe I'm in the minority, but I just don't find much difference between most 4 letter words and other common words, but then comes the C-word. I have a few friends from NZ/AUS, and some of them drop it like it's nothing, and if it's in public or "mixed company", I still cringe a little, not because it bothers me in the least, but because I expect it to bother others.
So for really no logical reason other than exposure, I don't even notice S or F, but C is a little shocking.

 

[Ashrem]

Only if it seems unnatural to the audience, and that will differ from person to person. As long as they don't replace an F-bomb with something I personally think is silly sounding, I'm fine with it.

An excellent example of this is the Fracking in the Remake of Battle Star Galactica, which let them get all the intent they wanted into prime time network television while not making the watcher feel coddled.

 

[teddeler]

Pretty much everyone in my life uses at least the occasional cuss, obviously some more than others, so for me, any character that never uses one requires an explanation for it not to sound off.
I imagine that for someone who rarely ever hears a cuss in real life that they would need the opposite: a good reason why the writer felt the need for that character to use such a word.

That would be me. Nobody in my life swears, or at least uses what is commonly accepted as swear words. Those words aren't even in my vocabulary. A truck nearly hit me when I was on a bicycle and I yelled "Dude!!" at it as it drove off - which is kind of weird since I don't normally use the word "dude." When people cut him off in traffic (or did something else equally stupid), my Dad would mutter "Friend!" at them in an exasperated voice. For me swearing sounds unnatural, unrealistic, and crude, but I'm used to the occasional swear word in shows that I watch. If someone drops an f-bomb it will bother me and I will feel it's unnecessary but I will shrug it off - the first one or two times. Too many and I stop enjoying the show and find something else to watch - usually.
Being a big Doctor Who/ Peter Capaldi fan, I had to check out The Thick of It - a show so full of crude, colorful metaphors that the f-bombs were inoffensive by comparison. I got sucked in by the intelligent humour (I love intelligent humour), the performances and the strange, twisted (or not so twisted) view of British politics. It took me a few tries but I did manage to watch them, but I couldn't watch them without flinching and wanted to re-watch them so I got ahold of digital copies and edited them to make my own bowdlerized version (basically I bleeped out most of the swear words and metaphors). It didn't need the swearing, it's still funny.

 

[ajqtrz]

The only movie I've ever walked out on was "RAW" with Eddie Murphy. I didn't really walk out just because of the language, but because the treatment of the subject matter (for the amount I did remain in my seat) was just plain stupid. I felt like I was on a playground of 14 year old's trying to sound cool. In general I don't stop listening to a show just because the language is rough, but it's a contributing factor, especially since, in my book, it's a cheap way for a writer to fill space without thinking. Good comics, I think, don't need to ratchet up the language in order to be funny, and if they avoid doing so, then have a place where the use of those words can, itself, be very humorous. In today's market having 9 year old kids drop the f-bomb can be funny, but if they use that sort of language all the time it becomes rather trite and tiresome.

I actually think the average person doesn't hear that much crude language at work, and even in public you hear it, but most people don't use it that much. Once the drinking starts though, well, then it seems to come out more. Maybe that's why I've never been drunk -- I would not like to sound like some of the drunks I've heard.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

One of the things I've noticed in the comments is the idea of if it makes a person uncomfortable or not as the standard for it's use. "I'm okay with it" and "I'm comfortable with it" are fine, on a personal level, but the question I'm raising is if it's needed. In other words, shouldn't the studios making these things refrain from things that are not needed and may make others uncomfortable? It's like telling an off-colored joke in public. Should you do it just because you don't find it makes you uncomfortable? Or even a comment that might be taken as sexist, racist, etc...even if you don't feel it is?

In a civil society I think two things need to be present: 1) the willingness to forgo your right if what you want to do is unnecessary and if you have a reasonable idea it may harm or make another uncomfortable; and 2) the willingness to cut somebody some slack when they do say something that causes you discomfort and, at the same time, a willingness to quietly and graciously let them know in private that you were uncomfortable with what they said. Most people don't mean to offend (except some really politically motivated game show hosts who don't seem to be able to do their job without constantly saying nasty things about the other side), and most people will try harder not to offend if they are gently told that what they did was offensive. At least that's been my exerience.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

In a civil society I think two things need to be present:

I agree that it's both the responsibility of the listener and the speaker, but I'm leaning more towards the listener. The last few years especially have seen a tendency towards the "I'm offended" crowd becoming a little over the top.
I don't think there is any word in any language that would bother me. If someone uses an f-bomb instead of "very" or "a lot" that's completely fine, or at least no worse than using those words repeatedly. Sure there are people who lack a mental thesaurus and abuse the word, but I don't expect people to use "copious amounts" instead of "a F__load" when speaking passionately.

shouldn't the studios making these things refrain from things that are not needed and may make others uncomfortable? It's like telling an off-colored joke in public.

So the key is to know your audience. If I had to guess, I'd say that more than half the jokes in existence are capable of offending someone. So should we avoid all of those just in case? I say no. Instead people should have a thicker skin and/or be able to laugh at themselves. Take Russel Peters, you know who loves him? Indian people. (Both in India and my sister in-law's family in Canada) There's probably some Indians who are offended though(there kinda has to be out of 1.1B) But guess who's having more fun, those that can laugh about it, or those that are offended?

 

[mucksterme]

the idea that the measure of acceptable speech is whether or not it could make someone uncomfortable

makes me uncomfortable

 

[Ashrem]

I'm comfortable with the idea that muckster is made uncomfortable by the idea that the measure of acceptable speech is whether or not it makes someone uncomfortable.

 

[mucksterme]

i wish we could ''like'' comments in this forum

 

[teddeler]

I like the statement: If you are going to protect speech, of course you are going to protect offensive speech. Inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.
Can't remember who made it.

Whether studios or people 'should' refrain from offensive language or not, they have the right not to (in most public venues, anyway, as long as you are not also 'disturbing the peace' - I think you can get kicked off public transport for swearing too much/loudly). And I have the right to not socialize with people that make me feel uncomfortable and not go to movies that offend me. The studio that is trying to make a lot of money and appeal to a large demographic will include some offensive language for realism but not too much to avoid chasing away too many more sensitive consumers. The studio that is just trying to shock and make a noise will be as offensive as possible. As long as there are rules in place to protect children (another subject altogether) and warn people that want to avoid that kind of thing, that's their own business.

 

[ajqtrz]

I agree that it's both the responsibility of the listener and the speaker, but I'm leaning more towards the listener. The last few years especially have seen a tendency towards the "I'm offended" crowd becoming a little over the top.
I don't think there is any word in any language that would bother me. If someone uses an f-bomb instead of "very" or "a lot" that's completely fine, or at least no worse than using those words repeatedly. Sure there are people who lack a mental thesaurus and abuse the word, but I don't expect people to use "copious amounts" instead of "a F__load" when speaking passionately.

So the key is to know your audience. If I had to guess, I'd say that more than half the jokes in existence are capable of offending someone. So should we avoid all of those just in case? I say no. Instead people should have a thicker skin and/or be able to laugh at themselves. Take Russel Peters, you know who loves him? Indian people. (Both in India and my sister in-law's family in Canada) There's probably some Indians who are offended though(there kinda has to be out of 1.1B) But guess who's having more fun, those that can laugh about it, or those that are offended?

Again, you measure things based upon if they offend or not, rather than if they are needed or not. Can a commedian be funny without the language of which we speak? If a joke if funny because of the language, that is one thing, but to what degree is the use of such language as merely "filler?" justified? Again, if it offends needlessly why use it? Especially if it's not needed for the joke or communication.

As for the "thicker skin" argument, I'm not sure we want to have that as our standard, Sure, I can tell Italian jokes and maybe get away with it, but what about Ethiopian jokes? Or "inner city" jokes? When does a joke at the expense of a recognizable group cross the line into offensiveness? I agree that in many places we seem to have crossed the line and gone a bit too far, but why play at the edges and step over that line needlessly?

We seem to agree pretty much that the overuse is a unwise thing and, as you imply, may indicate a "lack [of] a mental thesaurus" on the part of those who overuse such language. I suspect I'm wanting to get people to recognize that, in my opinion, most people use such language more than necessary and that is actually detracts from their communication rather than enhances it.

As for "should we avoid all of those [possibly offending jokes] just in case?" I say, yes. I say yes because a really talented comedian can produce things just as funny without them, so why use them? The best comics appeal to the widest crowd and that probably includes people who would be offended by some of the jokes. It's just good business practice to avoid offense since it's the audience that pays the comedian's salary.

Sadly there are few real rules about the language used in films and shows. Historically if you transmitted something over the public air waves the FCC (in the US) can tell you what words you can and cannot use. But when it comes to private communication over the internet or cable, the restrictions are almost non-existent (except for pornography, of course). Thus, you hear 10 - 12 year old children dropping four letter words like sprinkles on their cupcakes...and often it's portrayed as nothing to even blink an eye over.

My point is that ALL people are impressionable, even us adults. ALL people adjust their behaviors and attitudes, often without even realizing it, to fit in with the crowd around them. We are social animals and we rely upon those around us for a lot of things, and thus make accommodations where necessary to get along. When we are given a "view" of something and in that view course language is used, we come to expect such language and eventually grow comfortable with it. I'm not saying the language is wrong, but that it is not wise and thus, when we become more or less accustomed to it and to using it freely, we lower the real power of our language. And when we get the normalizing influence of the media showing us how the "normal adult" speaks it is not surprising we see our society begin to drift in that direction.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

Again, you measure things based upon if they offend or not, rather than if they are needed or not.

That's because without seeing the specific scene in a given movie/joke/TV show, I can't tell you if I feel that removing the offending word would detract from it or not. Sometimes no, sometimes yes, a total non-answer.
Turn the question around, is removing the word "needed"?

As for the "thicker skin" argument, I'm not sure we want to have that as our standard

Well I wish it was. Laughter is one of the greatest things in life, and the more of it the better, from any source.
If one person tells a joke to two others, and one laughs while the other is offended, who would you rather be? While I pity the one who is offended, I'm thrilled to be the one laughing, even when the joke is at my expense.

I agree that in many places we seem to have crossed the line and gone a bit too far, but why play at the edges and step over that line needlessly?

"Yo mama" jokes (while having been largely played out the last couple decades) are specifically designed to be offensive and yet hold a dear place in my heart. Also there is a great area of "dark" humour that needs to walk that line because part of it is the shock value.

The best comics appeal to the widest crowd and that probably includes people who would be offended by some of the jokes.

On this I'm afraid I have to disagree again. "Best" as you describe it isn't the same way I would. I find niche comedians to be the funniest, which suits my definition of "best" as it is applied to comedians.
One of the comics whose work I find very entertaining is Anthony Jeselnik, and his whole routine relies on being offensive. I also enjoyed No Cure For Cancer by Dennis Leary, and I can't imagine his show with softer language.
Due to luck, environment, personality, or whatever reason I'm able to enjoy a great variety of comedy. I even enjoyed RAW, (although not as much as Delirious), so I'm not sure we'll get anywhere comparing comedy acts.... unless Mr Bean? He proves that you don't need any language at all to be funny, but how many can pull that off, and even if more could, how long until that got old?