Cindy Smart Knows Better Than To Say Naughty Words

D'Sphitz writes "Cindy Smart, the first doll in the world to be able to read, tell the time and do sums. Cindy Smart 'sees' via a camera located under a bee on her overalls and has a computer 'brain' that can recognise more than 600 words and objects, although she refuses to recite certain 4-letter words. 'We don't say those kind of words,' she shrills, refusing to even spell obscenities. 'That's a bad word.'" Sounds like a good candidate for a personality transplant.

Comments

Re:What's wrong with Germanic roots?

[onemorehour]

You have an interesting point, but I doubt that every day English users are thinking about the linguistic roots of words when making such value judgements.

I think that the value people place on words is influenced only very indirectly by past usage. People think "intelligent" sounds more sophisticated than "smart" because "smart" is used more commonly. It's a bit circular, I know, but I think it's true.

Remember the first time you heard the word "epiphany"? Since its meaning is so specific, you probably thought it was a sophisticated word. Once you found out that everyone and their mother was using it, it probably lost its lustre. The word "perogative" lost all its dignity when Will Smith explained it to the masses. I guess I just think that language snobbery is a facet of generalized snobbery: things that are common are looked down upon, while esoteric things are elevated. I think there's also a point to be made about polysyllabic words sounding more sophisticated than monosyllabic ones, but I don't think I need to prove it.

-----

As for your story about your experience in that class, I agree with you completely. However, your professor has a point--linguistic connotations can creep in subconsciously, and really affect the way a particular question or statement is framed. While "native South Africans" sounds innocuous, "the natives" might be a bit problematic. For example, "native New Yorkers" would sound fine, but referring to the citizens of New York as "the natives" would only be done as a joke. What your professor probably should have done instead would be to point out some of the negative connotations of that word in order to make people aware of them. Censorship, though, is almost always counterproductive.

And Slashdot is offended by this why?

[Nova Express]

I find it fascinating that Slashdot A.) Found the story interesting enough to post, and B.) Automatically reached for reasons to deride it. I find it interesting that the idea of a doll that can't say "shit" or "fuck" offends the Slashdot ethos. Lurking behind this story being posted at all, and most of the comments on the subject thus far, seems to be the idea that parents trying to shield their children from obscenity isn't merely futile, but is, in fact, actively evil.

Why is that?

I get the impression that the vast majority of Slashdot readers don't have children. (Insert the obvious "don't have girlfriend" jokes on your own.) One doesn't have to be John Ashcroft or Oral Roberts to believe that maybe six-year-olds don't need to learn the word "cocksucker."

I am far from a prude. I've used lots of those four-letter words in my own fiction, when needed, and laughed my ass off at "Shut Your Fucking Face, Uncle Fucker" from South Park: The Movie. And I myself don't have kids. But oddly enough, despite that, I can still imagine why parents might want a doll that can't say obscenities. I find it rather interesting that, thus far, not a single Slashdot poster seems willing to consider the fact that such a doll might indeed have a useful purpose...