Even in MS-LookOut you can do the following two things:
1) Right-click email->Options. Then look over the "Internet Headers" text-box. Learn to recognize your own mail server's "Recieved: " lines, then always work backwards from there to see what servers the email has come through.
2) Right-click when viewing email and choose "view source". Search for the text of links you'd like to click on and see if the href="" goes where you expect.
Finally, if you just don't want to get scammed, and don't care so much about positively knowing whether its a fish, just don't click on links in emails... ever. (Always go to sites by hand, outside the editor instead).
That's why if us nerds get a score below 100%, it's a little sad!
Not really... I marked every single email in that list as "fraud" because every single one had an invalid link-target.
My score was only 70%.
Sure, I could have gone on-line and searched for each email to see which have been sent as valid emails in the past, but just because an email was once sent validly, doesn't mean it can't be copied and used for phishing.
I stand by my answers. If the links don't point where they are supposed to, it's a fraudulent email...
This company appears to be making a sad attempt to sound like an authority on the phishing problem without having much useful to add. (They have a list of 10 methods of spotting scams you can request by, you guessed it, providing your email!)
Thanx for the good discussion, and sorry for being so slow to respond, I've been busy with some R/L stuff.
I am not claiming a rational dislike is in any way superior to an irrational dislike. My argument is, and has always been, that deciding public policy based on irrational dislikes is poor policy.
If your argument were that public policy based on likes/dislikes in general is poor policy, then I'd already be in agreement. To make a distinction between types of preferences then decide one kind can affect policy and the other can't seems like an attempt to control what society is allowed to like and dislike. This seems especially true given the claim that one type of preference is no better or worse than the other.
emotional response to a word is not good reason
being offended by a word without regard for the intended meaning is based entirely on an emotional response to the word.
I have an extreme dislike of gin. When I was in college I got very sick from drinking entirely too much gin. My dislike of gin is not because of any particular characteristic of gin, but because I associate it with being sick. Had I drank too much of anything else, I would have the same dislike for that liquor. It is not a rational dislike. My dislike for tequila, on the other hand, is because I don't like the taste. It is a characteristic of tequila that is not appealing to me. That is a rational dislike.
These arguments make it sound like you're talking about "nature" vs "nurture" or perhaps "emotional" vs "biological" as much as about "rational" vs "irrational". To equate rational as used in "rational government" and rational as used in "rational dislike" would seem an oversimplification.
To say, "this word may never be spoken, regardless of its intent," is not a rational policy.
This may be true (which I obviously wasn't thinking with that first comment), but it depends very much on the definition of "rational policy". If such a definition is not carefully drawn, it can lead to as much trouble as it is intended to solve.
It is very much a First Ammendment issue and the onus is on the government to show that there is a greater good being served by banning these words from broadcast television.
It is first amendment in the sense that it does merit some scruntiny. The level/result of scruntiny is exactly what we're discussing, so I think I goaded you into this one. Sorry.
Getting everyone to drive on the same side of the road is entirely logical. Which side of the road is an arbitrary decision but the need to make the decision is entirely rational.
The need for FCC regulation of network TV is "clearly rational", the methods it is employing, and lines it has drawn, are fairly arbitrary. Societal preference (or at least preferences of certain segments of society) have a strong influence on these regulations whether or not individual words are targetted.
Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism
But that would be *gasp* un-scientific and therefore "irrational".
As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
If "being" is to be strived for, how can it also be a basic/inalienable right? Isn't it more appropriate that this write of non-change be contingent, perhaps even earned?
Actually, in this election I'm torn between voting Democrat and voting Libertarian... Go figure. (Normally I'd never vote Democrat, but well the temptation to get rid of Bush is soooo great)
The problem is that it is illegal to say these words in certain circumstances with no basis in reason. That there are other circumstances where it is okay to say the words does not make it right.
Traffic laws, some of them at least, are completely arbitrary and have no basis in logic or reason (right vs left side of the road for example). However, they still carry stiff penalties if disobeyed.
There is no string of text or spoken word[1] that is rationally offensive without consideration for the idea it conveys.
The very act of reading or listening conveys ideas (Whether intentional or accidental) to the reader or listener. This much is true for a single word or a whole volume.
My own notions about [rationality] have nothing to do with it. By definition, it is rational if there is a logical reason for it. It is irrational if there is no logical reason for it. To revisit broccoli and Nixon, disliking broccoli because it tastes bad is rational because the act of eating broccoli causes you displeasure. There is very clear cause and effect here. Disliking broccoli because Nixon liked it is irrational because how Nixon felt about broccoli can in no way, shape or form affect how broccoli tastes to you.
I fail to see what taste has to do with logic. In fact, taste seems to defy logic and reason. Taste is unpredictable and no one really seems to understand it. Perhaps taste will someday become predictable and follow some kind of logic, but it doesn't today. Therefore, to say that a dislike based on taste is rational seems falacious because even if taste were rational, no one knows it is rational, let alone can prove it is.
This goes for the tastes of individuals as well as society as a whole.
Note: I could sit here and argue about how hating broccoli becuase Nixon liked it or because of past broccoli trauma is rational, but that would be rationalization not rationality.
I cannot help what you think of when I say a certain word. If I believe you have insulted me, when in fact I misunderstood what you said, are you still at fault for the affront to me? In other words, are you responsible for my reaction to what I thought you meant?
Yes, to some degree, I am responsible for how you interpret what I say. Especially when we are having a one on one dialog. At the very least, it would be impolite of me not to apologize for accidentally offending you. (Of course, if you didn't speak up about it, that wouldn't give me much chance to make amends.)
I certainly hope you don't purposely swear in front of people you know are offended by swearing.
To assume that because others have misused the term [rational] means that I am also is, dare I say it, irrational.
I'm not claiming you've cleaved anything important with the term "rational", but you do seem to be bandying it about wantonly which was my primary concern.
If we're going to start banning words based on what they could mean the list of words we're allowed to say is going to be very, very short.
Agreed, but we're talking about words banned because of what they very often mean, not what they rarely mean. (The jump from 7 words to what you suggest is a very long slope indeed)
As I stated before, what images a word conjures in your mind is out of my control.
Not when the word is invoked with full knowledge of its typical meaning. If words held no power to conjure ideas in the minds of others, then what use would they be for anything?
There's another way to see it, though. "Darn", "heck", and "shoot" are polite versions of "damn", "hell" and "shit". Everybody knows what you mean when you say them. They are practically drop-in replacements for the rude words. But, for some reason, these words are acceptable while the others are not (or at least were not some time ago). If it were a rational dislike based on the idea the word represented, the "polite" words would also be offensive
People can have all the irrational dislikes they want providing they don't prevent me from experiencing the things they don't like.
Agreed, but there's a distinction between what goes on TV (public) and what you aquire in an adult forum and watch in your own home (private). (I did mention alternative distribution in this thread already didn't I?)
My argument is that a group of letters or a phonetic sound by itself cannot be offensive. And being offended by a phonetic sound or group of letters, regardless of their meaning, will always be irrational.
I may not have been clear. Is there no string of text or audio recording that you would ever consider "rationally offensive"?
Would you have felt the same way if he [no-yellow guy] insisted you not ever wear the color yellow in his presence? Or speak the word "yellow" while he was in earshot? How about if he tried to have the prinicpal institute a rule that "yellow" will not be worn or spoken of under penalty of detention?
He did his best on the first two at times, as to the last one... I certainly wouldn't have supported his efforts (unless I was feeling really perverse). Of course, there were rules I consider even sillier that I had to follow. (I recall having to cut my hair under penalty of losing my off-campus job... very strict boarding school.)
But, as I've said many times already, they aren't offended by the ideas, just the word itself.
I fail to see how saying you know why someone else is offended makes it so... no matter how many times it is repeated.
So likes and dislikes are now either rational or irrational?
Yes. They always were. Not liking broccoli because you don't like the taste is rational. Not liking broccoli because Nixon liked it is irrational[1]. This is not to say that a person does not have the right to dislike broccoli because Nixon liked it, but he does not have the right to prevent me from eating it.
Whoa! I couldn't disagree more. My likes and dislikes are a part of who I am and I object to someone attempting to categorize my behaviour and by extension myself as rational vs irrational based on their own notions about the subject.
So if someone dislikes, or is offended by, a word you get to decide why?
That is: A) Because of a conditioned response. B) Because of ideas the word conjures up, even when used in an otherwise innocuous context.
I should point out... I really dislike this use of the term rational. I know it is prevalent, but I still dislike it. This is because attacking a person or group of people as rational vs irrational is an important method of dehumanizing them. Using rational and irrational to describe behaviour is only one small step away from this kind of nasty propoganda. Also, the meaning of "rational" in debates is usually poorly defined, and everyone always wants to claim it for their side, which gets messy.
[1] I make no claim of knowing whether Nixon really liked broccoli and anyone tempted to correct me on the issue is severely missing the point.
Wow, I hope I haven't been *that* nitpicky!
Looking back, I think I was a bit flip with your original proof, here it is again revisited:
Proof: 1) There are other words which mean the same exact thing which are not considered offensive (fuck == sex, coitus, intercourse; shit == feces, crap, dung).
This accounts for denotation but completely ignores conotation. Also, even ignoring conotation, the probability that different words with the same denotation will be abused varies.
2) They are still offended by the words even when they are not used to convey the supposedly offensive ideas ("That's fucking brilliant!" == "That's absolutely brilliant", "Oh shit, I fucked up." == "Rats, I made a mistake.").
Here you seem to think you know what is going on inside someone else's head. A very imaginative person might have interesting mental pictures indeed at hearing these phrases. (My wife happens to be such a person)
Offense at images at least is offense at the ideas the images convey. People can be disturbed by images of sex, violence, torture, etc. and not be considered irrational.
I think there's a problem here with the definiton of rational. You seem to be claiming there are rational and irrational instances of feeling disturbed. I'm not sure I even agree this distinction can be properly made let alone on where it lies.
My personal feeling is that attacking a person's, or group of people's, rationality because of their preferences in this area seems unfair.
A couple quick questions:
How long does a group of letters or a phonetic sound have to be that you would consider it rational for someone to be disturbed and/or offended?
Some people have an "irrational" fear of enclosed spaces, does that make it okay to stuff them in a box and sit on the lid?
If someone was offended by the word "blue", is that reasonable?
Funny, you mention that. I had a friend in high-school who hated yellow so much he used to pretend the color didn't exist. In a sense it was an inside joke, but he carried it to a metaphysical level such that casual acquaintences either thought he was wierd or questioned his sanity and close friends either accepted this quirk or weren't close friends anymore. This quirk seemed more reasonable to me than disenfranchising someone because of such a quirk.
If enough people have a problem with the word "blue" (or the color itself), because of ideas it conjures up, that society decides it is an un-acceptable word (or color)... perhaps censure is reasonable in channels widely available to minors. Of course, just one person isn't likely to sway society's viewpoint on the matter.
holding others responsible for these people's irrational dislike of certain words, regardless of their meaning, is ridiculous.
So likes and dislikes are now either rational or irrational? Does that mean censorship is okay based on a "rational dislike" but not based on an "irrational dislike"?
My argument is that this light shade of possible harm is completely their own (and quite probably their parents') doing and therefore their own responsibility. That they perceive harm from the exposure does not obligate me to ensure they are not exposed.
I'm not sure I follow here, so I'll lean on my slippery slope a second. How exactly is this different than the harm from seeing goatse? Isn't that similarly self/societally induced harm?
It is government-sponsored, content-based regulation of speech which serves no rational or practical purpose.
Well, we've got human beings involved, rational may not get the billing it deserves.
We're not talking about endangering other people's lives, or harming them in any other way except for the harm they insist upon suffering themselves. People will be punished for this behavior despite the complete lack of any real harm.
I guess I'm not seeing how self-inflicted pain is any less painful... (In fact, in many cases it can be worse.)
This really starts to sound like an assertion of blame issue. You'd hold individuals (or families) responsible for not being able to handle what they watch. I'm holding producers responsible for being sensitive to their audiences. Beyond that its a question of at what point who is responsible.
In that light, both sides seem a bit less appealing. I guess I don't feel too sorry for viewers who aren't careful *or* for producers who have to toe the line. Both have been a bit lax.
I definitely don't agree with the way the FCC is currently doing things, but it still seems there's a bit more first amendment smoke than fire here. (ie: there's been a bit of back-sliding in what's allowed to play, but it doesn't seem likely to last... Maybe I'll worry more if Bush gets re-elected.)
And the research indicating that hearing "bad" words has a detrimental effect on kids is... where? I'd like to see some evidence that there's a developmental impairment in some category as a result of hearing swearing.
Many a sailor has shown exposure to cussing seems to make folks cuss more. Of course, if you don't consider cussing itself negative, then you wouldn't consider that harm. However, some people consider cussing by its very nature negative. This may be only "perceived harm", but at what point does society's perception of harm and "demonstrably negative effects" coincide?
Would I vote to keep these silly restrictions in place? No, quite the opposite.
Do I feel sorry for the producers of this show because their constitutional rights are being stepped on? No. I don't think they have a right to expect full license in the distribution channel they've chosen. If they'd chosen a freer channel, and still been censored, then I'd be a bit concerened.
Do I think the history of television and other media is a heroic struggle of free thinkers gradually throwing off the oppressive yoke of censorship? Hardly. (maybe in the liberal arts, but not in mass media)
Account numbers can be treated as objects. They're not speech. You're not expressing anything with your assigned account number.
Bleck. I could be proving that a bank site has been hacked by listing account numbers. I can't think of a more effective proof. I fail to see how "account numbers aren't speech because I said so" proves anything. Account numbers aren't protected by the first amendment for the very good reasons we've talked about. They aren't protected speech, but I fail to see how that makes them something other than speech.
What exactly do you consider speech? Vulnerability expliots? Secret blacklists in parental firewall software? Names? Am I allowed to make a list of corporations I don't like, using their trademarked names, and put them on my website? Last I checked this wasn't illegal.
In much the same way, why does it make sense to advocate the censorship of, for example, violence in the media when the actual problem is violence in the real world?
Um... well, both aught to be addressed but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion since you already agreed there is detrimental material on television.
I don't have any kids. I do have close nephews and nieces.
Do you fear it? Are you insecure because your 4 years old said that? Do you know how to react? How will you react? Will you explanation change depending on your child's age? What's the difference, for you, between 4 or 8 or 14 years old?
Well I don't fear the phrase I put up there, but the "or worse" certainly can be daunting. Basically the 4 year old with the word doesn't scare me, but the 4 year old having learned the notion on TV does. 4: probably too young to know much about sex. 8: girls should probably already know the basics of sex and boys should be learning about it. 14: well Jews consider 12 year olds as more or less adults, and I'd probably follow that notion pretty closely. (but they better not be *active* yet!!)
As to sheltering my kids, if I ever have any. Well, I probably would "shelter" them from your viewpoint. They wouldn't go online except for white-listed sites (or with adult supervision) until they can handle it and they wouldn't be watching television without adult supervision until they can handle it... How old would that be? I've no idea. I do know I was more or less raised by daycare and TV and I wouldn't want that for my kids. I'd prefer to help get some quality content into their heads before they start stuffing em with garbage.
They'd still get exposure to all this stuff at school, and I guess I'd simply handle things as best I can as they come up. (I don't think I'd home-school... and private school isn't that much different than public)
Note: I did watch Poltergiest when I was 5 years old and it definitely affected my life... I wouldn't close the bathroom door for a year and got held back in kindergarten. (Of course it was on HBO at that time)
So, "Mommy what does f__k mean?" or worse is not considered harm coming from a 4 year old who happened to see the wrong TV show?
"It's an impolite term for two people making love, dear." If they're old enough to ask, they're old enough to know.
I guess I was thinking of a couple southpark episodes on the "or worse". From what I can tell the series in the article seems to deal with similarly mature subject matter.
Okay, we seem to agree that there is content that shouldn't be on public television and that individual words is a piss poor method of controlling content. However, we also seem to agree that there is "perceived harm", at least for some people, in the words themselves. You argue that this perception is irrational and therefore doesn't matter. I argue that perception is important and that this leaves us with a light shade of "possible harm".
So, while I don't agree with the FCC's methods, or blocking individual words rather than content as an effective measure (or especially with the words chosen), I also don't think it encroaches freedom of speech for certain words to be taboo in broadcast television. (I seem to recall belly buttons being taboo for many years as well, what a bastion of freedom we became when they were released!)
My discomfort is from the obvious hypocrisy of believing "f__k" is somehow not obscene when the word is quite obviously represents is.
Wow, I'm a hypocrite in 4 letters flat. In this case it appears f__k is *more* obscene than simply fuck... (I exemplify my lack of morals with it by engaging in hypocrisy after all.)
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Oh wait, research shows that statement isn't true, especially for young kids. You think watching violence, sex, abusive behaviour, yada yada on TV has no negative effect on kids whatsoever? Research may vary, but many parents consider the exposure harm no matter what research says on the matter.
True, regulating individual words by themselves isn't nearly as effective as regulating actual content, but it *is* a heck of a lot easier.
Unfortunately I can make the same argument about account numbers. Regulating the sharing of account numbers is much easier, though less effective, than monitoring actual illegal bank access. Also, the account numbers don't hurt anyone unless they actually get used for nefarious purposes...
In both cases it seems to be speech tempered because of mere potential harm.
Okay. Wake me up. Show me some newspapers from the early 1800's, which could be legally aquired by children, dealing with adult subjects and using swear-words.
This argument can be used to justify anything from virtual kiddie porn, to teaching kids about sex at a *very* early age (ala southpark), to putting goatse on PBS. First, they're just words. Then, they're just images. What next? They're only hypnotic suggestions?
In another sense you're right. The words themselves, like the word "nigger" are just words. However, how they are often used, and how they are likely to be used in new works, is exactly what the FCC is attempting to address. (Granted, not in the best way... but if a line is to be drawn, it has to go somewhere.)
So they can't say s__t and f__k on public television or show titties.
This harms no one.
So, "Mommy what does f__k mean?" or worse is not considered harm coming from a 4 year old who happened to see the wrong TV show?
To take your example, writing "f__k" is okay but typing out the word "fuck" is not even though the first is readily recognizable as the second.
I never said one was "OK" or another was "not OK". Personally I choose not to over-abuse swearwords because, to me, it diminishes their meaning. Is your discomfort at seeing someone else decide to write f__k instead of the alternative also a superstition?
The Constitution doesn't say, "Freedom of speech unless it is a bad word."
The constitution also says nothing about freedom to say *absolutely anything* on regulated public broadcast frequencies and networks targeted at a mixed child/adult audience.
There's nothing stopping the producers from selling an uncensored DVD, and there's nothing stopping you from buying such DVDs... The producers could even sell such DVDs "at cost", offer downloads and allow free-redistribution if they actually cared about their message. As they are doing none of these things I'm left assuming getting their message across isn't *that* important to them.
How long has Mrs. Slocombe's pussy been on PBS? ie: what is the history really, how long have they been able to freely use words that didn't used to be allowed on network television?
Now, for many, the fact that PBS no longer has cultural freedom is a small thing. One might think it means that a word can't be said, or a breast can't be shown, or certain political conversations cannot occur.
That last one definitely would be a chilling effect, but that wasn't one of the things complained about in the article.
Reading this whole article makes me feel like the whole phrase "chilling effect" just got cheapened...
Stifling someone's freedom to talk openly about technology is one thing, regulating vulgarity on television is quite another.
So they can't say s__t and f__k on public television or show titties. I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it was scored 2 when I posted it, and is at 1 now. So, 2 - 0 = 1.
I seem to recall some reference in an Orson Scott Card book about things better left un-researched and some guy found with his head in a toilet...
Seriously. You're so *good* at detecting bogus emails. How did you score? (without doing any googling!)
None of the mails in that test have illegitimate from or to addresses.
Go on, explain how you would detect the 3 "legitimate" emails in that test...
Even in MS-LookOut you can do the following two things:
1) Right-click email->Options. Then look over the "Internet Headers" text-box. Learn to recognize your own mail server's "Recieved: " lines, then always work backwards from there to see what servers the email has come through.
2) Right-click when viewing email and choose "view source". Search for the text of links you'd like to click on and see if the href="" goes where you expect.
Finally, if you just don't want to get scammed, and don't care so much about positively knowing whether its a fish, just don't click on links in emails... ever. (Always go to sites by hand, outside the editor instead).
That's why if us nerds get a score below 100%, it's a little sad!
Not really... I marked every single email in that list as "fraud" because every single one had an invalid link-target.
My score was only 70%.
Sure, I could have gone on-line and searched for each email to see which have been sent as valid emails in the past, but just because an email was once sent validly, doesn't mean it can't be copied and used for phishing.
I stand by my answers. If the links don't point where they are supposed to, it's a fraudulent email...
This company appears to be making a sad attempt to sound like an authority on the phishing problem without having much useful to add. (They have a list of 10 methods of spotting scams you can request by, you guessed it, providing your email!)
Thanx for the good discussion, and sorry for being so slow to respond, I've been busy with some R/L stuff.
I am not claiming a rational dislike is in any way superior to an irrational dislike. My argument is, and has always been, that deciding public policy based on irrational dislikes is poor policy.
If your argument were that public policy based on likes/dislikes in general is poor policy, then I'd already be in agreement. To make a distinction between types of preferences then decide one kind can affect policy and the other can't seems like an attempt to control what society is allowed to like and dislike. This seems especially true given the claim that one type of preference is no better or worse than the other.
emotional response to a word is not good reason
being offended by a word without regard for the intended meaning is based entirely on an emotional response to the word.
I have an extreme dislike of gin. When I was in college I got very sick from drinking entirely too much gin. My dislike of gin is not because of any particular characteristic of gin, but because I associate it with being sick. Had I drank too much of anything else, I would have the same dislike for that liquor. It is not a rational dislike. My dislike for tequila, on the other hand, is because I don't like the taste. It is a characteristic of tequila that is not appealing to me. That is a rational dislike.
These arguments make it sound like you're talking about "nature" vs "nurture" or perhaps "emotional" vs "biological" as much as about "rational" vs "irrational". To equate rational as used in "rational government" and rational as used in "rational dislike" would seem an oversimplification.
To say, "this word may never be spoken, regardless of its intent," is not a rational policy.
This may be true (which I obviously wasn't thinking with that first comment), but it depends very much on the definition of "rational policy". If such a definition is not carefully drawn, it can lead to as much trouble as it is intended to solve.
It is very much a First Ammendment issue and the onus is on the government to show that there is a greater good being served by banning these words from broadcast television.
It is first amendment in the sense that it does merit some scruntiny. The level/result of scruntiny is exactly what we're discussing, so I think I goaded you into this one. Sorry.
Getting everyone to drive on the same side of the road is entirely logical. Which side of the road is an arbitrary decision but the need to make the decision is entirely rational.
The need for FCC regulation of network TV is "clearly rational", the methods it is employing, and lines it has drawn, are fairly arbitrary. Societal preference (or at least preferences of certain segments of society) have a strong influence on these regulations whether or not individual words are targetted.
And no one is ever going to buy a linux computer and slap their old version of Windows on it. No, never going to happen.
Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism
But that would be *gasp* un-scientific and therefore "irrational".
As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
If "being" is to be strived for, how can it also be a basic/inalienable right? Isn't it more appropriate that this write of non-change be contingent, perhaps even earned?
Actually, in this election I'm torn between voting Democrat and voting Libertarian... Go figure. (Normally I'd never vote Democrat, but well the temptation to get rid of Bush is soooo great)
Ya, Libertarians suck up to small business, bless them.
The problem is that it is illegal to say these words in certain circumstances with no basis in reason. That there are other circumstances where it is okay to say the words does not make it right.
Traffic laws, some of them at least, are completely arbitrary and have no basis in logic or reason (right vs left side of the road for example). However, they still carry stiff penalties if disobeyed.
There is no string of text or spoken word[1] that is rationally offensive without consideration for the idea it conveys.
The very act of reading or listening conveys ideas (Whether intentional or accidental) to the reader or listener. This much is true for a single word or a whole volume.
My own notions about [rationality] have nothing to do with it. By definition, it is rational if there is a logical reason for it. It is irrational if there is no logical reason for it. To revisit broccoli and Nixon, disliking broccoli because it tastes bad is rational because the act of eating broccoli causes you displeasure. There is very clear cause and effect here. Disliking broccoli because Nixon liked it is irrational because how Nixon felt about broccoli can in no way, shape or form affect how broccoli tastes to you.
I fail to see what taste has to do with logic. In fact, taste seems to defy logic and reason. Taste is unpredictable and no one really seems to understand it. Perhaps taste will someday become predictable and follow some kind of logic, but it doesn't today. Therefore, to say that a dislike based on taste is rational seems falacious because even if taste were rational, no one knows it is rational, let alone can prove it is.
This goes for the tastes of individuals as well as society as a whole.
Note: I could sit here and argue about how hating broccoli becuase Nixon liked it or because of past broccoli trauma is rational, but that would be rationalization not rationality.
I cannot help what you think of when I say a certain word. If I believe you have insulted me, when in fact I misunderstood what you said, are you still at fault for the affront to me? In other words, are you responsible for my reaction to what I thought you meant?
Yes, to some degree, I am responsible for how you interpret what I say. Especially when we are having a one on one dialog. At the very least, it would be impolite of me not to apologize for accidentally offending you. (Of course, if you didn't speak up about it, that wouldn't give me much chance to make amends.)
I certainly hope you don't purposely swear in front of people you know are offended by swearing.
To assume that because others have misused the term [rational] means that I am also is, dare I say it, irrational.
I'm not claiming you've cleaved anything important with the term "rational", but you do seem to be bandying it about wantonly which was my primary concern.
If we're going to start banning words based on what they could mean the list of words we're allowed to say is going to be very, very short.
Agreed, but we're talking about words banned because of what they very often mean, not what they rarely mean. (The jump from 7 words to what you suggest is a very long slope indeed)
As I stated before, what images a word conjures in your mind is out of my control.
Not when the word is invoked with full knowledge of its typical meaning. If words held no power to conjure ideas in the minds of others, then what use would they be for anything?
There's another way to see it, though. "Darn", "heck", and "shoot" are polite versions of "damn", "hell" and "shit". Everybody knows what you mean when you say them. They are practically drop-in replacements for the rude words. But, for some reason, these words are acceptable while the others are not (or at least were not some time ago). If it were a rational dislike based on the idea the word represented, the "polite" words would also be offensive
Agreed, but there's a distinction between what goes on TV (public) and what you aquire in an adult forum and watch in your own home (private). (I did mention alternative distribution in this thread already didn't I?)
My argument is that a group of letters or a phonetic sound by itself cannot be offensive. And being offended by a phonetic sound or group of letters, regardless of their meaning, will always be irrational.
I may not have been clear. Is there no string of text or audio recording that you would ever consider "rationally offensive"?
Would you have felt the same way if he [no-yellow guy] insisted you not ever wear the color yellow in his presence? Or speak the word "yellow" while he was in earshot? How about if he tried to have the prinicpal institute a rule that "yellow" will not be worn or spoken of under penalty of detention?
He did his best on the first two at times, as to the last one... I certainly wouldn't have supported his efforts (unless I was feeling really perverse). Of course, there were rules I consider even sillier that I had to follow. (I recall having to cut my hair under penalty of losing my off-campus job... very strict boarding school.)
But, as I've said many times already, they aren't offended by the ideas, just the word itself.
I fail to see how saying you know why someone else is offended makes it so... no matter how many times it is repeated.
Yes. They always were. Not liking broccoli because you don't like the taste is rational. Not liking broccoli because Nixon liked it is irrational[1]. This is not to say that a person does not have the right to dislike broccoli because Nixon liked it, but he does not have the right to prevent me from eating it.
Whoa! I couldn't disagree more. My likes and dislikes are a part of who I am and I object to someone attempting to categorize my behaviour and by extension myself as rational vs irrational based on their own notions about the subject.
So if someone dislikes, or is offended by, a word you get to decide why?
That is:
A) Because of a conditioned response.
B) Because of ideas the word conjures up, even when used in an otherwise innocuous context.
I should point out... I really dislike this use of the term rational. I know it is prevalent, but I still dislike it. This is because attacking a person or group of people as rational vs irrational is an important method of dehumanizing them. Using rational and irrational to describe behaviour is only one small step away from this kind of nasty propoganda. Also, the meaning of "rational" in debates is usually poorly defined, and everyone always wants to claim it for their side, which gets messy.
[1] I make no claim of knowing whether Nixon really liked broccoli and anyone tempted to correct me on the issue is severely missing the point.
Wow, I hope I haven't been *that* nitpicky!
Looking back, I think I was a bit flip with your original proof, here it is again revisited:
Proof:
1) There are other words which mean the same exact thing which are not considered offensive (fuck == sex, coitus, intercourse; shit == feces, crap, dung).
This accounts for denotation but completely ignores conotation. Also, even ignoring conotation, the probability that different words with the same denotation will be abused varies.
2) They are still offended by the words even when they are not used to convey the supposedly offensive ideas ("That's fucking brilliant!" == "That's absolutely brilliant", "Oh shit, I fucked up." == "Rats, I made a mistake.").
Here you seem to think you know what is going on inside someone else's head. A very imaginative person might have interesting mental pictures indeed at hearing these phrases. (My wife happens to be such a person)
Offense at images at least is offense at the ideas the images convey. People can be disturbed by images of sex, violence, torture, etc. and not be considered irrational.
... perhaps censure is reasonable in channels widely available to minors. Of course, just one person isn't likely to sway society's viewpoint on the matter.
I think there's a problem here with the definiton of rational. You seem to be claiming there are rational and irrational instances of feeling disturbed. I'm not sure I even agree this distinction can be properly made let alone on where it lies.
My personal feeling is that attacking a person's, or group of people's, rationality because of their preferences in this area seems unfair.
A couple quick questions:
How long does a group of letters or a phonetic sound have to be that you would consider it rational for someone to be disturbed and/or offended?
Some people have an "irrational" fear of enclosed spaces, does that make it okay to stuff them in a box and sit on the lid?
If someone was offended by the word "blue", is that reasonable?
Funny, you mention that. I had a friend in high-school who hated yellow so much he used to pretend the color didn't exist. In a sense it was an inside joke, but he carried it to a metaphysical level such that casual acquaintences either thought he was wierd or questioned his sanity and close friends either accepted this quirk or weren't close friends anymore. This quirk seemed more reasonable to me than disenfranchising someone because of such a quirk.
If enough people have a problem with the word "blue" (or the color itself), because of ideas it conjures up, that society decides it is an un-acceptable word (or color)
holding others responsible for these people's irrational dislike of certain words, regardless of their meaning, is ridiculous.
So likes and dislikes are now either rational or irrational? Does that mean censorship is okay based on a "rational dislike" but not based on an "irrational dislike"?
if you swear in english at someone who does not know english they suffered no harm.
Okay, except we weren't talking about non-english speakers...
My argument is that this light shade of possible harm is completely their own (and quite probably their parents') doing and therefore their own responsibility. That they perceive harm from the exposure does not obligate me to ensure they are not exposed.
I'm not sure I follow here, so I'll lean on my slippery slope a second. How exactly is this different than the harm from seeing goatse? Isn't that similarly self/societally induced harm?
It is government-sponsored, content-based regulation of speech which serves no rational or practical purpose.
Well, we've got human beings involved, rational may not get the billing it deserves.
We're not talking about endangering other people's lives, or harming them in any other way except for the harm they insist upon suffering themselves. People will be punished for this behavior despite the complete lack of any real harm.
I guess I'm not seeing how self-inflicted pain is any less painful... (In fact, in many cases it can be worse.)
This really starts to sound like an assertion of blame issue. You'd hold individuals (or families) responsible for not being able to handle what they watch. I'm holding producers responsible for being sensitive to their audiences. Beyond that its a question of at what point who is responsible.
In that light, both sides seem a bit less appealing. I guess I don't feel too sorry for viewers who aren't careful *or* for producers who have to toe the line. Both have been a bit lax.
I definitely don't agree with the way the FCC is currently doing things, but it still seems there's a bit more first amendment smoke than fire here. (ie: there's been a bit of back-sliding in what's allowed to play, but it doesn't seem likely to last... Maybe I'll worry more if Bush gets re-elected.)
And the research indicating that hearing "bad" words has a detrimental effect on kids is... where? I'd like to see some evidence that there's a developmental impairment in some category as a result of hearing swearing.
Many a sailor has shown exposure to cussing seems to make folks cuss more. Of course, if you don't consider cussing itself negative, then you wouldn't consider that harm. However, some people consider cussing by its very nature negative. This may be only "perceived harm", but at what point does society's perception of harm and "demonstrably negative effects" coincide?
Would I vote to keep these silly restrictions in place? No, quite the opposite.
Do I feel sorry for the producers of this show because their constitutional rights are being stepped on? No. I don't think they have a right to expect full license in the distribution channel they've chosen. If they'd chosen a freer channel, and still been censored, then I'd be a bit concerened.
Do I think the history of television and other media is a heroic struggle of free thinkers gradually throwing off the oppressive yoke of censorship? Hardly. (maybe in the liberal arts, but not in mass media)
Account numbers can be treated as objects. They're not speech. You're not expressing anything with your assigned account number.
Bleck. I could be proving that a bank site has been hacked by listing account numbers. I can't think of a more effective proof. I fail to see how "account numbers aren't speech because I said so" proves anything. Account numbers aren't protected by the first amendment for the very good reasons we've talked about. They aren't protected speech, but I fail to see how that makes them something other than speech.
What exactly do you consider speech? Vulnerability expliots? Secret blacklists in parental firewall software? Names? Am I allowed to make a list of corporations I don't like, using their trademarked names, and put them on my website? Last I checked this wasn't illegal.
In much the same way, why does it make sense to advocate the censorship of, for example, violence in the media when the actual problem is violence in the real world?
Um... well, both aught to be addressed but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion since you already agreed there is detrimental material on television.
I don't have any kids. I do have close nephews and nieces.
Do you fear it? Are you insecure because your 4 years old said that? Do you know how to react? How will you react? Will you explanation change depending on your child's age? What's the difference, for you, between 4 or 8 or 14 years old?
Well I don't fear the phrase I put up there, but the "or worse" certainly can be daunting. Basically the 4 year old with the word doesn't scare me, but the 4 year old having learned the notion on TV does.
4: probably too young to know much about sex.
8: girls should probably already know the basics of sex and boys should be learning about it.
14: well Jews consider 12 year olds as more or less adults, and I'd probably follow that notion pretty closely. (but they better not be *active* yet!!)
As to sheltering my kids, if I ever have any. Well, I probably would "shelter" them from your viewpoint. They wouldn't go online except for white-listed sites (or with adult supervision) until they can handle it and they wouldn't be watching television without adult supervision until they can handle it... How old would that be? I've no idea. I do know I was more or less raised by daycare and TV and I wouldn't want that for my kids. I'd prefer to help get some quality content into their heads before they start stuffing em with garbage.
They'd still get exposure to all this stuff at school, and I guess I'd simply handle things as best I can as they come up. (I don't think I'd home-school... and private school isn't that much different than public)
Note: I did watch Poltergiest when I was 5 years old and it definitely affected my life... I wouldn't close the bathroom door for a year and got held back in kindergarten. (Of course it was on HBO at that time)
I guess I was thinking of a couple southpark episodes on the "or worse". From what I can tell the series in the article seems to deal with similarly mature subject matter.
Okay, we seem to agree that there is content that shouldn't be on public television and that individual words is a piss poor method of controlling content. However, we also seem to agree that there is "perceived harm", at least for some people, in the words themselves. You argue that this perception is irrational and therefore doesn't matter. I argue that perception is important and that this leaves us with a light shade of "possible harm".
So, while I don't agree with the FCC's methods, or blocking individual words rather than content as an effective measure (or especially with the words chosen), I also don't think it encroaches freedom of speech for certain words to be taboo in broadcast television. (I seem to recall belly buttons being taboo for many years as well, what a bastion of freedom we became when they were released!)
My discomfort is from the obvious hypocrisy of believing "f__k" is somehow not obscene when the word is quite obviously represents is.
Wow, I'm a hypocrite in 4 letters flat. In this case it appears f__k is *more* obscene than simply fuck... (I exemplify my lack of morals with it by engaging in hypocrisy after all.)
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Oh wait, research shows that statement isn't true, especially for young kids. You think watching violence, sex, abusive behaviour, yada yada on TV has no negative effect on kids whatsoever? Research may vary, but many parents consider the exposure harm no matter what research says on the matter.
True, regulating individual words by themselves isn't nearly as effective as regulating actual content, but it *is* a heck of a lot easier.
Unfortunately I can make the same argument about account numbers. Regulating the sharing of account numbers is much easier, though less effective, than monitoring actual illegal bank access. Also, the account numbers don't hurt anyone unless they actually get used for nefarious purposes...
In both cases it seems to be speech tempered because of mere potential harm.
Okay. Wake me up. Show me some newspapers from the early 1800's, which could be legally aquired by children, dealing with adult subjects and using swear-words.
In another sense you're right. The words themselves, like the word "nigger" are just words. However, how they are often used, and how they are likely to be used in new works, is exactly what the FCC is attempting to address. (Granted, not in the best way... but if a line is to be drawn, it has to go somewhere.)
This harms no one.
So, "Mommy what does f__k mean?" or worse is not considered harm coming from a 4 year old who happened to see the wrong TV show?
To take your example, writing "f__k" is okay but typing out the word "fuck" is not even though the first is readily recognizable as the second.
I never said one was "OK" or another was "not OK". Personally I choose not to over-abuse swearwords because, to me, it diminishes their meaning. Is your discomfort at seeing someone else decide to write f__k instead of the alternative also a superstition?
we-ell... I wasn't aware of titties, and I purposely left out "blow job". Those are definitely a bit more of a grey area.
the whole thing is pretty stupid.
Agreed, on both sides.
The Constitution doesn't say, "Freedom of speech unless it is a bad word."
The constitution also says nothing about freedom to say *absolutely anything* on regulated public broadcast frequencies and networks targeted at a mixed child/adult audience.
There's nothing stopping the producers from selling an uncensored DVD, and there's nothing stopping you from buying such DVDs... The producers could even sell such DVDs "at cost", offer downloads and allow free-redistribution if they actually cared about their message. As they are doing none of these things I'm left assuming getting their message across isn't *that* important to them.
How long has Mrs. Slocombe's pussy been on PBS? ie: what is the history really, how long have they been able to freely use words that didn't used to be allowed on network television?
Now, for many, the fact that PBS no longer has cultural freedom is a small thing. One might think it means that a word can't be said, or a breast can't be shown, or certain political conversations cannot occur.
That last one definitely would be a chilling effect, but that wasn't one of the things complained about in the article.
Reading this whole article makes me feel like the whole phrase "chilling effect" just got cheapened...
Stifling someone's freedom to talk openly about technology is one thing, regulating vulgarity on television is quite another.
So they can't say s__t and f__k on public television or show titties. I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech.
apparently the product is more important than the livlihood of those who make it.
I think it's more like intellectual (and other) freedom is more important than protecting various livelihoods.