I would say that respect warrants considering the sensibilities of others in society. I'm far more liberal than most of my friends and colleagues. Yet I respect the fact that they don't want to be confronted by obscenity, profanity, even nudity. In private they and I will do whatever we find appropriate. This is what constitutes a civil society-- this respect.
We disagree. We can be defended against assaults. We can be defended against images that we believe are civilly unsuitable (think people fucking, the XXX view) on billboards by the freeway. We can have containments of speech that are inflammatory (nigger, kike, spic, dago, etc.). We can do this within the construct of free speech. As an author of twelve books and very much more, I believe in the widest inclusive net that can be cast for speech. I also believe that my aging grandmother doesn't have to listen to a fuck-you match on NBC (or any other public broadcast forum). She knows that if she watches a movie on cable, there could be profanity, obscenity, and quite a bit of variance from that 'norm'. Going back to the Code of Broadcasting, an industrially derived ethos, the latitude has widened over the years.
I find little problem with nudity, but others do, and I respect their right not to be confronted with it in public, unavoidable forums. That constitutes the civility of my respect for their desires. On a cable channel, maybe there's nudity, may be not-- I don't get cable channels specifically for nudity, rather, I don't care.
The government, if you hadn't noticed (as Pogo might say) is us. We as individuals have an increasingly tenuous hold on what that really means, but I'll give the FCC the right to choose what's obscene for now, even though it's a more narrow definition than my tastes because it's civil, and respects the rights and sensibilities of others. Whether it's for religious or other reasons, I'll respect (despite the fact that I'm non-religious) other's sensibilities, because it's the civil thing to do.
We agree about connotation and denotation completely. Say what you want. Be careful of the sensibilities of others on the public airwaves, as that's what's in question here, not about anything else. Swear like a sailor. Do George Carlin's seven deadly words piece. Whatever. Just not on PBS, ABC, NBC, or the other public airwaves. Say whatever you want. Just don't allow the public airwaves to devolve into a cesspool of shit, fucks, cunts, etc. That's what's at stake here, nothing else, no other agendas on my part.
You're stretching the edges of what's acceptable. Good. Put it on cable, not on the public airwaves. And you'd get more laughs by using 'poo' than 'shit'.
1) I love sex. It's great. 2) I poo every once in a while, or die. 3) Denigration is a part of the culture, and that's what obscenity and profanity do-- denigrate and provoke. We can and should do better. 4) Then get a ladder.
Say what you want by the stove. If I have a microphone connected to a live ABC feed, then kindly blurt something else-- or at least give one a chance to explain the unique circumstances. No one is trying to stifle speech here. Instead, the argument is about what goes over the public (not private) airwaves.
No, not censorship at all. Heavens no. I'm asking for civility, which is the right to not be assaulted by obscene images, and the morass of profanity on a public medium.
No, not arbitrary. Go in to a public meeting and use a few. Or a church. Or a PTA meeting. It's not my morality, it's a sense of civility. It's using word choices that don't devolve to a least common denominator of junk words, ones that inevitably provoke. I do have the right to my feelings, and my uttered assessment of common civility. And I stand by that, knowing that there'll be an enflamed response. After all, this is slashdot where testosterone-fused brutality is an hourly experience. Occasionally, well-thought intelligence arises from the muck. That's why I'm here-- not to be taught my feelings, certainly.
It's not an easy issue. But in the US, there are some commonly accepted profanities and obscenities which with clarity of Supreme Court adjudication, will become juicers still, or denigrate the language by devolution of priority of sensibility.
By your reckoning, it makes no sense. The exclamatory use of obscenity is designed to provoke. Such provocation within the context of civil discourse has no place-- on the public airwaves where it's offensive, just like a fart in the face.
We disagree. They mean something or their utterance is meaningless. Your contention that there is emotional baggage attached to words is misunderstood. There is a decided change to the value of 'appropriateness'.
Say anything you want in public, to our dismay. Say them on the public airwaves and I have problems with that.
Common convention defines it. So does common sense. Your arguments, while seemingly nicely provocative, don't hold water. They're poor substitutes. The word 'fuck' is like an ejaculatory response. Quaint. So is the word 'shit'.
There are common criteria for measure of language. Linguistics falls as an argument against 'it's just all words'. It's meaning. Guns don't kill, people do. Fie.
Offense is an observation within this context; we all have rights to them-- we are human and must observe. Free speech and expression within the context of public airwaves has been, and continues to be, different than other contexts, and is the crux of this post. Tho I otherwise loathe the FCC, there needs to be a responsibility taken on the part of the public to protect the airwaves from the scatalogical, obscene devolution of language on public airwaves. On other media, let them sink to their lowest common denominator until it's worse than the cesspool it is today.
I would argue that it's easy to devolve into the many uses of 'shit', 'fuck', and 'damn', the fodder of which has been seen in countless posters and comic routines. None belong in the public airwaves. The exhortation of these words is verbal flatulence of the worst kind, incendiary, and malevolent (if occasionally funny but within private contexts).
You're advocating adding obscenities, or perhaps also profanities. Think about this. Your vandalism of the language is less important than the sensibilities of others that would prefer to hear tracts of communications that aren't littered by detritus, poop-language, banal references to sex, and other excreta. I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity. If you want to color your world with such muck, it is your choice to lower yourself to this standard. Instead, lift to one that's free of it. On private media, do what you will-- including this one. If you feel compelled to spew, do it in a place where your choices don't sully the common good. Your feelings, scatalogical or obscene, have merit, but not with in the context of a public place. Do I use any of these? Occasionally, within private context, and not on the public airwaves-- which is the context of the post.
And I'm offended by those that use obscenities; I find it a poor substitution for a good vocabulary and a sign that the utterer means to pander to bad word choices. I'll be modded flamebait, oddly.
Unless you're tied to a specific locale, there are opportunities everywhere. People are screaming for talented individuals that can apply themselves (not be enslaved, but just work hard). Factory work is a dead end, too. I hate to say pull up stakes and move to a better place, but it might be necessary unless you can find a niche to live in that rewards you. Or start your own concern (tough if you have mouths to feed, and are paycheck-to-paycheck). There are good orgs to work for. You have to hunt. Good luck.
Research helps a lot, else one gets caught in the awful conundrum that you've faced. In IT, there are desk jobs with little future and tremendous burdens, and there are great development jobs with strong futures. Settling for one while desiring the other seems, well, counterintuitive, doesn't it?
I'll say that there are some organizations that are bereft of basic civility, including basic respect and cogent compensation. And I've seen a ton of impatient, fed-on-a-platter screw-offs. It's your job to deeply research an organization's ability to satisfy your goals. If they don't, get out of there. In the meantime, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Work hard because it's the right thing to do. If you can't get respect for it, move on. Apparently you did. Good for you. Don't expect technical excellence, rather, US business holds executive, then shareholder compensation first, all others can eat the rest of the crumbs.
There are two sides of that coin. A previous generation had to pay heavy dues to get where they were. Sure, some of them screwed it up. Others layed the groundwork for your cushy gig. If you can't get into commitment, and do your best, you won't go anywhere. If greed is the only thing that motivates you, you're lost already.
You can get my gig. It pays well. And you'll have to work your ass off to get it and hold onto it. I believe in new recruits into IT. Some of them are brilliant, and many are very good. Some are motivated, and others are not. I'll pick a motivated recruit over someone that wants it on a platter in a heartbeat. Take your pity party someplace else.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that respect warrants considering the sensibilities of others in society. I'm far more liberal than most of my friends and colleagues. Yet I respect the fact that they don't want to be confronted by obscenity, profanity, even nudity. In private they and I will do whatever we find appropriate. This is what constitutes a civil society-- this respect.
We disagree. We can be defended against assaults. We can be defended against images that we believe are civilly unsuitable (think people fucking, the XXX view) on billboards by the freeway. We can have containments of speech that are inflammatory (nigger, kike, spic, dago, etc.). We can do this within the construct of free speech. As an author of twelve books and very much more, I believe in the widest inclusive net that can be cast for speech. I also believe that my aging grandmother doesn't have to listen to a fuck-you match on NBC (or any other public broadcast forum). She knows that if she watches a movie on cable, there could be profanity, obscenity, and quite a bit of variance from that 'norm'. Going back to the Code of Broadcasting, an industrially derived ethos, the latitude has widened over the years.
I find little problem with nudity, but others do, and I respect their right not to be confronted with it in public, unavoidable forums. That constitutes the civility of my respect for their desires. On a cable channel, maybe there's nudity, may be not-- I don't get cable channels specifically for nudity, rather, I don't care.
The government, if you hadn't noticed (as Pogo might say) is us. We as individuals have an increasingly tenuous hold on what that really means, but I'll give the FCC the right to choose what's obscene for now, even though it's a more narrow definition than my tastes because it's civil, and respects the rights and sensibilities of others. Whether it's for religious or other reasons, I'll respect (despite the fact that I'm non-religious) other's sensibilities, because it's the civil thing to do.
We agree about connotation and denotation completely. Say what you want. Be careful of the sensibilities of others on the public airwaves, as that's what's in question here, not about anything else. Swear like a sailor. Do George Carlin's seven deadly words piece. Whatever. Just not on PBS, ABC, NBC, or the other public airwaves. Say whatever you want. Just don't allow the public airwaves to devolve into a cesspool of shit, fucks, cunts, etc. That's what's at stake here, nothing else, no other agendas on my part.
There's a lot of history that separates the public vs private/subscription forms of media. That's why Stern had to go to cable/sat.
You're stretching the edges of what's acceptable. Good. Put it on cable, not on the public airwaves. And you'd get more laughs by using 'poo' than 'shit'.
1) I love sex. It's great.
2) I poo every once in a while, or die.
3) Denigration is a part of the culture, and that's what obscenity and profanity do-- denigrate and provoke. We can and should do better.
4) Then get a ladder.
Say what you want by the stove. If I have a microphone connected to a live ABC feed, then kindly blurt something else-- or at least give one a chance to explain the unique circumstances. No one is trying to stifle speech here. Instead, the argument is about what goes over the public (not private) airwaves.
We disagree. Civility is still civility.
Civility is still civility.
No, not censorship at all. Heavens no. I'm asking for civility, which is the right to not be assaulted by obscene images, and the morass of profanity on a public medium.
No, not arbitrary. Go in to a public meeting and use a few. Or a church. Or a PTA meeting. It's not my morality, it's a sense of civility. It's using word choices that don't devolve to a least common denominator of junk words, ones that inevitably provoke. I do have the right to my feelings, and my uttered assessment of common civility. And I stand by that, knowing that there'll be an enflamed response. After all, this is slashdot where testosterone-fused brutality is an hourly experience. Occasionally, well-thought intelligence arises from the muck. That's why I'm here-- not to be taught my feelings, certainly.
There are those that give a shit. We must consider them. It is the civil thing to do.
It's not an easy issue. But in the US, there are some commonly accepted profanities and obscenities which with clarity of Supreme Court adjudication, will become juicers still, or denigrate the language by devolution of priority of sensibility.
By your reckoning, it makes no sense. The exclamatory use of obscenity is designed to provoke. Such provocation within the context of civil discourse has no place-- on the public airwaves where it's offensive, just like a fart in the face.
This is precisely why it's in front of the court. Common sense is being adjudicated.
We disagree. They mean something or their utterance is meaningless. Your contention that there is emotional baggage attached to words is misunderstood. There is a decided change to the value of 'appropriateness'.
Say anything you want in public, to our dismay. Say them on the public airwaves and I have problems with that.
Common convention defines it. So does common sense. Your arguments, while seemingly nicely provocative, don't hold water. They're poor substitutes. The word 'fuck' is like an ejaculatory response. Quaint. So is the word 'shit'.
There are common criteria for measure of language. Linguistics falls as an argument against 'it's just all words'. It's meaning. Guns don't kill, people do. Fie.
Offense is an observation within this context; we all have rights to them-- we are human and must observe. Free speech and expression within the context of public airwaves has been, and continues to be, different than other contexts, and is the crux of this post. Tho I otherwise loathe the FCC, there needs to be a responsibility taken on the part of the public to protect the airwaves from the scatalogical, obscene devolution of language on public airwaves. On other media, let them sink to their lowest common denominator until it's worse than the cesspool it is today.
I would argue that it's easy to devolve into the many uses of 'shit', 'fuck', and 'damn', the fodder of which has been seen in countless posters and comic routines. None belong in the public airwaves. The exhortation of these words is verbal flatulence of the worst kind, incendiary, and malevolent (if occasionally funny but within private contexts).
You're advocating adding obscenities, or perhaps also profanities. Think about this. Your vandalism of the language is less important than the sensibilities of others that would prefer to hear tracts of communications that aren't littered by detritus, poop-language, banal references to sex, and other excreta. I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity. If you want to color your world with such muck, it is your choice to lower yourself to this standard. Instead, lift to one that's free of it. On private media, do what you will-- including this one. If you feel compelled to spew, do it in a place where your choices don't sully the common good. Your feelings, scatalogical or obscene, have merit, but not with in the context of a public place. Do I use any of these? Occasionally, within private context, and not on the public airwaves-- which is the context of the post.
And I'm offended by those that use obscenities; I find it a poor substitution for a good vocabulary and a sign that the utterer means to pander to bad word choices. I'll be modded flamebait, oddly.
Unless you're tied to a specific locale, there are opportunities everywhere. People are screaming for talented individuals that can apply themselves (not be enslaved, but just work hard). Factory work is a dead end, too. I hate to say pull up stakes and move to a better place, but it might be necessary unless you can find a niche to live in that rewards you. Or start your own concern (tough if you have mouths to feed, and are paycheck-to-paycheck). There are good orgs to work for. You have to hunt. Good luck.
Research helps a lot, else one gets caught in the awful conundrum that you've faced. In IT, there are desk jobs with little future and tremendous burdens, and there are great development jobs with strong futures. Settling for one while desiring the other seems, well, counterintuitive, doesn't it?
I'll say that there are some organizations that are bereft of basic civility, including basic respect and cogent compensation. And I've seen a ton of impatient, fed-on-a-platter screw-offs. It's your job to deeply research an organization's ability to satisfy your goals. If they don't, get out of there. In the meantime, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Work hard because it's the right thing to do. If you can't get respect for it, move on. Apparently you did. Good for you. Don't expect technical excellence, rather, US business holds executive, then shareholder compensation first, all others can eat the rest of the crumbs.
.... treated so shabbily.....
There are two sides of that coin. A previous generation had to pay heavy dues to get where they were. Sure, some of them screwed it up. Others layed the groundwork for your cushy gig. If you can't get into commitment, and do your best, you won't go anywhere. If greed is the only thing that motivates you, you're lost already.
You can get my gig. It pays well. And you'll have to work your ass off to get it and hold onto it. I believe in new recruits into IT. Some of them are brilliant, and many are very good. Some are motivated, and others are not. I'll pick a motivated recruit over someone that wants it on a platter in a heartbeat. Take your pity party someplace else.