Easily offended?

Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by B_HappyHammer1977, Oct 20, 2005.

  1. B_HappyHammer1977

    B_HappyHammer1977 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    This isn't so much a question for you guys and gals of LPSG, as you all seem an enlightned bunch of happy fellows. But do you know anyone who is actually offended by the likes of nudity and swearing?

    Do you think that censorship is blinkering the public from fact?
     
  2. Dorset

    Dorset New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    408
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Not really within my close friends but I know people at work who would get offended by nudity and my girlfriend really doesn't like the word c*nt (edited just in case it offends anyone here)
     
  3. B_HappyHammer1977

    B_HappyHammer1977 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    I'll give you a couple of examples of what I'm getting at -

    If a child is allowed to say 'poo' or even 'crap' (nowadays), why can't he say 'shit' when it means the same thing?

    You can say and talk about sex, vaginas, penises et al all day on TV, but you can't say 'fuck', 'cunt' or 'cock' before 9pm (on British TV), even in context.

    I'm not talking about people with a poor vocabulary, who just put swear-words into sentances to fill a silence, or like other people say 'very', they say 'fucking'.
     
  4. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I understand your question, HappyHammer, but I don't understand peoples' reasoning for this sort of thing. I had a discussion similar to this with one of my fellow Marines once. My view was that the important thing was the intent of a word, his view was that the word itself was important. One of my examples was words in different languages that sound alike but have different meanings. "Fuk" and "Dong" are common words in some Asian languages, but pronounced to an English speaker have very different meanings.

    My 8th grade English teacher was a very proper, religious spinster. Our book reports had to be from books on her list (I'm sure she reviewed each and every one very carefully, for inappropriate content.) One story that every one of her classes from the dawn of history had to read and do a report on was "How Lincoln Paid for his Stockings." It was her very favorite story, but it did have one naughty word in it. She had gone through every copy, and carefully redacted the word "beer". We all thought it was hilarious.

    Some people are just wired that way. What I don't understand is why someone who finds some things on television offensive doesn't just simply not watch it. Yet usually, they view it as "I don't like it, so I refuse to let you see it." Simple nonsense.
     
  5. txquis

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    I live in what is known as "the Bible belt" of America.
    Of COURSE i know people who are offended by this stuff,
    yet live just as nasty and skanky lives as people do everywhere
    else.
    Perhaps not saying the "naughty" words helps them take the
    edge off of their naughty behavior.
    :eyes:
     
  6. Alley Blue

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    "But then they went too far, they started using the mother of all insults!!! Its starts with C and ends with T and it ain't CAT!!!" :bigsmile: :bigsmile:
    -Bette Midler at an award show.

    Seeing your post reminded me of that skit.....really funny.
     
  7. BigBen

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    566
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sanibel (FL, US)
    Strickly speaking (meaning legally) it is not "censorship" when an individual, group, or even a business/company objects to or limits the use of certain words or visual images. Only the government can impose any form of "censorship". Individuals, groups, and businesses can not. They can voice their own opinions, and within the the area of their control and legal purview (e.g. a homeowner not allowing words to be spoken or porno in their home; a group excluding from membership someone who does not agree or follow their philosophy, or a business which prohibits what it considers to be conduct, to include some speech that others may take offense at, within its workplace environment because it is considered by management to not positively reflect on company and thus could possibly interfer with prosperous business). I don't want to get in to the legal too much, but if a website or business or a person objects to someones language, that does not mean they have imposed "censorship". No one has a "right" per se to what others consider offensive language in the workplace, or in someone elses home. They do have the "right" to terminate you for something like that and someone has the "right" to ask you to leave their home. In public areas, they have the "right" to turn their back and simply walk away. However, in many jurisdictions, if you follow and continue with a negative verbal "assault" it can be construed as harrassement or threatening language and actions and is against the law. That is simply that no one has the right to threaten or limit the safety or free movement or threaten another. Being a public nuisance is another matter...e.g., the person who stands in front of a public school and yells "shit, shit, shit" over and over and over. Not to mention they really need to see a doctor and then get a life after treatment. The laws are local and statewide for the most part on this, but the bottom line in Federal law, which takes precedent, is that it has been well decided by the Supremes for decades that "censorship" does not exist from person to person and in the workplace. The concept of "Free Speech" is not absolute and was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be for all speech in all environments.

    A better though is that if you have to resort to a stream of "profanity" to express oneself in most situations, you simply show all listeners the limits of your intellect as well as the limits of your education and emotional self control. None of that is valued in any society on the globe. People around the world are more likely to listen and listen thoughfully to a well spoken idea or argument than to someone whose argument is laced with needless profanity that adds nothing to the idea but actually distracts from it.

    But it is not censorship to object to it. An example is Mr Mark owns/manages this website. He is free, and it is not censorship, for him to limit what is said, or the topics, and even limit who he allows on the website. The idea is that this is his "property" which he allows others, at his complete and total discretion, to participate in, or not, how he sees fit and choses to at any given point in time. Not allowing someone to join or post, or editing or deleting their posts, or declaring any subject "off limits" is within his purview. He has that right. Period. If anyone does not like it...that is too bad. Your options would be to accept Mr. Marks rules and abide, leave and start your own, leave and find another, or go in your backyard and pound sand until you feel better.

    Of course,what is and is not on TV is a function of where you are? Topics and words said in Asia would never be shown in most of the Continental European countries, and some of those not shown or aired in the UK, and then some of those not in the US. That is just societal norms and is a melding of a free enterprise system in a capital economy. If people "want" and "like" and "accept" something, the market will dictate it is shown and sponsors will pay to show it and the artistic folks will comply with making it. But if the artistic folks want to say "fuck" on TV, and the market analysis is that it will offend or turn off a demographic that will pay the bills with sponsors, it probably won't find a sponsor and thus not get on TV. An example, in small scale is a garage rock band. They think they are "artists" and love to make music that has "cunt" laced in it describing all women. If a venue manager thinks it will turn off his regular patrons, he won't book them. A producer judges that while the market for their music is there, it is so small that it is not commerically viable to sign a deal with them and produce, manufacture, market, and sell a CD that will only be bought by them and their relatives. The sales will not cover the costs, so they don't get a deal. This is not censorship, no matter how much the "artists" may scream and rant and rave it is "censorship". The problem is that they are not "very good" as "very good" is defined as commercially marketable and able to generate income to cover the costs of their enterprise. But They have ever right to play all they want any way they want in their garage.
     
  8. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    One Mormon prophet said that the use of God's name in vain is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

    I've often thought it funny that so-called 'nonbelievers' use such expletives ad nauseum, indicating to me that they actually believe more in God than they let on, else they'd be saying "Buddha-damn," or "Krishna-damn" or "Allah-dammit" instread.
     
  9. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    But the original post specifically mentioned television, and for the broadcast stations (cable and satellite are a bit different) the government DOES regulate and censor. Remember the "wardrobe malfunction" fiasco? The government, at least in the US, has some very strict guidelines about what words and images are expressly forbidden, and harsh penalties for infractions.
     
  10. BigBen

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    566
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sanibel (FL, US)
    But the original post specifically mentioned television, and for the broadcast stations (cable and satellite are a bit different) the government DOES regulate and censor. Remember the "wardrobe malfunction" fiasco? The government, at least in the US, has some very strict guidelines about what words and images are expressly forbidden, and harsh penalties for infractions.
    [post=353625]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    Please be so kind as to reread my post. You will note that I wrote that it is specifically NOT censorship when an individual, group, or business/company objects to words/images. I specifically wrote that only government can impose any form of "censorship". And you are of course correct that the government does regulate and censor. It is a function of government to do so and always has been. The question then becomes what is "censorship" to one is offensive with to value to others...and which is the majority and sometimes prevailing societal opinion. An "artist" or "creative director" might consider a commercial with full nudity not offense because the nude is drinking Coke. Others might object. Some objections, to some, might seem silly. Others would view them as valid. The governmental role is to mediate within the three branches of government within the US. Voters/taxpayers/constituents tell their elected representatives what they think, they vote general policy and vote to approve $ to agencies in the executive branch to carry out the policy. The executive branch agencies have the order to implement policy. If anyone individual or group or interest disagrees, they can petition the judicial branch to stop or reverse or define the policy.

    And this is not unique to the US. Other countries in Asia and Europe also have stiff policies and fines for violations of their norms.
    However, it must be noted that their norms tend to change with the hour of broadcasting. Things shown on late night TV in the UK or on the Continent are banned when children or familes might be watching at earlier hours. Break that rule and those governments can be much more harsh than the American Federal Communications Commission. But after certain hours, the rules do loosen up considerably more than what is commonly shown on non cable channels in the US. The Europeans and some Asiatic countries can be even more prudish than the "Americans" depending on the subject matter.
     
  11. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm not actually offended by nudity. I do however have a problem with some people posting nudity in attachments and not in the galleries. (If you must, simply post a link to it, with the NSFW disclaimer.)
     
  12. B_HappyHammer1977

    B_HappyHammer1977 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    I understand your question, HappyHammer, but I don't understand peoples' reasoning for this sort of thing. I had a discussion similar to this with one of my fellow Marines once. My view was that the important thing was the intent of a word, his view was that the word itself was important. One of my examples was words in different languages that sound alike but have different meanings. "Fuk" and "Dong" are common words in some Asian languages, but pronounced to an English speaker have very different meanings.

    My 8th grade English teacher was a very proper, religious spinster. Our book reports had to be from books on her list (I'm sure she reviewed each and every one very carefully, for inappropriate content.) One story that every one of her classes from the dawn of history had to read and do a report on was "How Lincoln Paid for his Stockings." It was her very favorite story, but it did have one naughty word in it. She had gone through every copy, and carefully redacted the word "beer". We all thought it was hilarious.

    Some people are just wired that way. What I don't understand is why someone who finds some things on television offensive doesn't just simply not watch it. Yet usually, they view it as "I don't like it, so I refuse to let you see it." Simple nonsense.
    [post=353561]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]


    You raise a very good point - intent - people can use words to offend or insult. But still, when deliberately offending someone, the choice of a "curse-word" or one that is in common use will still have the same effect. eg; if I called you "a cunt" or "an idiot", which would be more offensive?
     
  13. B_HappyHammer1977

    B_HappyHammer1977 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Absolutely...it's the proverbial bishop syndrome; ol' bish' preaches good morals to his flock while getting a bj from a minor in his spare time. :puke:
     
  14. B_HappyHammer1977

    B_HappyHammer1977 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    From Swearing to Nudity -

    If someone was walking down the street, man or woman (or man and woman), completely stark-bollock-naked, would you actually be offended? Surprised sure, but offended?
     
  15. Alley Blue

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Depends on what they were doing........and how big of a puddle they leave while doing it........
     
  16. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    they're just words, for shit's sake; get over it. if you allow words to have power over you, you deserve to be offended.

    you MOTHERFUCKING CUNTS.
     
  17. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    BigBen, re-reading your post didn't help - and I re-read it several times. It still appeared to me that you were saying that specific words and images are kept off the airwaves by the broadcasters, not the government. Well, in a sense, that is true, if they want to avoid LEGAL penalties - but it is still censorship, because it is mandated by government what is and is not acceptable for the airwaves.

    For that matter, I have never understood why "tribal tits" are ok on broadcast, but "suburban tits" are not. Is it because the "tribal tits" are educational, and "suburban tits" are tittilating?
     
  18. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nah, nigger tits are not deemed enticing enough for editing.
     
  19. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, I still stand by the "educational" theory. There is a reason I renamed National Geographic magazine to National Pornographic.
     
  20. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Well, I still stand by the "educational" theory. There is a reason I renamed National Geographic magazine to National Pornographic.
    [post=354013]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    I am offended by this discussion.

    Just kidding.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted