Do Not Swear

[Virgil]

I don't know. It seemed profound when I was eleven years old. It doesn't seem too profound now.

Hey, maybe that's Robin's age (eleven). Oh that's on another thread.

[Logos]

Also, is such dismissal all my comments were worth? At no point did I advocate swearing at any member of the forum. I gave a well considered, pertinent and, I hope, thoughtful response to the original topic. Most of us don’t have your privilege of deleting what we don’t like and I, for one, think that you forget that with such privileges comes the responsibility for fairness.

Moderators are here to oversee behaviour and content according to the rules set forth by our benevolent dictator Admin

We do not edit/delete posts or close topics because we feel like it, it's because they are violation of rules. Sure the rules are subject to our interpretation at times, there are grey areas, but I know Scher and myself try to be as fair as possible at all times.

And heck ya it's great to swear at times, it can be a form of `venting' frustration, but out of respect to Admin, to the children that participate here, and everyone else I refrain.

[starrwriter]

Well, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I guess I learn foul language pretty early. By sixth grade, which is roughly 11 years old, I remember swearing around worst than a sailor. Of course never at home.

In the small town in Michigan where I grew up, we learned how to swear profusely by age 11. But, like you, I never did it at home. My mother was a conservative Kentucky woman and she kept a bar of soap within reach at all times. Even when I was a middle-aged man, she would freak out if I let a curse word slip out in her presence. My old man was foul-mouthed and she never said a word to him. Go figure.

[Virgil]

In the small town in Michigan where I grew up, we learned how to swear profusely by age 11. But, like you, I never did it at home. My mother was a conservative Kentucky woman and she kept a bar of soap within reach at all times. Even when I was a middle-aged man, she would freak out if I let a curse word slip out in her presence. My old man was foul-mouthed and she never said a word to him. Go figure.

He must of set her straight at one point. She didn't want you to grow up to be the same. Age eleven must also be significant.

[Pensive]

I am strongly against swearing, especially in a public forum.

Well, I will say that when I was 12, I came to know what **** meant and it created a lot of confusions in me. Now, I feel in a matter of a year, I have grown up a lot but still, it does not allow me to use strong words like **** or even words like b***s***

[The Unnamable]

I tried to get back to this much earlier but this is the first time I’ve been able to get access to the site.

Is my prose style really so turgid and confusing as to prevent comprehension? I will try once again to make myself clear. I do not advocate, or ask for, swearing on the site. I didn’t swear at or about anyone. Nowhere have I said anything that could even suggest that this was in any way the point of what I was saying. You seem to be assuming that I am moaning about not being allowed to swear. I’m not. I suspect, however, that my prose style has nothing to do with my point not being recognised. My complaint was about being patronised for expressing views that appear not to have been properly considered. This, however, didn’t offend me as much as the selection of a deliberately emotive word, ‘abuse’, to equate my view with that of a thug.


Digital Crash, you say, “It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad”. Firstly, so what if I am? Am I not allowed to think differently about the use of such words, while at the same time accepting that I won’t be using them? Are our thoughts to be controlled as well as our actions? That is a very dangerous precedent to set and one you can learn more about by reading Orwell’s ‘1984’, especially in the sections relating to the concept of ‘Thoughtcrime’. However, the vagueness in your statement (‘It appears’, ‘in a way’) should alert others to the possibility that this is not what I am saying. I am happy to answer for what I have said but not for what it would be most convenient for your argument to assume that I had said.

Robin, your response,

“Scher's a Moderator--you accepted that fact by registering on the forums. She's not making any assumptions with regards to moral superiority, she's exercising the authority to which you consented and is using it to enforce the rules of the forums, to which you also consented.”

is completely irrelevant to what I’d said. If you disagree with me, fine, but at least disagree with what I’ve said, not what you inaccurately assume I have said. Your point in itself raises an interesting question in the wider context. To what extent are we obliged to honour our acceptance of any authority if that authority abuses its power? Such questions are the subject of a great deal of the Literature represented on this site.

You seemed to like Orwell, if I remember correctly. I am reminded of Squealer’s response in ‘Animal Farm’ every time the other animals dared to voice any challenge to their treatment – “Surely, none of you wishes to see Jones back?” Of course they don’t, but that wasn’t their point. Squealer's job is to explain things away. His master gives the first example of propaganda tactics: "What is going to happen to all that milk? said someone ... Never mind the milk, comrades! ... The harvest is more important" (p.24). An important question is brushed aside by focusing on the excitement of the harvest. Already, the principle of equality and fair play has gone.

It might seem extremely forced and contrived to use ‘Animal Farm’ as an analogy. This is an Internet Forum, not a Soviet Gulag. I agree, but I also believe that Literature (if it is to justify being something we teach) should be relevant to the here and now. Characters like Squealer appear in books because they surround us in our ‘real’ lives. Most of us will not face the agonising decisions that have to be made by people persecuted for their beliefs: We will however, on a much smaller scale, face the every day life equivalents of these choices.

Personally, swearing doesn’t bother me but that’s not the point. The discussion seemed to me to have covered many of the expected areas that such a topic would inevitably generate so I thought it might be interesting to take a different direction. For me, this is called ‘thinking’. As someone whose livelihood is dependent on language, I thought it would be worth considering why certain words are classified as unsuitable. This is why I posted information about the Tony Harrison poem, ‘V’, which movingly explores the issue and opens it up to considerations of the relationship between language and power. Once again, I would like to say that my comments were in no way concerned with a complaint about not being allowed to swear. I would also say that I consider an exploration of the relationship between language and power to be relevant on a Literature discussion forum.

Lots of young people appear to use the site. I genuinely believe that they can learn a great deal about the issues raised by this topic if they simply observe the interaction between the contributors and the moderators. It might only be a microcosm but to many members such observation should bring the issues to life in a much more immediate way than a hypothetical discussion would. It should also prove that those dusty old tomes are not irrelevant to today’s world.

Shouldn’t Literature be something that is vital and relevant to the here and now or is it simply a quaint piece of decoration to be admired and cherished like a stuffed and extinct exhibit in a museum? As a teacher, my ultimate aim with any student is to make myself unnecessary -no longer necessary because the student has learned to think for him or herself. If that means questioning me, then all the better (“I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.” Wilson Mizner).

In any meaningful discussion of authority and censorship, surely there needs to be some consideration of the motivation and processes of legitimisation of that authority? I’m not even talking about challenging it (which would be a pointless, trivial and utterly self-indulgent thing to do in the context of a Forum) – but simply examining it. Scrutiny of ideas and their expression is surely important or is it the case that even examining the rules (without any desire to change them) is considered a threat of sufficient seriousness to be outlawed?

Ultimately, I would argue that the suppression of thought and control of language have more to do with maintaining existing power structures than any issues of morality or even propriety. This does not mean that I simply want to use ‘naughty words’ or believe that ‘anything goes’.

Another literary text that people might find interesting when thinking about this topic, is Graham Swift’s ‘Waterland’. The main character is a History teacher who tries to teach his subject using the stories of his own life. As you would expect, he finds himself in conflict with those for whom a structured, balanced and accessible curriculum is sacrosanct.

“(So it’s all right, children. No need to be afraid. Lewis is here. Don’t be gloomy. To all these morbid dreams, a simple answer: the nuclear fallout shelter.)”

Two requests to his class are offered here as impassioned expressions of my own beliefs:


“Children, don't stop asking why. Don't cease your Why Sir? Why Sir? Though it gets more difficult the more you ask it, though it gets more inexplicable, more painful, and the answer never seems to come any nearer, don't try to escape this question Why.”

“Children, be curious. Nothing is worse (I know it) than when curiosity stops. Nothing is more repressive than the repression of curiosity. Curiosity begets love. It weds us to the world. It's part of our perverse, madcap love for this impossible planet we inhabit. People die when curiosity goes. People have to find out, people have to know. How can there be any true revolution till we know what we're made of?”

[RobinHood3000]

Irrevelant to your points? I disagree. A Moderator attempted to moderate you on what she perceived as a violation of the terms of use, and instead of politely explaining the difference between what she perceived and what you meant, you martyred yourself by invoking a cause (free speech) far greater than what was actually being argued: a simple misunderstanding.

As far as censorship goes, this is not a forced book-burning here, Unnamable--you'll note that, despite what you view as being your personal victimization, the majority of your posts remain intact. As we have pointed out, your membership here is voluntary, and if you don't like the Terms of Use, you're free to leave. Novel concept, isn't it? You like it, you stay; you don't like it, you leave. Hardly anything to get your knickers in a tizzy over.

[Virgil]

Question for Unnamable. You state:

Ultimately, I would argue that the suppression of thought and control of language have more to do with maintaining existing power structures than any issues of morality or even propriety. This does not mean that I simply want to use ‘naughty words’ or believe that ‘anything goes’.

Can you expand on this thought? How does power surpress thought and control of language? Can you also give real life, not fictional, examples to flesh this out?

BTW, I'm not really intersted in the argument above, but in reading this over I found this an interesting thought that I would like to converse on. Be aware also that I'm inclined to disagree with it but, let us say, I'm open to persuasion.

[Scheherazade]

The Unnamable> I am sorry to hear that you consider yourself misunderstood. The simple, very simple, point I was trying to make when I responded to your first post was that the kind of swearing which will not be tolerated is mainly in the form of personal attacks and abuse.

We understand that it sometimes appears in literary works and if you take the time to look around the Forum, you will see that there are poems and other works which contain such words (both published and personal). We are not rigid, power-crazed people, who edit the posts at will (though the idea sounds rather tempting at times ). As Logos pointed out, we try to be as fair as possible and evaluate individual merits of each post before reacting to them. However, as a general guideline and to ensure fairness to all, we have a rule:

Swearing is not allowed in this Forum.


Virgil> Would you like to start a separate thread for that particular discussion so that it will be easier to follow? Thank you.

[The Unnamable]

Irrevelant to your points? I disagree. A Moderator attempted to moderate you on what she perceived as a violation of the terms of use,

You see, that's not what happened - which is why I said your response was irrelevant. What was the violation? The mod simply directed a comment at me; there was no violation.
I politely urge that you actually read the posts before making such statements.

[RobinHood3000]

And I would urge you to do the same: I said a PERCEIVED violation of the terms of use.

[Anon22]

You see, that's not what happened - which is why I said your response was irrelevant. What was the violation? The mod simply directed a comment at me; there was no violation.
I politely urge that you actually read the posts before making such statements.

Gosh, you make things more complicated than they already are (it's just a simple misunderstanding), and now you want to make things worser than they are by telling Robin that he's not reading the posts (do you know how horribly offensive that is?)

Digital Crash, you say, “It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad”. Firstly, so what if I am? Am I not allowed to think differently about the use of such words, while at the same time accepting that I won’t be using them? Are our thoughts to be controlled as well as our actions? That is a very dangerous precedent to set and one you can learn more about by reading Orwell’s ‘1984’, especially in the sections relating to the concept of ‘Thoughtcrime’. However, the vagueness in your statement (‘It appears’, ‘in a way’) should alert others to the possibility that this is not what I am saying. I am happy to answer for what I have said but not for what it would be most convenient for your argument to assume that I had said.

You're right, swearing isn't bad... but that's not the point, she's not telling you that swearing isn't allowed here because she thinks you'll swear, but she's saying that even though swearing isn't bad it's still not allowed here.

[The Unnamable]

You're right, swearing isn't bad... but that's not the point, she's not telling you that swearing isn't allowed here because she thinks you'll swear, but she's saying that even though swearing isn't bad it's still not allowed here.

She doesn't need to tell me, I know. However, the original discussion is simply reduced to a stating of the rules, which certainly does not help explore or develop it in any way. I think it's an interesting topic and one that deserves more consideration than that.

BTW your interpretation is contrary to Robin's. He assumes a 'perceived' violation on the part of the mod. You say that she's NOT telling me that swearing isn't allowed because she thinks I will swear (which implies that she didn't think this). Robin assumed that she DID perceive a violation. Personally I DON'T think she perceived a violation, which is why I still think all that is irrelevant. Would the discussion have been interesting in any way if, once the topic had been started, a mod simply said, "It's not allowed - end of discussion, next topic please."?

[RobinHood3000]

Here's a novel idea--ask Scher for the reasoning behind the posting. That'll clear up any confusion. And this is not a debate thread, this is an administrative notice thread. The Admin authored it, and would have no reason to dismiss it.

[Anon22]

Here's a novel idea--ask Scher for the reasoning behind the posting. That'll clear up any confusion. And this is not a debate thread, this is an administrative notice thread. The Admin authored it, and would have no reason to dismiss it.

I'm sure that's something we can all agree on.