3411 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

My cautionary point illustrated....

 

Do I understand you correctly that you are a fan of FoxNews then?

 

 

Btw... might be relevant to the thread:

 

[AlleyD]

There is a point or two about the use of offensive language that I would wish to make. I wish to correct some small errors and  urban myths, and I hope to explain my reasons for viewing the censoring of language as a greater evil and the product of mindsets that are more disgusting than the words they censor. This is a tale of a clash of a cultures and an ongoing war of oppression and mind control that has extremely deeeeeeeep roots. 

 

It is a common misunderstanding that the modern definitions and usage of the f-bomb and c-bomb are 15th century Middle English. This is a myth, and a very ironic one. The earliest evidence of both derive from the pen of one man; William Dunbar and he deliberately chose these words as a direct protest against the spread of Middle English into the court society of Scotland during the 15th century.

 

William Dunbar was not a simple minded illiterate struggling to express himself in vulgar language. The opposite is far more truer picture of the man.  A true master of spoken and written language.  His main claim to fame was his stint as a Makar (court poet) in the court of James IV of Scotland . The functions of a Makar are varied and history records that he was paid around 4* that of any other intellectual in Scotland at the time. In addition to his court role he was also a priest,  a notorious contributor to the early media of the day and one of the greatest "flyters" of all time (Flyting is a form of contest between poets. Much like a rap battle/ stand up comedy roast; but with classier lyrics and better writers). In modern terms, he was the Scottish king's communication's director, his COS liaison between the Crown and the Church, the caretaker of the Scots language, the most popular columnist and the greatest rapper and Stand-Up comedian ever in Scots culture rolled up into one. It isn't for nothing that many Scottish intellectuals see this man as the True Father of Scot's Poetry and that Scottish cultural identity is best expressed through his works. Some claim he may have made the greatest contribution to the English Language.

 

William dropped the first F-bomb in a poem called "In a secret place" . The poem is essentially about a young man wanting to seduce a woman, but faces repeated rejection and heart break. William chose to use "courtly love" language and style  in the title, and throughout the majority of the text. This was the high style of English writing derived from Franco-Norman roots and was becoming fashionable in the court society at the time. "In a Secret Place" is a classic of this romantic style of language, but it has a far deeper impact than virtually any other romance poem written for the Scottish court. For William descended into Scots for the main points of the poem which reveal the youth's intentions are not to court, but to have sex. "He Wald Hae Fukkit", Fukkit being the word for lustful sex

 

The act of sex for the simple sake of it was one of the greatest taboos in that time of Christian history and describing the act required codes and forms, but William Dunbar chose to ignore them and descend into explicit language to describe a "dangerous" act. The reason for the change in language? I believe that William was making a satirical comment and protest against the use of Middle English in the court of Scotland. Illustrating the inadequacy and intellectual folly of one form of language by contrasting with the effectiveness of the native tongue in a comedy setting. Given Dunbar's reputation as an orator, the punchline probably landed with full effect

 

The C-bomb also has its origins in the pen of William Dunbar. It appears in a correspondence that he shared with another Makar called "The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy" This is a series of insulting letters (much like a vicious, political flame war) that is 400 so lines of vitriol and abuse by 2 masters of the craft, part playful, but there were serious undertones as well. Dunbar fired off the line "C--tbitten" in Kennedy's direction in a section ridiculing his claim to "Royal Blood". The usage of the term was totally offensive, but not in any  direct reference to women. The context of the word usage lies in the more vicious insults that make references to King Edward the 1st of England that repeat throughout the flyting aimed at Kennedy. Edward the 1st was the notorious oppressor of the Scots in the 13th century, and I believe Dunbar was using the word to suggest that Kennedy was related more to the English crown than the Scottish one and that he was a traitor to his culture, far more than anything directly related to a woman. A translation for Dunbar's use was that he chose a term in Scots to suggest that Kennedy was the son of an English prostitute or camp follower. The lowest of the low, devious, twisted and an abomination and not to be trusted.

 

Kennedy replied with another of the earliest uses of the f-bomb. In his reply to the challenge to Flyte; he got the first blows of the contest. Referring to Dunbar as a "Wanfucked foundling that Nature made an yrle (Midget, dwarf, runt)

 

With three simple lines, William Dunbar, and his Makar adversary Kennedy fired the opening salvo of a culture and psychological war that is still being played out. The roots of the war lie in the clash of cultures between Scotland and England. It goes beyond class warfare, but part of the ongoing culture clash between Northern Europe and the Romanized South that extends back over 2000 years and continues to play out.

 

On one side you had the formalized bureaucracy of an Empire trying to impose authority on its inhabitants and remove dangerous elements by means of enforcing the control of thought and language.  In England there were tight censorship of the F-bomb, but the word started to thrive in Scotland. I read in a thesis on the Scots language that around 68% of surviving literature in Scotland from the pre-Jacobite era includes some form of usage of the f-bomb . It's cultural use was even more widespread than the literature suggests. The Scots language had strong oral traditions and an advanced form of the art of flyting,

 

It is ironic to me that the words became such a feature of American English, and that the English equivalents for the F-Bomb and C-word have none of the power of my ancestral language and disappeared into the past. Little more than curiosities.

 

The roots to this irony lie in the 18th century and the English Government's attempts at eradicating Scottish culture after the Jacobite Rebellions. Waves of Scots were forced to migrate to the New Worlds in the colonies, they had been stripped of most of their weapons and were forced to abandon a culture. They were left with virtually nothing but their language and it became an even more powerful weapon in their fight to retain their identity. It was these forced migrations that spread the language out faster than the efforts to contain it. It was driven on the mouths of the Scottish regiments that built the Empire and it traveled across the wide open spaces of the States and Australia in the mouths of the Scottish Cattle Drovers. The North American beef industry has its roots in the Scots Drovers; tough, independent, clans who fed Europe with beef for almost 8000 years or so. The Drover crossed the pond and became the archetypal American Icon-The Cowboy. How much of US culture is influenced by the cattle industry? Let alone the other Scots trades that help build the nations.

 

My North American friends, So much of your national identity is derived from the millions of Scots that were expelled or migrated from their homeland. I find it strange that so many of the most treasured aspects of the American culture derive from the impact of the Scots, but there is some form of resistance to the use of the language that was at the heart of the creation of the nation, its myths and cultural memetics.

[Elhanan]

I embrace many cultures - saved the Rachni Queen and helped cure the Genophage - but do not have to like everything they say and do. And while I am kinda old, have not spoken with many characters from history recently, and doubt very much if those posting on yt comment sections have either.

Still not a fan of profanity, and would prefer it not to be included in games, or be made optional is possible.

[Han Shot First]

If you think about it, the whole concept profanity is completely illogical. Why should one word that means exactly the same thing as another be considered rude or improper? 

[BabyPuncher]

If you think about it, the whole concept profanity is completely illogical. Why should one word that means exactly the same thing as another be considered rude or improper? 

 

Because they don't mean 'exactly the same thing.'
 

[Han Shot First]

Because they don't mean 'exactly the same thing.'
 

 

They often do.

 

Take the four letter word beginning with a C for woman's lady parts as an example. When used to refer to a body part rather than being used as a pejorative, it means exactly the same thing as vagina. We've just arbitrarily decided that one word is more vulgar than another.

 

The word I'm referring to is also a great example because originally it wasn't vulgar at all. It was considered perfectly acceptable for every day speech in the Middle Ages, and only started to become considered taboo in the 18th Century.

[agonis]

@Han: Everyday speech?

 

The last few day passed without the opportunity to use c*** or even vagina.

 

I fear my everyday speech is sadly lacking. *chuckles*

[DaemionMoadrin]

Still not a fan of profanity, and would prefer it not to be included in games, or be made optional is possible.

 

Well, no one in the Mass Effect or Dragon Age games is taking the Lord's name in vain, so I don't see your profanity issue.

 

Obscenities and vulgarisms, sure. But profanity? Nope, none at all.

 

You should know that.

 

[Zazzerka]

Well, no one in the Mass Effect or Dragon Age games is taking the Lord's name in vain, so I don't see your profanity issue.

 

The woman on the Defence Committee during ME3's opening sequence does. And shame, shame, shame on her! The imminent destruction of one's planet is no excuse for such a potty mouth.

[Former_Fiend]

If you think about it, the whole concept profanity is completely illogical. Why should one word that means exactly the same thing as another be considered rude or improper? 

 

This'll sum it up.

 

https://youtu.be/Dd7dQh8u4Hc?t=3m9s

[Former_Fiend]

Well, no one in the Mass Effect or Dragon Age games is taking the Lord's name in vain, so I don't see your profanity issue.

 

Obscenities and vulgarisms, sure. But profanity? Nope, none at all.

 

You should know that.

 

 

I'd like you to meet a friend of mine. His name is Zaeed Massani and he would like to have a g'damn word with you.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I'd like you to meet a friend of mine. His name is Zaeed Massani and he would like to have a g'damn word with you.

 

Those are curses.

[Chealec]

There is a point or two about the use of offensive language

 

... stuff ...

 

 

I suspect the words were in common usage before Dunbar (influenced by Chaucer) put them to paper... snickets like "Gropec**t Lane" (now Grape Lane) in York were places where you'd go to pick up prostitutes oddly enough... and I suspect neither word had the impact it does today. Hell, read Chaucer, I suspect almost everything found offensive today would have been hardly worth mentioning, or perhaps just used for comic effect, in the 14th and 15th centuries.

 

People got prissy.

[Equalitas]

Op is a damn drama queen that just wanted haters on his/her blog or something. Reading all that was painful. 

[PhroXenGold]

To be fair, I can't think of anything in a BW game I would describe as "explicit"....

[Il Divo]

If you think about it, the whole concept profanity is completely illogical. Why should one word that means exactly the same thing as another be considered rude or improper? 

 

Usually because intent/tone/historical usage are factors as well. Think about how the n-word is not considered a suitable substitute for "African-American". Sure, they're referring to the same basic content. But one word is highly offensive. The other? Not so much. 

 

For less controversial examples, even other words/phrases which are considered synonyms might have subtle differences which serve to differentiate them. 

 

Swearing tends to fill a certain niche in our vocabulary. I can't say I'd be happy about its eradication from entertainment. Not to mention, certain other words would simply fill the void inevitably to then become swear words. 

[dragonflight288]

As if blatant dishonesty and lack of integrity are any barrier to continued employment at Fox News.

 

Or MSNBC, or CNN, or even the Daily Show which only agenda is to make people laugh as it's a comedy show that makes fun of the news. 

 

I just don't trust journalists no matter who they are or the station they work for.

 

Although I have less problems with Fox News, since I know someone personally who used to work there (not as a news anchor.) 

[LinksOcarina]

Or MSNBC, or CNN, or even the Daily Show which only agenda is to make people laugh as it's a comedy show that makes fun of the news. 

 

I just don't trust journalists no matter who they are or the station they work for.

 

Although I have less problems with Fox News, since I know someone personally who used to work there (not as a news anchor.) 

 

Thats surprising, they are most biased of all most of the time.

[Elhanan]

I recommend gathering multiple sources, and from sides one likes and dislikes; helps to learn debates one may have missed from ones own chorus, so to speak. My Uncle that served in Korea and WWII is reported to have done so during those times as well; was a recommendation that I choose to try and employ.

However, it is difficult for me to readily forgive the lie of omission of information; a reason why one popular source still is on my private ignore list.

[timebean]

In regards to cussing...

 

To me, there are greater evils in modern language than cussing (by far). Honestly, I prefer cussing to vocal frying, and intentional lisping, and mouth breathing...which are becoming commonplace due to celebrity personalities who do it (e.g. Kim Kardashian, Drew Barrymore, and that dopey girl from Twilight, respectively) and people mimicking those sounds because they think it sounds cool. Personally, I think those sounds are distasteful and annoying, and I cringe when I have to listen to someone who does those things (especially when they do it on purpose). I can't help but imagine that 200 years from now, everyone will talk with a mixture of those affectations.  Uggg!!  I can see it now...the people of the future letting their mouths hang open at the end of sentences, slack-jawed  with dazed looks on their faces and spittle on their upper lips. Ick!  I am much more worried about young people who talk like that than young people who cuss a little.

 

 I guess my point it this...I would rather be surrounded by folks dropping F-bombs then people using "polite" language in a voice that uses any of those "new" ways of talking.

 

So, as long as Bioware hires decent voice actors who can speak "properly" in ME;A...I will be happy with whatever comes outta their mouths!!

 

(this is a joke to lighten the mood...but I mean every word I say, nonetheless...)

 

[AlleyD]

I suspect the words were in common usage before Dunbar (influenced by Chaucer) put them to paper... snickets like "Gropec**t Lane" (now Grape Lane) in York were places where you'd go to pick up prostitutes oddly enough... and I suspect neither word had the impact it does today. Hell, read Chaucer, I suspect almost everything found offensive today would have been hardly worth mentioning, or perhaps just used for comic effect, in the 14th and 15th centuries.

 

People got prissy.

 

Thank you for the information on the c-bomb. I agree that the word appeared in Anglo-Saxon as a descriptor for a vagina and a place to indulge in the sin of lust, but the more offensive term in that day was probably qwent which Chaucer and many other English authors chose to use. I think Dunbar was aiming for language that went beyond Chaucer in its power to insult and ridicule his opponent (given the nature of the exchange and the form of competition that was present in a flyting.)

 

Note: my historical knowledge of the origins and context influence my usage of the c-word. I do not apply it as an insult to a woman in any instance, but keep it in reserve for the times when I need to make a point against another man in the most heated of exchanges or when I have been insulted or demeaned by someone in the most extreme terms.

 

As I mentioned I see censorship of language as being part of an ongoing cultural warfare between the English speaking nations. This suppression had its high point in the late 18th and all through the 19th centuries and was part of a larger campaign to destroy the Scottish culture. The unfortunate thing for the oppression was that their efforts on diminishing Scottish culture caused the language to travel further and be deeper imbedded in the colonial cultures of the New Worlds than it would have done through economic migration.

 

The reason I went into history is that I am aware that some North Americans can have a fascination for older cultures that informed their heritage. Some of the most deeply held beliefs such as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms etc stem from the experiences of the Scots that formed a significant proportion of the population of the 13 colonies and the later cultural memetics of the United States.  It seems so strange to me that many modern Americans take some form of offense at this language. Censorship of language was a deliberate form of mind control systematically employed by the culture that the early Americans fought to gain independence from.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Or MSNBC, or CNN, or even the Daily Show which only agenda is to make people laugh as it's a comedy show that makes fun of the news. 

 

I just don't trust journalists no matter who they are or the station they work for.

 

Although I have less problems with Fox News, since I know someone personally who used to work there (not as a news anchor.) 

 

http://www.politifac...-fox-news-lies/

[dreamgazer]

Take the four letter word beginning with a C for woman's lady parts as an example. When used to refer to a body part rather than being used as a pejorative, it means exactly the same thing as vagina. We've just arbitrarily decided that one word is more vulgar than another.

 

Couldn't help myself.

 

[dragonflight288]

Thats surprising, they are most biased of all most of the time.

 

As is every other news network. 

 

All journalists are biased in some form. They approach stories with a certain mindset. Their editors determine what is and what is not newsworthy, and the angle to approach, so what we hear is NEVER unbiased and strictly the truth.

 

For example, MSNBC during the 2012 Presidential Race actually edited a video of Mitt Romney giving a speech, and took out the vast majority of his talk and then took a sentence at the end and added it to the beginning to change the context of what he was talking about. They also, during a shooting case with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, willfully edited a recorded police dispatch call to make the shooter sound like a racist, so they could report the entire incident as a racist act, when the full dispatch call, in its entirety, changes things.

 

CNN, when Bush was president, during the Iraq War, did a segment on the horrors of the war by showing multiple dead babies, when the reality was that a photographer took one dead baby, and then re positioned it several times and took several pictures to make the carnage look worse than it actually was for that particular conflict. When CNN was confronted about it, they passed it off as "just the photographer." 

 

However, as a News Network, they are responsible for everything they put forward.

 

Fox is biased one way, MSNBC is just as bad in the opposite direction, and CNN is also not guilty, especially during the Presidential Debate where it was obvious in a debate between Romney and Obama that Kandy Krowley was not neutral as a moderator when she willfully helped Obama with a transcript that she should not have had, and then apologized for after the debate was over. It was set-up to make Romney look bad in that debate.

 

It's not just Fox. It's pretty much every major News Network. They have an agenda in the news they present, and they decide what is and what is not newsworthy, and thus control what the public gets to hear. 

 

Like I said, I know a guy personally who used to work for Fox, and wasn't a news anchor, so it's really just a matter of that that I don't give Fox as hard a time as I easily can, if only for his sake. 

[Elhanan]

As is every other news network. 
 
All journalists are biased in some form. They approach stories with a certain mindset. Their editors determine what is and what is not newsworthy, and the angle to approach, so what we hear is NEVER unbiased and strictly the truth.
 
For example, MSNBC during the 2012 Presidential Race actually edited a video of Mitt Romney giving a speech, and took out the vast majority of his talk and then took a sentence at the end and added it to the beginning to change the context of what he was talking about. They also, during a shooting case with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, willfully edited a recorded police dispatch call to make the shooter sound like a racist, so they could report the entire incident as a racist act, when the full dispatch call, in its entirety, changes things.
 
CNN, when Bush was president, during the Iraq War, did a segment on the horrors of the war by showing multiple dead babies, when the reality was that a photographer took one dead baby, and then re positioned it several times and took several pictures to make the carnage look worse than it actually was for that particular conflict. When CNN was confronted about it, they passed it off as "just the photographer." 
 
However, as a News Network, they are responsible for everything they put forward.
 
Fox is biased one way, MSNBC is just as bad in the opposite direction, and CNN is also not guilty, especially during the Presidential Debate where it was obvious in a debate between Romney and Obama that Kandy Krowley was not neutral as a moderator when she willfully helped Obama with a transcript that she should not have had, and then apologized for after the debate was over. It was set-up to make Romney look bad in that debate.
 
It's not just Fox. It's pretty much every major News Network. They have an agenda in the news they present, and they decide what is and what is not newsworthy, and thus control what the public gets to hear. 
 
Like I said, I know a guy personally who used to work for Fox, and wasn't a news anchor, so it's really just a matter of that that I don't give Fox as hard a time as I easily can, if only for his sake.

And I recall this:

http://www.nytimes.c...ion/11JORD.html