I don't think I'm the one with a problem - RonO's Ramblings
|Mar. 23rd, 2009 08:44 pm I don't think I'm the one with a problem|
Yesterday, someone posted a mostly very good list of behavior suggestions to con_central. However, they chose to use a profanity in their posting. This prompted me to make a, somewhat directed, suggestion that people should try to not use profanity.
While I do not regret my feelings in the nature, I'm beginning to regret making the comment, because I've been getting, for lack of a better term, flamed over it. Apparently, there are a bunch of people who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to use profanity whenever and wherever they please, and I shouldn't object to hearing it, or having my child hear it.
One even went to the extent of saying I should bring my son to a con unless it is specifically advertised as "child friendly" and that it wasn't fair that I (implied) require that the world be "G Rated."
Another poster claimed that profanity wasn't in the class of the other things discussed. Yet one of item addressed was the use of racist language. I find profanity and racist language basically equivalent. Both are using words carelessly without thought or feeling about how others might take it.
Current Mood: aggravated8 comments - Leave a comment
|Date:||March 24th, 2009 05:01 am (UTC)|| |
Unless I'm missing something, I saw three posts respectfully disagreeing with you-hardly a "flame."
I find profanity and racist language basically equivalent.
You are of course free to see it that way; but to me, the difference is that racist language is insulting and demeaning. Profanity is, well, profane, but it isn't inherently insulting (although obviously it can be). Racist language implies that the speaker considers him/herself superior to whatever race or ethnic group is being demeaned, and there is simply no comparison.
You might have a better chance comparing having to hear profanity to having to smell the unwashed.
As I pointed out below, if Ron is talking about profane language, then the speaker does consider him/herself superior to the religious beliefs of the group being demeaned. It is only if Ron is talking about obscene language that it should be compared to smelling the unwashed.
|Date:||March 24th, 2009 04:13 pm (UTC)|| |
If that's the definition of profanity, then I should have said "obscenity." I don't believe, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that it's ok to demean Ron's (or anyone else's) beliefs.
|Date:||March 24th, 2009 01:21 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't agree. Your child is going to hear profanity, he's going to hear it everywhere. You, as a parent, need to make sure he understands that that is not what you want in your life.
I have an 8 year old, too, who is ... experimenting with language... we're working on it. It's not the problem of the people who use those words around your kid. Unless 8 year olds have changed since I was in school, he's hearing them on the playground and in nearly any other interaction he has with boys his own age. Kids that age like to push the boundaries. If you react to language, that's what he'll use.
And unless you're getting flamed off the post... those aren't flames, some are blunt, but not anything close to a flame.
I would prefer that my kids don't hear those words at cons, especially not in a gratuitous setting. But to be honest, in taking the kids to cons, I'm also exposing them to a variety of other things I personally might not want my kids exposed to.
However, I do find it interesting (in a sad way) that so many people at cons have so little tolerance for kids, yet at the same time complain about lack of tolerance for the demographic of their choice.
Although I also partly think that Marah has a point that profanity (however you are defining it, I haven't gone through the umpty-bazillion posts at rm's journal) is more akin to smelling the unwashed that a racist attitude. The partly is that the actual definition of profane is "marked by contempt or irreverence for that which is sacred" which does imply "that the speaker considers him/herself superior to whatever race or ethnic group is being demeaned." If you are using profanity as a synonym for obscenity, then I'd think Marah's analogy is better.
Knowing you, your definition could be either.
|Date:||March 24th, 2009 03:47 pm (UTC)|| |
I agree with you. If profanity were okay then there wouldn't be laws against it's use on public TV and radio and in public places.
|Date:||March 24th, 2009 04:03 pm (UTC)|| |
However, in a paid-for event like a Con occasional profanity will occur unless it's explicitly against the rules of the Con. One would hope that most people would try to reign in their language if they know a child is present, but realistically that doesn't always happen.
If the occasional cuss word flies from someone's mouth then I feel it's up to the parent to reinforce their family values with their child and either ask the person to tone it down or take their child somewhere else. If someone's cussing has clearly reached the point where it's disruptive then you can notify Con security (or call the police if it's really bad).
I'm middle of the road, in about the same place as mbcrui and shsilver, I think. BLANKETTY-BLANK-BLANK in a projecting voice is very probably uncalled-for, and there are people that can't seem to form a single sentence without swearing. OTOH, I don't expect to go to a casual social gathering like a con and not hear some swearing.
I like the comparison to not bathing; most of the time its a case of bad manners, not intentional offensiveness.