Inarticulacy December 21, 2006
Posted by ocmpoma in : language , trackbackA certain poster in the forums who was the first to be awarded a certain prize has left a long series of one-off posts about the importance of abiding by certain norms whilst attempting to communicate. This is something of a long-term trend, it seems, in the forums: theists will, from time to time, mention the… shall we say, flavoring of many posts. The resident atheists will often respond with more… flavoring.
So, then, what’s going on? Is it really important to use or avoid using profanity? Is it possible that inserting certain ‘colorful metaphors’ into one’s speech can damage one’s ability to achieve the goals of that speech?
First, I think I need to stress two things about profanity: The first is that it is, indeed, often just a crutch for the inarticulate motherfuckers among us. The second is that, contrary to what a certain ‘non-saint’ told a certain ’slut’, there are certainly times and places where the use of profanity is not only appropriate and desirable, but absolutely necessary if one is to accomplish the goals of the speech.
But that’s not really the issue at hand. What is the issue at hand is that it seems the theists, in general, say that using profanity either damages the case of the user (which is, in the case of the forums, atheism) and also reveals a flawed character on the part of the user. And the atheists, in general, disagree. Is either side correct? Are they both?
I think that the use of profanity can most certainly damage the case of the user. However, it is not necessarily the profanity that does so. It is the use of the profanity. What I mean by this is that, if one uses profanity, it does not automatically ruin one’s chances at making the case. Indeed, in some cases, as I said, it is almost absolutely necessary. So let’s address the ’some cases’ aspect first.
I do think that the situation dictates the speech — that is, the drill field and the lecture hall are different, with different norms of behavior and different requirements if one is to achieve the goal of speech. These differences effect how the use of profanity is percieved by the audience, and thus alter its effectiveness. But, the conditions, the situtations, are not the important thing. One could get by on the drill field without profanity, just as one can get by in the lecture hall with it.
What matters is the use. Because inappropriate use of profanity alters the audience’s perception of the speaker. But that does not mean that, by using profanity, the speaker is automatically lost. All that happens is an alteration of perception. It might be beneficial, it might not — it is up to the speaker to accurately gauge the environment and audience in order to use profanity, or any other aspect of language, effectively. A poor speaker who is as polite as possible will still be seen by an astute audience as a poor speaker. A speaker with no actual thoughts won’t make a good argument, regardless of the language used. A brilliant speaker who is very insightful on the topic can use profanity during a lecture and still be successful. The audience does matter, though.
So, if we consider an internet forum, what’s going on? It seems to me that different people have different ideas of what to expect. Some seem to think that any effective communication must be profanity-free. Others are not so inclined. Speaking is an interaction, where speaker and audience both matter.
But I do have one idea about the seeming theist / atheist divide. Perhaps the atheists in the forums, being mostly skeptics and coming mostly from a background of having to have seen through a certain well-structured systemic deception, are much more conscious of the content of speech rather than the context. In other words, to us, what you have to say is much more important than how you say it.
And if you don’t like that, then you can go fuck yourself.
Tags for this article: atheism
[?][More Help]
Comments»
are you talking about a certain shitlord? Why so coy?
Wouldn’t want to do him the honor of referring to him by name, now, would we?