Why Do People Talk and Write Like This?

[Colin Theriot]

I guess it's possible there is a significant percentage of any market whose internal conversation and vocabulary is equally laced with profanity. I mean, consider that WTF has evolved as an efficiency ploy by people who type "What the F*ck" so frequently that they need to get some time back. That's absurd in and of itself, but it really is a case of someone using the language that they themselves use, and you can't really call someone out for being genuine. You can not like it, and not respond to it. But it's really just flavor.

I read a thing today in a Dan Kennedy book that comes to mind - it was something like how causing revulsion in those who aren't in your market anyway can actually be an appeal to certain markets. The example given was Howard Stern. The people that like Stern hate the kind of people that hate Stern, and that enmity towards Howard actually pushes his core audience closer to him, rather than driving anyone away.

Personally, I try to use profanity the way I was taught by my cajun elders - it's like cayenne pepper. You use it for a spicy emphasis and flavor, to get your attention. But if you use too much, you can't taste anything else at all. But you know, season to taste.

[FSchmieder]

Originally Posted by KimW

Of course I am 1337!
I mean come on, I know what WTF and FTW means, along with RTFM, at least when they used to include the FM.

RTFPDF?

Eh I guess I don't care about cursing. Whenever I read WTF or hear any sort of curse, it doesn't even phase me. I think it's really just more of a cultural thing. Plenty of my friends are very smart and I don't think any less of the one's that curse more than the other's.

In the same vein, I can't understand how someone would think less of another person or dislike their message because of their verbiage. As long as I understand what they're saying, it's fine with me.

Guess it just depends on you're values/how you were raised type thing

[KimW]

RTFPDF? Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

Colin, great post.

I can't say I never cussed while raising my kids, but I can say it was infrequent enough that if they heard me use a profanity or raise my voice, they knew something serious was going on.


Even now they will tell me that cussing just doesn't sound right coming from me.

[Marian Berghes]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

I guess it's possible there is a significant percentage of any market whose internal conversation and vocabulary is equally laced with profanity. I mean, consider that WTF has evolved as an efficiency ploy by people who type "What the F*ck" so frequently that they need to get some time back. That's absurd in and of itself, but it really is a case of someone using the language that they themselves use, and you can't really call someone out for being genuine. You can not like it, and not respond to it. But it's really just flavor.

I read a thing today in a Dan Kennedy book that comes to mind - it was something like how causing revulsion in those who aren't in your market anyway can actually be an appeal to certain markets. The example given was Howard Stern. The people that like Stern hate the kind of people that hate Stern, and that enmity towards Howard actually pushes his core audience closer to him, rather than driving anyone away.

Personally, I try to use profanity the way I was taught by my cajun elders - it's like cayenne pepper. You use it for a spicy emphasis and flavor, to get your attention. But if you use too much, you can't taste anything else at all. But you know, season to taste.

See..we can get along, lol

on topic: I totally agree with the Howard Stern example, thats what I meant with my post also.

Instead of trying to please and attract everyone, just get your core/ideal following to like you more and more.

[jasonmorgan]

Originally Posted by Blase

I'll bet you can reach your audience and more
by not swearing or using abbreviations.

Not necessarily. If you're audience is a bunch of middle aged IMers then perhaps acronyms and current slang are not the ideal solution. But writing in a manner or about topics they can relate with is.

If I'm targeting a younger demographic then it's a different story.

OMFG was recently used in a CW ad for the television show Gossip Girl. I would think the ad company working for a tv network would have a good idea of what works. Apparently they believe that current internet slang and sex are going to appeal to the audience they are after.

If I'm running a celebrity gossip list then "WFT" is very appropriate and maybe someday "gnarly" and "rad" will be in style again as well. I miss saying "gnarly dude".

I've hot-linked the CW ad for everyone to enjoy.



One shoe does not fit all.

[WD Mino]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

WD, I must be getting old. I'd never heard FTW used before.

I've always felt that in most cases, swearing is intellectual laziness. There are almost always better ways to express yourself that are more effective. Do I swear? Very rarely, but when I do it's intentional, with forethought, and intently paid attention to because my friends and family are shocked to hear me curse.

Hi D,

My dad was part of a gang in the 60's called the FTW's LOL now days people use wtf which is ftw reversed LOL anyway for the win or not in canada ftw is understood as one meaning wtf is understood as you know wtf ****Edit and come to think of it I have seen all sorts of yankees with tattoos across their fingers saying ftw F### the world so I don't think it is a canadian thing in after thought.

Swearing happens but using it as part of your everyday lingo just is pure laziness and lack of the right expressive content
-WD

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by butters

Not everyone is like that... Your stereotyping here.

He didn't say everyone was, and he's not stereotyping anything.

[All Night Cafe]

I have clicked on links thinking I was go to learn
something only to be met with fowl remarks. I just
close the message.

So I know for me they lose possible sales with me
and possible affiliate sales I could make for them.

My mama taught me better.

[WD Mino]

There is a certain traffic exchange owner who sends his emails with a lot of foul language in them. my wife reads them to me and I have told her to get away from there but she gets a lot of stuff from the exchange so she stays this is not just a younger thing here it is a horrible but true thing practiced by tons of folks business is to be intellectual and not the same as going down to street level as far as I am concerned.

[paulie888]

This reminds me of the crazy nameless marketer that hit the internet marketing arena a few years ago, the Rich Jerk. He came off as being an obnoxious, filthy rich, smart ass, I-don't-care-about-you sort of guy, and I think this persona actually worked for him as his product sold like hot cakes for a relatively long period of time. I think he designed this whole persona for his marketing campaign, and I doubt that he was actually as obnoxious or pompous as he appeared in the marketing copy. Yet it seemed that people bought into this ploy, and it was at the top of the clickbank charts for a while. So as you can see, sometimes being obnoxious and profane can actually work to your advantage in certain cases. The 'gangster' persona seems to have been all the rage among the rap artists for quite a while now, and I've read that they sometimes concoct this seedy back story about themselves just to make themselves look more 'legitimate' among their peers.

[KimW]

I don't remember who said it or where I heard it from, and someone already said the basic concept earlier in this thread, but profanity is the language of the uneducated.

[KimW]

Originally Posted by paulie888

..... The 'gangster' persona seems to be all the rage among the rap artists right now, and I've read that sometimes they concoct this seedy back story about themselves just to make themselves look more 'legitimate' among their peers........

If you mean "now" as in since rap started in the 80s, your right.

I know some will disagree with me, but I have a copy of what has been called the first rap record, a 45rpm put out by Kurtis Blow called The Breaks.

[Blase]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

I read a thing today in a Dan Kennedy book that comes to mind - it was something like how causing revulsion in those who aren't in your market anyway can actually be an appeal to certain markets. The example given was Howard Stern. The people that like Stern hate the kind of people that hate Stern, and that enmity towards Howard actually pushes his core audience closer to him, rather than driving anyone away.

Two thoughts,

I wonder if Dan Kennedy has ever put the "F" word in his copy.

People choose to listen to Howard Stern and I understand the concept.
The same thing works for conservative talk radio.

I just am asking why people think it's OK when they don't know who is going to be reading their sales copy.

Howard Stern knows his audience, none of the IMer's that I get email
from know me.

Does that make sense?

[Blase]

Originally Posted by jasonmorgan

Not necessarily. If you're audience is a bunch of middle aged IMers then perhaps acronyms and current slang are not the ideal solution. But writing in a manner or about topics they can relate with is.

If I'm targeting a younger demographic then it's a different story.

OMFG was recently used in a CW ad for the television show Gossip Girl. I would think the ad company working for a tv network would have a good idea of what works. Apparently they believe that current internet slang and sex are going to appeal to the audience they are after.

If I'm running a celebrity gossip list then "WFT" is very appropriate and maybe someday "gnarly" and "rad" will be in style again as well. I miss saying "gnarly dude".

I've hot-linked the CW ad for everyone to enjoy.


One shoe does not fit all.

Just because people go to a base level doesn't make it right.

And if you think an ad agency knows what they are doing
you really need to spend a lot more time study and testing
sales and marketing.

I was a National Sales and Marketing Manager for years,
I've been to the meetings. The one thing ad agencies track
really well is their billing!

Yes sex sells and look at where that has gotten us.

[paulie888]

Kim, you're absolutely right! I have edited my post, it was written in haste and I hadn't considered that initially. This deep-seated intertwining of rap and gangsters has been around since the early days of rap, and they just go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by KimW

If you mean "now" as in since rap started in the 80s, your right.

I know some will disagree with me, but I have a copy of what has been called the first rap record, a 45rpm put out by Kurtis Blow called The Breaks.

[WD Mino]

Right on Blase I agree 100% even the standards that say 30 yrs ago even 20 yrs ago on what was acceptable on tv is now not only accepted but endorsed
-WD

[jasonmorgan]

Just because people go to a base level doesn't make it right.

so what this is really all about is your morality and a belief that people have to behave in a way that you feel is proper or else it's wrong.

you feel that profanity shouldn't be used in an ad campaign, email, billboard or whatever.

And if you think an ad agency knows what they are doing
you really need to spend a lot more time study and testing
sales and marketing.

so because you disagree with an ad agencies campaign you're writing them off as not know what they are doing.

[Michael Oksa]

You know, for those of us who are not fans of foul language, it may be smart to not go too overboard with it. Here's my theory.

A few people have mentioned TV from decades past. Fair enough. But was it really necessary to CENSOR the use of words like pregnant or toilet? I don't think so. Here's the problem. Once those words WERE allowed, others creeped in and now it's hard to find a show that doesn't have some curse words in it.

My guess is that if the stuffed shirts on network TV took a more sensible approach years ago, it wouldn't have opened the floodgates like we have today.

Now, this is kind of odd to me. On the Craig Ferguson Show, he is not allowed to say beaver in any context due to the possible sexual innuendo, YET he can say d**chebag and d**che with no problem. That just doesn't make sense. So, it looks like the network censors still don't get it. Makes me wonder what NEW swear words people will have to come up with in the near future.

For the record, I'm not saying they should have an anything goes attitude about language on TV. Personally, I don't even care for d*m*, he**, a**, b***h or p*ss** off - but you'll be hard-pressed to find prime time shows that don't add them.

All the best,
Michael

[FSchmieder]

Originally Posted by All Night Cafe

I have clicked on links thinking I was go to learn
something only to be met with fowl remarks. I just
close the message.

I hate when people talk about birds, too.

I think the difference in opinions really seems to stem with age here. I'm 26 and could care less about cursing and it seems most of the younger guys and gals follow suit while most of the older folks think it's wrong. We're, of course, correct being younger and knowing everything.

It's almost similar to the argument about how youth changes/distorts/ruins English. People have been saying that for hundreds of years and English seems to be doing just fine. It was actually more acceptable in Shakespearian times to say "We was going" instead of "We were going"

[Michael Taylor]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Never heard of that before this thread either. Sigh -- you just had to quote the part where I said I must be getting old, didn't you?

I saw an old episode of Family Feud with Richard Dawson. In the '70s he clearly said "For The Win" in the show I saw. So, the acronym may be new, but FTW has been around for a while.

It's used quite frequently in world of warcraft. As is its opposite, FTL...For The Lose. Usually referring to something that's really really bad or undesirable.

I've never seen it used for "F" The World.

[Michael Taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

But was it really necessary to CENSOR the use of words like pregnant or toilet?

Abe Simpson in an episode of The Simpsons sent a letter of complaint to his local TV station's advertisers...

Dear Advertisers,

I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television.

We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs.

Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive.

The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again.

Number one: bra
Number two: horny
Number three: family jewels

[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by KimW

I don't remember who said it or where I heard it from, and someone already said the basic concept earlier in this thread, but profanity is the language of the uneducated.

Probably was a truer statement a few decades ago, but then again, I guess it depends on how you define "educated." I know some formally educated people with filthy mouths.

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

Makes me wonder what NEW swear words people will have to come up with in the near future.

I know, let's be trendsetters and make up the next generation cuss words ourselves. I'll start:

Squazzle: noun, of course, I can't give you the definition as that would offend everyone.

Who's next?

[FSchmieder]

Originally Posted by Michael Taylor

Abe Simpson in an episode of The Simpsons sent a letter of complaint to his local TV station's advertisers...

Dear Advertisers,

I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television.

We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs.

Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive.

The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again.

Number one: bra
Number two: horny
Number three: family jewels

roflmaopimp

[Michael Oksa]

You know what? Every quazzle here can go and drimp until they look like the luspars they really are!

[Michael Oksa]

Originally Posted by Michael Taylor

Abe Simpson in an episode of The Simpsons sent a letter of complaint to his local TV station's advertisers...

Dear Advertisers,

I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television.

We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs.

Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive.

The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again.

Number one: bra
Number two: horny
Number three: family jewels

Or, as Ned Flanders once said to a woman he was dating, "Pardon my French, but you just made me one happy camper!"

~M~

[Colin Theriot]

Originally Posted by Blase

Two thoughts,

I wonder if Dan Kennedy has ever put the "F" word in his copy.

People choose to listen to Howard Stern and I understand the concept.
The same thing works for conservative talk radio.

I just am asking why people think it's OK when they don't know who is going to be reading their sales copy.

Howard Stern knows his audience, none of the IMer's that I get email
from know me.

Does that make sense?

I don't know if he uses the F word but he sure says "sh*t" a lot. In fact, in the same chapter I was talking about earlier, he talked about how he does use a rough persona and lets it all hang out because the majority of his paying customers are conservative male mid-westerners who appreciate his gruff "no b.s." tone.

I agree that when the messaging content comes as a surprise, it can be jarring. For Kennedy, it says "No B.S." on the cover, so you have a clue as to where he's going. It won't be any surprise that the inside of the book matches the cover.

The mistake the marketer is making in your example isn't in using the profanity, but rather in not using it as part of a persistent persona (whether it's authentic or made up like the Rich Jerk). There's no doubt what you'll be getting in that instance, but if you signed up for Granny Goodness' Weekly Cookie Recipe and Unicorn Sticker Newsletter and it turns out "Granny" cusses like a sailor, you're going to have a little bit of a disconnect.

Of course, real world examples won't be as drastic, but what you're talking about is vitally important, and I think Dan calls it market-to-message matching.

Your best bet really is to just be your own authentic self, and attract others that like you the way you naturally are. Now to the OPs point, you're going to see others that aren't your cup of tea for a variety of reasons. It's the internet - it's pretty easy to avoid the stuff you don't like with ignore lists and whatnot.

[warrick]

Hey Blase, yeah i think you have brought up a topic that a lot of us today take for granted.

There are people who do not care yet there are still some people who do about their usage of words. Sometimes a little courtesy goes a long way.

[Russ Emrick]

This is the kind of discussion that goes no-where, a quagmire of conflicting opinions. However it is fascinating to read the justifications and confused reasoning. To believe that our society isn't cruder, less respectful, less honorable, and baser than previous generations is living in an alternative universe. Saying that previous generations did bad things (drugs, etc.) too is not only incorrect but using one wrong to justify another. For every drug addled Woodstock hippy there where thousands of Americans living a well balanced life.

To dismiss the wisdom of elders with "every generation does their own thing" is, well, as Dr. Phil would ask "is that working for you? Based on the demographics of your generation from crime to drugs to divorce to depression I would say not.

In the video with Tom Hanks on the making of the movie "Private Ryan" he tells an intersting story. They hired several veterna of WWII. They came to him and complained about the language being used, especially the F bomb. Tom initially said "we have to use this language otherwise people won't believe this is real dialoge." The guys responded, "well you told us you wanted an accuracy and we simply didn't talk like that."

My parents had "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best". We have "The Simpsons" and "The Family Guy." They had Lawrence Welk, wonderful artists, musicians, thinkers and even heroic leaders. We have Crucifixes in Urine and profane rap music. Let me ask: which generation do you think were happier or lived more fulfilled lives? No, don't answer - your only reference is the made up movie version. The truth is: previous generations. They didn't require Prozak to get through the day or Riddlin to raise their children.

Rant over. Back to the OP's point: profanity is seldom okay. You virtually assure yourself of a lost sale, a lost job interview, lost respect anytime you use profanity with 1)an adult 2)someone you don't know well 3)not another foul mouthed bud.

Loved the comments "that's just how our generation speaks." Do you speak like that in-front of your mother? Don't answer cause I'll loose even more respect for you. I can tell you this - you won't speak that way in front of my wife or kids. My generation wasn't raised to think you had that right or that I'm powerless to kick your posterior. See I can say that without profanity.

[Colin Theriot]

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

This is the kind of discussion that goes no-where, a quagmire of conflicting opinions. However it is fascinating to read the justifications and confused reasoning. To believe that our society isn't cruder, less respectful, less honorable, and baser than previous generations is living in an alternative universe. Saying that previous generations did bad things (drugs, etc.) too is not only incorrect but using one wrong to justify another. For every drug addled Woodstock hippy there where thousands of Americans living a well balanced life.

To dismiss the wisdom of elders with "every generation does their own thing" is, well, as Dr. Phil would ask "is that working for you? Based on the demographics of your generation from crime to drugs to divorce to depression I would say not.

In the video with Tom Hanks on the making of the movie "Private Ryan" he tells an intersting story. They hired several veterna of WWII. They came to him and complained about the language being used, especially the F bomb. Tom initially said "we have to use this language otherwise people won't believe this is real dialoge." The guys responded, "well you told us you wanted an accuracy and we simply didn't talk like that."

My parents had "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best". We have "The Simpsons" and "The Family Guy." They had Lawrence Welk, wonderful artists, musicians, thinkers and even heroic leaders. We have Crucifixes in Urine and profane rap music. Let me ask: which generation do you think were happier or lived more fulfilled lives? No, don't answer - your only reference is the made up movie version. The truth is: previous generations. They didn't require Prozak to get through the day or Riddlin to raise their children.

Rant over. Back to the OP's point: profanity is seldom okay. You virtually assure yourself of a lost sale, a lost job interview, lost respect anytime you use profanity with 1)an adult 2)someone you don't know well 3)not another foul mouthed bud.

Loved the comments "that's just how our generation speaks." Do you speak like that in-front of your mother? Don't answer cause I'll loose even more respect for you. I can tell you this - you won't speak that way in front of my wife or kids. My generation wasn't raised to think you had that right or that I'm powerless to kick your posterior. See I can say that without profanity.

I mean this only in the most humorous of ways, but do you happen to be waving a cane in the air right now?

The degradation of the language is symptomatic of the general decline of civilization. People are getting stupider, but it's not TV's fault. The people who make the TV shows you're complaining about grew up watching the same shows you cite.

What happens is the same thing that happens when you make a photo copy of a photo copy of a photo copy. Brecht said "Art is not a mirror, art is a hammer." In this case, I think it's a salient thought.

There is no escape from the insidious influence of the media. You can be okay with that or not, but there's no "better" mass media. All of it is corrupting. Not that I mind that necessarily, considering what I do for a living. Maybe that's why I'm so sensitive.

[KimPup]

I'm waiting for the guy with the username "WTF" to get in here!! lol

[Russ Emrick]

Colin - I actually don't understand the point of your response. Professor Neil Postman has written several good books on the deleterious effects of TV, such as "Amusing Ourselves To Death. Another research based book is "The Plug In Drug" by Marie Winn. So while I agree as self evident that "the degradation of the language is symptomatic of the general decline of civilization" I vehemently disagree that TV has nothing to do with that. Neil would attribute most if not all such cultural decline to the media.

If your analogy of culture being simply a photocopy of a photocopy is to say that culture is inexorably subject to some entropic principle I would say nonsense. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment grew out of and flourished from terrible archetypes. In other words culture once progressed instead of regressed as this generation has done.

Another good commentary on this society is Poet Laureate Robert Bly's "The Sibling Society" The Bly from "Iron John" not the Direct Marketer.

People of the media who make such vacuous statements as "its the people not the media" or "there is no bad media" use the same arguementation as pornographers and violence purveyors. While saying these things have no effect they charge billions for advertising and spend careers studying copy-writing, NLP, and other manipulation techniques.

Wow are we far a field. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program...curse away.

[sbucciarel]

There are actually a lot of different cultures and markets and in some markets, swearing is just peachy keen. I have no aversion to marketing copy with some swearing in it. I can be used creatively and gets a point across. But then, I swear occasionally in real life too.

Originally Posted by KimW

I don't remember who said it or where I heard it from, and someone already said the basic concept earlier in this thread, but profanity is the language of the uneducated.

A lot of sales pages are geared toward the uneducated. The really bright people would never fall for it.

Originally Posted by goldmind123

Anyone Remember the sad days of what so called the R.J?

This stupid silly attitude of marketing made some people hink it's cool to be offensive and disrespectful.

As long as people don't use their mind and logic, we will keep seeing this

You mean Rich Jerk, who became one of the top Clickbank products for a very long time and laughed all the way to the bank?

[Greg guitar]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

A proofreading client I used to do work for would swear like crazy in his writing. This caused a bit of a dilemma as a proofreader because I didn't want to change his tone too much. My solution was to downgrade each questionable word by a notch or two.

For example, if he used the F-word, I would change it to 'freaking'; if it was the S-word, I would change it to cr@p; if he wrote BS, I would change it to 'nonsense'; and so on. Even after doing that, I felt like it was totaly unprofessional, but figured it was the best solution.

As far as people cussing frequently when talking to others, I'm a firm believer that it's nothing more than being lazy.

I'm not saying whether or not it's right or wrong, but I, personally, don't care to hear or see it. For example, Kelsey Grammer had a new show that debuted a few months ago. It was clearly aimed at the family market. It was a sort of revers Beverly Hillbillies, and I thought it had a lot of promise. Well, in the first five minutes of the pilot episode words like h**l, d*m*, and b*st*rd were used quite frequently. In my opinion it would have been MUCH funnier if they found creative ways to express those ideas. I mean, who can't think of something funnier to call someone than b*st*rd?

Not that I expected the same show, but on Frasier, Mr. Grammer had decent writiers. And the cussing was incredibly rare. However, the same ideas were conveyed in a much funnier way.

I'm sure there will be a few that come in and defend the use of swearing, but as was mentioned, how do they know that NOT swearing would improve their results even more? Or, the argument of "that's just who I am" will be put forth. Well, I can't argue with that; just know that there are those who aren't big fans of the overuse of lazy speech. So much so that it could have a negative impact on your bottom line.

Do I ever swear? Rarely. But, when I do, it is almost always with forethought, and for a very clear reason. In effect, making it the opposite of lazy speech.

I'm no angel, but the proliferation of profanity is problematic.

All the best,
Michael "Yes, I'm the type of guy who yells 'fiddlesticks!' if he hits his thumb with a hammer" Oksa

This is a pretty conservative post for someone who's sig file invites us to "grab his package" for Valentine's day-sheesh (oops-I hope that wasn't perceived as a dadburned cussin word, consarn it).

[Glenn Newsome]

The late Gary Halbert.

[Colin Theriot]

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

Colin - I actually don't understand the point of your response. Professor Neil Postman has written several good books on the deleterious effects of TV, such as "Amusing Ourselves To Death. Another research based book is "The Plug In Drug" by Marie Winn. So while I agree as self evident that "the degradation of the language is symptomatic of the general decline of civilization" I vehemently disagree that TV has nothing to do with that. Neil would attribute most if not all such cultural decline to the media.

This decline happens whether there's TV or not. Cultural decline is something that happens eventually to all empires.

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

If your analogy of culture being simply a photocopy of a photocopy is to say that culture is inexorably subject to some entropic principle I would say nonsense. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment grew out of and flourished from terrible archetypes. In other words culture once progressed instead of regressed as this generation has done.

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment grew out of the ruins of a collapsed culture, much like I'm sure some new enlightened so and so's will rise out of the ruins of modern day Western civilization as well. Culture itself isn't entropic necessarily. We just live in a society that has a value system that's at odds with long-term success. Tie that to a media that's run by a generation that's never lived without said media, a culture who no longer understands its purpose, who no longer has the discipline to control it... ticking clock.

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

Another good commentary on this society is Poet Laureate Robert Bly's "The Sibling Society" The Bly from "Iron John" not the Direct Marketer.

Thank you, I'll keep an eye out.

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

People of the media who make such vacuous statements as "its the people not the media" or "there is no bad media" use the same arguementation as pornographers and violence purveyors. While saying these things have no effect they charge billions for advertising and spend careers studying copy-writing, NLP, and other manipulation techniques.

I didn't say it had no effect. I said it wasn't the media that's at fault. There's this trash pile near a resort in Africa where the baboons fight to the death over shards of mirror. I think this media/culture decline is due to an ouroboros-like feedback loop. There's no fixing it. We over-venerate youth, and cater to that "demographic" so much that they think they are equipped to run the world. They are so cynical and think they're above the influence of the tools they wield. Unchecked tastes lead to crass content. Crass content creates yet more unchecked tastes.

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

Wow are we far a field. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program...curse away.

We are, and we agree almost completely. You're saying it's some invention and kids these days that are bringing us down. I say it's something inherent in human culture. Only about 15% of the population are born mentally more man than monkey. The problem is that in ancient times, that 15% took the 85% of dummies out of the natural selection engine. Not enough of them died and not enough of the smart ones reproduced.

So here we are, a population of mostly-monkeys led by a few who are slightly smarter and more self-aware.

But it's not like I'm not hopeful. I think there were lots of folks who thrived during the fall of Rome. You live when you live and you use what you find there. It won't ever be like it was ever again. But you can prepare for how it's going to be.

(Don't worry, there's no real point to this post either. )

[jasondinner]

Seriously...

WTF is the big deal?

:P

[Colin Theriot]

Originally Posted by jasondinner

Seriously...

WTF is the big deal?

:P

Did you see the part of the page where it said "discussion forum"? This kind of thing happens here all the time. I mean, OMGBBQ.

[Greg guitar]

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

This is the kind of discussion that goes no-where, a quagmire of conflicting opinions. However it is fascinating to read the justifications and confused reasoning. To believe that our society isn't cruder, less respectful, less honorable, and baser than previous generations is living in an alternative universe. Saying that previous generations did bad things (drugs, etc.) too is not only incorrect but using one wrong to justify another. For every drug addled Woodstock hippy there where thousands of Americans living a well balanced life.

To dismiss the wisdom of elders with "every generation does their own thing" is, well, as Dr. Phil would ask "is that working for you? Based on the demographics of your generation from crime to drugs to divorce to depression I would say not.

In the video with Tom Hanks on the making of the movie "Private Ryan" he tells an intersting story. They hired several veterna of WWII. They came to him and complained about the language being used, especially the F bomb. Tom initially said "we have to use this language otherwise people won't believe this is real dialoge." The guys responded, "well you told us you wanted an accuracy and we simply didn't talk like that."

My parents had "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best". We have "The Simpsons" and "The Family Guy." They had Lawrence Welk, wonderful artists, musicians, thinkers and even heroic leaders. We have Crucifixes in Urine and profane rap music. Let me ask: which generation do you think were happier or lived more fulfilled lives? No, don't answer - your only reference is the made up movie version. The truth is: previous generations. They didn't require Prozak to get through the day or Riddlin to raise their children.

Rant over. Back to the OP's point: profanity is seldom okay. You virtually assure yourself of a lost sale, a lost job interview, lost respect anytime you use profanity with 1)an adult 2)someone you don't know well 3)not another foul mouthed bud.

Loved the comments "that's just how our generation speaks." Do you speak like that in-front of your mother? Don't answer cause I'll loose even more respect for you. I can tell you this - you won't speak that way in front of my wife or kids. My generation wasn't raised to think you had that right or that I'm powerless to kick your posterior. See I can say that without profanity.

According to your view, I live in an alternate universe (thank goodness). I happen to think it's less narrow than the one dimensional historical fantasy you've portrayed, and definitely less narrow than the US before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Are you kidding me-you're nostalgic for Lawrence Welk, Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best, and prefer them to The Simpsons and Family Guy?

As far as the "wonderful artists, musicians, thinkers, and even heroic leaders" go, every generation has them, and I've been to more great performances than I can count. Don't get me wrong-I love earlier artists, from Bach through Bartok, from Django Reinhardt through John Coltrane, Jimi Hendrix, and Weather Report, but some of the best musicians ever are active today.

The insipid music of Lawrence Welk doesn't even deserve a mention. As far as great thinkers go, there are plenty still around (thinking doesn't go out of fashion).

The previous more "respectful", "honorable" etc, generations you speak of hung black men from trees (more often by far than today) for glancing at a white woman, or being out on the street in the wrong town after dark.

One southern US town had a sign on the edge of town saying "[N-word] don't let the sun go down on you"-in other words-if you're caught in town after dark, we'll kill you. For such a sign to exist meant most people either shared the attitude, or were too terrified to challenge it. Where is the respect and honor in that?

In the southern US, the culture of white terrorism prevailed right up until the massive improvements that came about with the sixties revolution you've disparaged with your "drug addled Woodstock hippie" comment. It came about through the incredible courage of the "hippie" generation-mostly college students that wanted to (and did) change the world. Some of them died for the change.

You should read the book "Black Like Me" for a taste of the life of a black man in the southern US during the 1950s (I might be mistaken on the time frame-it might have been the early sixties-it's been decades since I read it).

BTW, the most prevalent drug at Woodstock was the one our founding fathers also probably smoked. Arguably much less harmful and more socially benign than the far more acceptable killer (and driver of violence-particularly the domestic sort) that your "thousands" living "balanced lives" drank at their cocktail parties. Woodstock had more people than ever before assembled in one place, and yet it was as peaceful a gathering as you could ask for-not to mention offering historic, stellar musical performances-especially Hendrix'. I guess the "drug addled hippies" were onto something that eluded their cocktail soaked parents.

If you have any gay friends, ask them if they're nostalgic for the more "honorable", "heroic", pre-Stonewall time, when it was considered good fun to beat up "queers", and to challenge such violence was to become a victom of it. Not much honor and respect there either.

Are you nostalgic for the days before gays came out of the closet? They were so deep in it when I was a child that I was in my teens when I found out they existed. To many members of earlier generations, I'm sure Will and Grace and the Ellen show are excruciating evidence of cultural decline.

Are you nostalgic for the pre-Roe V. Wade days of back alley coat hanger abortions-when teen pregnency often meant death for girls that, thanks to the "honorable" past generations' refusal to deal with sex education, had never learned about preventing pregnency (other than the shame attached to sex itself-in a futile attempt to thwart the natural hormonal drive)?

Yes how things have declined-disparaging words that respected members of previous generations casually used (backed up by massive brutality), to alienate and humiliate some of the least powerful members of society are now considered unacceptable in decent circles.

Also gone are the good old days when it was okay for teachers to beat the children. Yes, I'm old enough to have had my share of that lovely tradition-suprisingly, I don't miss it.

I for one infinitely prefer "WTF", or just about any other use of the "F-word" over the "N-word", "f*ggot", or any of the other common expletives used to keep women, blacks, gays, etc in their place. In that regard, I'm infinitely pleased with the progress in language and cultural standards that has taken place since Lenny Bruce's time. (Obviously those words still exist, but their acceptability has drastically declined-evidence of great cultural progress in my book).

Ironically, I'm probably much older than you, since I grew up with shows you call your parent's shows. That means I'm old enough to have witnessed my mother being humiliated at a bank that insisted she get her husband's permission to conduct a normal transaction my dad was allowed to do without question. They were both named on the account, but women were actually considered the "property" of their husbands.

There has been a massive shift for the better when it comes to gender equality, and I find that, and many other changes extremely encouraging, and cussing rappers is way down there on my list of things that are wrong with society-actually it's not even on it. While you're mourning cultural decline, I'm celebrating cultural progress.

[Justin Jordan]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

The degradation of the language is symptomatic of the general decline of civilization. People are getting stupider, but it's not TV's fault. The people who make the TV shows you're complaining about grew up watching the same shows you cite.

No, isn't, and no, they aren't.

This is selection bias at work. The only reason the 'olden days' seem better is because most of the crap has been forgotten or was never written down to begin with. Things seem worse today because we're surrounded by all the crap that will be largely forgotten in twenty or thirty years.

This is compounded today by the fact that we're exposed to people via the internet that we never would have been even a decade or two ago. This isn't decline, this is being able to see more of the stupid.

Going even further back in history, the vast, vast majority of people never left any kind of record at all. So you don't get to see how stupid people actually were, because they've been lost to obscurity.

In fact, people are more literate and better educated than they ever have been, if you take away the warm glow of nostalgia. The fact that you are aware of how dumb people are is in itself evidence of it.

People have been having this same conversation since at least the Greeks, and I suspect if we could travel back in time we'd find Grok sitting by a campfire complaining about how these teenagers are idiots and that things were better in Grok's grandfather's day.

[Justin Jordan]

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

This is the kind of discussion that goes no-where, a quagmire of conflicting opinions. However it is fascinating to read the justifications and confused reasoning. To believe that our society isn't cruder, less respectful, less honorable, and baser than previous generations is living in an alternative universe.

No, it's not the people that believe that who were living in the alternate universe. Every generation has had exactly the same thing to say about the generations after them. For some one who speaks of the wisdom of elders, this refusal to see that pattern is pretty funny.

Once again, any look at actual history and not fairytale history will show that people have always been crude, disrespectful, and dishonorable. To say nothing of the fact that people from before, say, Elvis Presley reacted to him with the same kind of horror you're applying to rap.

Originally Posted by Russ Emrick

In the video with Tom Hanks on the making of the movie "Private Ryan" he tells an intersting story. They hired several veterna of WWII. They came to him and complained about the language being used, especially the F bomb. Tom initially said "we have to use this language otherwise people won't believe this is real dialoge." The guys responded, "well you told us you wanted an accuracy and we simply didn't talk like that."

Or they were lying. I was raised by a WWII veteran and around WWII vets and they all swore like sailors. Now, that's anecdotal evidence, but recordings by and around soldiers back then when they weren't being interviewed supports the idea that young men tended to swear a lot.

Possibly Hanks got the one group that didn't, or they didn't want to be looked at that way, or, as the common theme of this thread, they edited their own history to make it better than it was.

[Colin Theriot]

Originally Posted by Justin Jordan

No, isn't, and no, they aren't.

This is selection bias at work. The only reason the 'olden days' seem better is because most of the crap has been forgotten or was never written down to begin with. Things seem worse today because we're surrounded by all the crap that will be largely forgotten in twenty or thirty years.

This is compounded today by the fact that we're exposed to people via the internet that we never would have been even a decade or two ago. This isn't decline, this is being able to see more of the stupid.

Going even further back in history, the vast, vast majority of people never left any kind of record at all. So you don't get to see how stupid people actually were, because they've been lost to obscurity.

In fact, people are more literate and better educated than they ever have been, if you take away the warm glow of nostalgia. The fact that you are aware of how dumb people are is in itself evidence of it.

People have been having this same conversation since at least the Greeks, and I suspect if we could travel back in time we'd find Grok sitting by a campfire complaining about how these teenagers are idiots and that things were better in Grok's grandfather's day.

In caveman days, dummies were eaten by tigers. Eventually, the smarter people were the ones in charge and they made some good decisions that led to civilization.

The problem is, comfort breeds laziness, laziness breeds stupidity. Eventually, stupidity ends up in charge, and then that's pretty much the end of things.

Civilization falls, dark ages wind on. Plagues eventually kill enough dummies so that the smart people can get back in charge again. Then the Renaissance happens, and largely, smarter people have been in charge since then.

Until recently. I'd say at no point in the history of earth has it ever been possible for people so dumb to be able to directly influence and control so many other dummies at once.

That seems like a dangerous precedent. But I try not to be cynical about it. You seem to be saying that people have been this stupid all along, which they have. They just have sort of been limited in effectiveness by that stupidity until modern advances.

[Justin Jordan]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

Until recently. I'd say at no point in the history of earth has it ever been possible for people so dumb to be able to directly influence and control so many other dummies at once.

That seems like a dangerous precedent. But I try not to be cynical about it. You seem to be saying that people have been this stupid all along, which they have. They just have sort of been limited in effectiveness by that stupidity until modern advances.

I don't really think that stupid people have much more effect on things than they every have. They're certainly getting heard a lot more, but things are still getting done and decided by people that are fairly smart.

This next part is, I'm sure, cynicism. I think it's accurate cynicism, but take it or leave it - the elite have always done enough for the common people to keep them from actively destroying them ( or failed to do so, in many cases) the only thing that really changes is who the elite are.

These days, it's large corporations who, while not necessarily always making the smartest decisions, tend to accumulate people who are fairly smart, at least in comparison. They have a lot more influence on government, at least western government, than anyone else. Not simply through corruption, but through the media.

This mitigates, to a large extent, the power of the dumb, but it has a whole lot of other problems.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of cycles of rise and decline. Civilization's prominence comes and goes, but this is rarely accompanied by the culture regressing - at most, what you tend to get is the rate of advancement slowing down.

It's one of the reason people have gotten away from calling the dark ages the dark ages, because they aren't especially dark in the sense we don't know a lot about them, and they weren't nearly the period of decline some classical history made them out to be.

Man, I think we're waaaay off topic, though.

[Chris Worner]

Originally Posted by KimW

I don't remember who said it or where I heard it from, and someone already said the basic concept earlier in this thread, but profanity is the language of the uneducated.

That's interesting because I know plenty of educated people whom the majority have PhD's and they swear so I dont see any truth behind this statement.

In fact, I dare say they are more educated than you even.

And since you yourself have admitted to swearing in the past, that must mean that you yourself are uneducated.

Mind you, I'd be a cranky old man to if my name was Kim (couldn't resist)


Uneducated generation Y'er :P

[Greg guitar]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

You know, for those of us who are not fans of foul language, it may be smart to not go too overboard with it. Here's my theory.

A few people have mentioned TV from decades past. Fair enough. But was it really necessary to CENSOR the use of words like pregnant or toilet? I don't think so. Here's the problem. Once those words WERE allowed, others creeped in and now it's hard to find a show that doesn't have some curse words in it.

My guess is that if the stuffed shirts on network TV took a more sensible approach years ago, it wouldn't have opened the floodgates like we have today.

Now, this is kind of odd to me. On the Craig Ferguson Show, he is not allowed to say beaver in any context due to the possible sexual innuendo, YET he can say d**chebag and d**che with no problem. That just doesn't make sense. So, it looks like the network censors still don't get it. Makes me wonder what NEW swear words people will have to come up with in the near future.

For the record, I'm not saying they should have an anything goes attitude about language on TV. Personally, I don't even care for d*m*, he**, a**, b***h or p*ss** off - but you'll be hard-pressed to find prime time shows that don't add them.

All the best,
Michael

Here's where I think you got off track: in accepting the pro-censorship position that the way some people talk is a problem those of us who don't like it have to solve, by figuring out a way to control it. You seem to be trying to take the middle ground by pointing out that censorship can go too far, and maybe if it hadn't, there wouldn't be this terrible problem with the "floodgates" having gone off their hinges now, with really undesirable words having "crept in".

But your paradigm is still the same as the censors: you just disagree with particular choices they made-not with the oppressive premise behind censorship itself: that people's language should be controlled, and speaking certain words should be criminal so that other people aren't offended.

I think you really went overboard when you censored yourself from spelling the word "douche". Your point that it's silly that the words "toilet" and "pregnant" and "beaver" should be censored (I agree) is ruined by what follows.

You apparently think there's good censorship and bad censorship, and if they had only refrained from censored words you consider silly to censor, we wouldn't have this terrible problem of people being allowed to say words like "douche", which perhaps really are unacceptable.

The problem is there is nothing better about censoring "douche" than "toilet". They are both real things that exist, and the words are just a way of referring to them. To not be able to use the words, because they might embarrass or offend prudes is just silly and oppressive, as silly as the Victorian tradition of putting skirts on furniture legs so that their "crotches" would be properly covered (it took some of the dirtiest minds in history to come up with that kind of thing).

Ultimately people who are bothered by "foul language" are giving it it's power in direct proportion to how big a fuss they make. I'm not particularly a fan of it either (nor am I opposed to it-Richard Pryor did some "filthy" routines that had me in stitches), but not liking it isn't a problem-I don't dig Howard Stern, so I don't listen-nobody's forcing it on me-no harm-no foul-no pun intended. It's the people who react against it that gives it any shock value it might have, making it's future use more likely when shock value is desired.

Here's the bottom line: you can critique people's speech, and I might agree that, for example sales copy that has the "f-word" all through it is probably pretty stupid. But that's where it ends-I think it's stupid, not a social issue or a problem to be solved. Either you're for free speech or you're for censorship. You can't say, "well, I like free speech but with moderation I want to forbid the "f-word" and "douche" but allow "toilet"." Because that isn't free speech-it's censorship the way you think it should be handled.

BTW-I still find it offensive that you're inviting us to "grab your package"

[jasondinner]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

Did you see the part of the page where it said "discussion forum"? This kind of thing happens here all the time. I mean, OMGBBQ.

LOL - WTFWTBBQ

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

You know, for those of us who are not fans of foul language, it may be smart to not go too overboard with it. Here's my theory.

A few people have mentioned TV from decades past. Fair enough. But was it really necessary to CENSOR the use of words like pregnant or toilet? I don't think so. Here's the problem. Once those words WERE allowed, others creeped in and now it's hard to find a show that doesn't have some curse words in it.

My guess is that if the stuffed shirts on network TV took a more sensible approach years ago, it wouldn't have opened the floodgates like we have today.

Now, this is kind of odd to me. On the Craig Ferguson Show, he is not allowed to say beaver in any context due to the possible sexual innuendo, YET he can say d**chebag and d**che with no problem. That just doesn't make sense. So, it looks like the network censors still don't get it. Makes me wonder what NEW swear words people will have to come up with in the near future.

For the record, I'm not saying they should have an anything goes attitude about language on TV. Personally, I don't even care for d*m*, he**, a**, b***h or p*ss** off - but you'll be hard-pressed to find prime time shows that don't add them.

All the best,
Michael

> Rob and Laura Petrie slept in twin beds and still managed to have a baby, even though Laura was never pregnant, always expecting.

> Ads for women's undergarments had to use mannequins with no heads, arms, legs, etc. so it was obvious there was no skin showing.

Originally Posted by FSchmieder

I hate when people talk about birds, too.

I think the difference in opinions really seems to stem with age here. I'm 26 and could care less about cursing and it seems most of the younger guys and gals follow suit while most of the older folks think it's wrong. We're, of course, correct being younger and knowing everything.

It's almost similar to the argument about how youth changes/distorts/ruins English. People have been saying that for hundreds of years and English seems to be doing just fine. It was actually more acceptable in Shakespearian times to say "We was going" instead of "We were going"

I've often said that the age limits for politics should be between 13 and 18. That way, we get them while they still know everything...

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Probably was a truer statement a few decades ago, but then again, I guess it depends on how you define "educated." I know some formally educated people with filthy mouths.



I know, let's be trendsetters and make up the next generation cuss words ourselves. I'll start:

Squazzle: noun, of course, I can't give you the definition as that would offend everyone.

Who's next?

Comic Chelsea Handler does this on her show all the time. She refers to her "kaslopis", her boyfriend's "shuttlecock", taking a "shadoobie" and so on. From time to time, she'll glance at a monitor to see if she's been bleeped or not.

If anyone remembers the old "White Shadow" TV show, you might remember an episode where the inner-city ("black") team had to forfeit a game against a suburban school because the players cursed too much.

The coach, when told "that's just how we talk - it gives them an edge because it makes the other team uncomfortable", has a suggestion for them.

Cut to the rematch. A white player slips past his black opponent. The ref already has the whistle in his mouth. The black player shouts "Oh, peanut butter", then cuts back in front of the speechless and suddenly frozen white player, steals a pass and dunks...

I'll leave this post with a scene from one of my favorite movies, for those mourning the older, more civilized times...

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

[jasondinner]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Comic Chelsea Handler does this on her show all the time. She refers to her "kaslopis", her boyfriend's "shuttlecock", taking a "shadoobie" and so on. From time to time, she'll glance at a monitor to see if she's been bleeped or not.

Chelsea Handler is HILARIOUS!!!!!

[Michael Taylor]

Fifteen is my limit on schnitzengruben.

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

All the best,
Michael "Yes, I'm the type of guy who yells 'fiddlesticks!' if he hits his thumb with a hammer" Oksa

My wife is a big proponent of 'fiddlesticks'. Recently she's been using 'bananas' as well.

[KimW]

If she ever starts saying 'banana fiddlesticks' I'd look out!