Re: Consideration for obscenity

I didn't vote on it either but would have if it were available at the time I viewed it. In context, it is an appropriate kind of comment and I am offended that it was ever considered for reaping. This is the kind of thing I expect an adult to be able to say to another adult and when I am at perlmonks, I consider this a forum of adults. It's not professional but then polls and poetry and "cool things" aren't either.

I'm always aware that there's been thirteen year old kids here occasionally but I don't think one node saying "fuck" is going to negatively or positively affect them. I'd rather point them to Randal's Learning Perl if they want to learn perl or Scarleteen if they needed some sex ed (this only occurs to me because the word is "fuck"). I'm not sure where to point them in regards to communicating with adults.

Anyway, this case what I perceive as excessive prurience does really offend me and I hope not to encounter it much in the future. I don't hold much hope out for that because I live in the US which is infested with people who seem to be obsessed with the a sexless fantasy world.

It's an unhappy world being in a place where people ask for "family" stuff in context that are entirely inappropriate. This is one of them. It's appropriate to ask for "professional" but NEVER "family." A pox on the concept.

⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

Comment on Re: Consideration for obscenity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Consideration for obscenity by ptum (Priest) on Feb 03, 2007 at 04:26 UTC
Hmmmm. I'm not sure where you're coming from ... on one hand you seem offended that I had the temerity to dare to consider the node, yet on the other you talk about being offended by 'excessive prurience'. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Prurience refers to: prurient: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire Perhaps you were trying to call me a 'prude'? I didn't make up the guideline about family-friendly -- that was here before I really started posting. But it seems rather silly to approve of "professional" but oppose "family". Both simply refer to an abstract standard of decency which seeks not to trample on the things that matter to others. Personally, I find obscene language very unprofessional, so I guess it fits the bill either way. It is sort of funny for me to hear you offer the idea that "obscenity is OK because it is adults talking to adults" (paraphrasing you), since that is one argument I think is particularly apropos to opposing obscene language. C'mon, we're not scrawling on junior-high bathroom stalls, here. Are adult monks not able to express themselves on a higher level, using the vast resources of the language, without descending into vulgarities?	[reply]
Re^3: Consideration for obscenity by diotalevi (Canon) on Feb 03, 2007 at 17:02 UTC
Hmmmm. I'm not sure where you're coming from ... on one hand you seem offended that I had the temerity to dare to consider the node, yet on the other you talk about being offended by 'excessive prurience'. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Prurience refers to: prurient: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire Perhaps you were trying to call me a 'prude'? Oops! That word does not mean what I think it means. The important thing for me at this moment is that perlmonks in addition to being about the practice of programming perl or occasionally about being a professional that uses perl is that perlmonks is also a social space. Social spaces are also a place where great crude, gross, or even sublime things happen. Swearing or talking about sex is something that happens in those places. It isn't clear to me which sense of "fucked" was use here. Perhaps it doesn't really matter. Salty language isn't the norm here and I'm glad for that. This would be a very unpleasant place if that weren't true. That said, I don't think that an occasional blue word or two is bad either. I suppose it's proportion and context. Also, I'm biased because that particular response if taken somewhat literally reminds me of some of my absolute favorite people on this planet. I have warm fuzzies just from reading that response. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Consideration for obscenity by eric256 (Parson) on Feb 04, 2007 at 00:01 UTC
/me rephrases the answer to the poll as "copulated" and wonders if that is less offensive. ___________ Eric Hodges	[reply]
Re^4: Consideration for obscenity by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 04, 2007 at 01:34 UTC
That's exactly the point I was trying to make in a similar discussion a couple of years ago. Why is it that some people will judge the 6 letter arrangement "fucked" as obscene, but the 9 letter arrangement "copulated" as not so? And despite the anonymonks attempt to suggest that my expressed confusion was "careless wit", I still do not understand this. I know it to be the case. I know it to be surprisingly common. I even know that when I first heard a recent UK advert for a cold rememdy that referred to "snot", it made me feel uncomfortable--for reasons that I cannot explain. But offended? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^5: Consideration for obscenity by blazar (Canon) on Feb 04, 2007 at 13:56 UTC
Re^6: Consideration for obscenity by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 04, 2007 at 15:47 UTC
Re^3: Consideration for obscenity by blazar (Canon) on Feb 04, 2007 at 12:54 UTC
I find obscene language very unprofessional, so I guess it fits the bill either way. Oh, c'mon... "We Are Morons"... It is sort of funny for me to hear you offer the idea that "obscenity is OK because it is adults talking to adults" (paraphrasing you), since that is one argument I think is particularly apropos to opposing obscene language. You're indeed paraphrasing him, because that's not what he is suggesting. The claim is, fundamentally, that that particular verb (as of itself) is not obscene at all, let alone the idea of sexual intercourse. And i wholeheartedly agree with him. There are by far more obscene things. Of course, we simply do not and probably cannot agree on this, and going on would probably spawn an endless discussion. So this is my last take on it, and it's just to explain that for the exact same reasons as explained by those who voted to keep the "incriminated" node, or would have done so, I would have as well, notwithstanding the fact that I do consider that attempt at humour to be particular poor, which is the reason why I did downvote it.	[reply]