Klarinet Archive - Posting 000134.txt from 2005/11

From: "Matthew Lloyd" <matthew@-----.uk>
Subj: [kl] The Use of English
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:42:13 -0500

As one who supported the Joseph's use of "that word", I'm not sure that
"large numbers of folks" have objected. I don't even thing a significant
number of list members have responded one way or the other.

Also please remember that some of us are not governed by the United
States Constitution, and that certainly some in that group are far from
sorry that we are not.

Your mother might well have thought you (and those who have suggested
"that word" should never be used) are loudly declaring your own
righteousness. I don't know - I've never met her. But it seems a
possibility to me. You are stating as a fact that Joseph's use of the
word is "unwarranted". Joseph and I both indicated that in our
respective opinions the word was used appropriately. It isn't those that
support the use of "that word" who are being dogmatic, is it?

For myself, I find tiptoeing around the issue of language by using
phrases such as "that word" to be more offensive than any use of the
word itself. English is a language that can be used in so many ways,
with so many shades of meaning. Sometimes it is appropriate to use
brutal language for effect, or at least I hope this is the case.
Dogmatic assertions such as your "the idea of "shock-value" is a
denigration of
language, as it seeks to intimidate some and arouse others; to appeal to
people's fears and to their aggressiveness, not the their intellects,
and
as such [ought]* not to be considered a healthy or legitimate use of
language" serve, as I see it, to limit the language in a way that I
would suggest is unhealthy. You know the idea, if the words aren't
available, you can't think the offensive thought? Shades of Newspeak?

I always find it odd that "folks" in America pride themselves on being
in the land of the free, and then tell you what you can and cannot
say.......

Matthew

* Please excuse my editing here. I assumed that this was a typo and
corrected it. As can be seen, the original read "out", for any who wish
to maintain the purity of the quotation!

-----Original Message-----
From: William Kelly [mailto:kell0786@-----.edu]
Sent: 09 November 2005 01:39
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: FW: [kl] The Vienna Philharmonic and Women -- Bad News

I find your comments ill-considered for the following reasons:
1) As Dan pointed out, you're interjecting with a consideration far
removed
from the basic level of allowing women employment in an orchestra.
2) Of far more importance, your assesment of "most men" is absurd. Most
men, in fact, all of the men I know, do not fit your description.
Perhaps I
simply move in more elevated circles than you. Perhaps you live in a
Cro-Magnon community. Nevertheless, to say these things of "most men" or
even "many men" (which assumes a significant percentage) is rediculous.
3) My mother always taught me to doubt the sincerity of those who are so
quick to loudly declare their own innocence or righteousness. Especially
when they go about denegrating large numbers of other people while
they're
at it.
4) Your use of obscenity is not warranted, and I join the large number
of
folks on this list who object. To clear up some of the nonsense: No, of
course you wouldn't say that two horses "make love." But neither would
you
say that they f---. And yes, all intelligent people know that there is
no
constitutional right to not be offended, as Captain Obvious pointed out,
but that has nothing to do with the desire to encourage civil means of
expression in a public forum. Nor does it allow for a removal of limits
to
what people can do and say in public. But I'm not on this list to
explain
the Constitution to people. The idea of "shock-value" is a denegration
of
language, as it seeks to intimidate some and arouse others; to appeal to
people's fears and to their aggressiveness, not the their intellects,
and
as such out not to be considered a healthy or legitimate use of
language.
As things stand, profane language, whatever it's expressive capactiy, is
to
many of us very distasteful, uncivil and innapropriate, and we will
simply
continue to complain should folks persist in this. The sad part is, I
seem
to recall this conversation happening here before.

> Me too; but in my experience, most men don't. They like fucking
women,
> and they like having women around to be objects of aesthetic beauty,
and
> they like women who act as amplifiers for their own ego, etc. etc.
etc.,
> but take a woman who actually wants to be treated as a *proper human
> being* and many men find that quite scary.
>
> Their loss, methinks. :-)
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

--
This email has been verified as Virus free
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org