use of expletive - opinion of

[SharpmanTF1]

My Daughter, whilst on a college outing was asked to hand out booklets after the trip to the rest of the students on the coach. - after dishing them out she suddenly realised that she had't saved herself one to which she exclaimed "bloody hell I haven't given my self one".

 

(Now bearing in mind she was not talking to anybody in particular but to herself)

 

One of the tutors heard her saying this and proceeded to tell her to stop swearing. (also bear in mind that my daughter 17 going on 18, almost an adult not a flippin 5 year old) to which my Daughter replied that she wasn't swearing, she was talking to her self. - of course the tutor then took this opportunity to escalate the issue. (daughter having a lot of issues with staff and doesn't know where to turn - no support in college)

 

This then resulted in my daughter being put on a stage 2.

 

Now, I ask you, in the context that my daughter used the words, would any sane person be offended ?

 

that's the question-

 

is any body offended by the words 'Bloody Hell'

 

 

trhat's a starter for ten. ......

[Tezcatlipoca]

In the specific case of your daughter, I doubt considerably whether the tutor - or anyone else within earshot - was offended. It is clear that the tutor escalated this into an issue in an attempt to enforce what they believed to be their authority, rather than taking actual offense to the language used.

 

In the broader sense, this touches on the slightly more tricky front of exactly what constitutes offensive language. Even those of limited cranial capacity (in which category tutors belong) probably realise that offense lies more in intent, rather than in execution. For example, Bookworm is a ****ing asset to this site, but despite the adjective my statement is obviously less offensive than my previous reference to tutors, even though it contained no traditionally offensive words; the clue is in the syntax!

In your daughter's case, she was clearly employing the adjective 'bloody' in self-chastisement, hardly a event to bring down the social or moral fabric of our society. Indeed, is any language - if applied to oneself or inanimate objects - ever technically offensive? Probably not.

 

It is also too easy to go too far the other way, and seek to suppress all expression for fear of causing offense. This is as unwelcome as those who do actually do intend to cause offense, often more so. Interestingly, this is also my issue with CagBot as a concept, and, indeed, with a great deal of censorship in general.

 

So, answer to your question is no; employing the term "bloody hell" is not nearly as offensive as using the complaint of causing offense to try an censor a person's means of expressing their own actions.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Tezcatlipoca

[Castlebest]

Just as a post script to Tez's comments, it should also be borne in mind that most "offensive" words are also some of the oldest in the English language emanating from ancient Saxon if not in fact from even earlier and are therefore valid English words.

 

It is human nature to express ones feelings in a verbal outburst as soon as an incident has occurred, this can be seen by the use of "polite" words such as sugar instead of swearing, is this any better?

 

I think a great deal of our current attitude towards the use of some of the words in our language can be traced to the Victorian ethos of purity which was also a load of rubbish.

 

We have a language which is alive and changes all the time and has been adopted by a great deal of the world. why should we restrict its use or stifle its growth?

[Lula]

Sorry CB that is where you are a tad wrong, the Saxons had no swear words, the swear words all came from elsewhere

[Bookworm]

Bookworm is a ****ing asset to this site,

You're too ****ing kind.

[Tezcatlipoca]

CB raises the interesting question of historical absolution. For example:

 

"**** you, yeah, you you ****er. I ****ing hate you."

 

 

"I am exercising the ancient English tradition of holding my

bow fingers aloft as a sign to my opponents that I am able

and prepared to fight them."

 

 

Is the fact that dear old granny in Chipping Sodbury is highly offend by the gesture because it's a 'sign that the youth is running amok' wrong since the gesture stems from England's medieval heritage and tradition of knocking six bells out of the French? Or has the meaning itself altered as society has changed?

Again, I'd argue that the meaning, and by extension the indication of whether or not it constitutes offense, is in the delivery, rather than the content.

 

Regardless, we can all agree on at least one thing; that Tez is ****ing fantastic...

[Bookworm]

the gesture stems from England's medieval heritage and tradition of knocking six bells out of the French?

 

Regardless, we can all agree on at least one thing; that Tez is ****ing fantastic...

He is, he is... if somewhat historically challenged.

 

This here medieval history graduate could bore you for a long time about it, but let's keep short: No, it has nothing to do with the French or bowmen or Agincourt. If you are really interested, read here: Two fingers up to English history… The BS Historian where he concludes: "we can be pretty sure that it’s bugger all to do with medieval archers." bringing us neatly back to swearing as means to express one's feelings.

[SPROUTY]

This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies. Ronnie Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many takes).

 

Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your pants] as you read ...

 

 

 

This is the story of Rindercella and her sugly isters.

 

 

Rindercella and her sugly isters lived in a marge lansion. Rindercella worked very hard frubbing sloors, emptying poss pits, and shivelling shot. At the end of the day, she was knucking fackered. The sugly isters were right bugly astards. One was called Mary Hinge, and the other was called Betty Swallocks; they were really forrible huckers; they had fetty sweet and fatty swannies. The sugly isters had tickets to go to the ball, but the cotton runts would not let Rindercella go.

 

 

 

Suddenly there was a bucking fang, and her gairy fodmother appeared. Her name was Shairy Hithole and she was a light rucking fesbian. She turned a pumpkin and six mite wice into a hucking cuge farriage with six dandy ronkeys who had buge hollocks and dig bicks. The gairy fodmother told Rindercella to be back by dimnlight otherwise, there would be a cucking falamity. At the ball, Rindercella was dancing with the prandsome hince when suddenly the clock struck twelve. 'Mist all chucking frighty!!!' said Rindercella, and she ran out tripping barse over ollocks, so dropping her slass glipper.

 

 

 

The very next day the prandsome hince knocked on Rindercella's door and the sugly isters let him in.. Suddenly, Betty Swallocks lifted her leg and let off a fig bart. 'Who's fust jarted??' asked the prandsome hince. 'Blame that fugly ucker over there!!' said Mary Hinge. When the stinking brown cloud had lifted, he tried the slass glipper on both the sugly isters without success and their feet stucking funk. Betty Swallocks was ducking fisgusted and gave the prandsome hince a knack in the kickers. This was not difficult as he had bucking fuge halls and a hig bard on. He tried the slass glipper on Rindercella and it fitted pucking ferfectly. Rindercella and the prandsome hince were married. The pransome hince lived his life in lucking fuxury, and Rindercella lived hers with a follen swanny!

 

 

 

Muck Fe

[Tezcatlipoca]

He is, he is... if somewhat historically challenged.

 

 

 

 

 

On a more serious note, the original point still stands; whether or not it is based in historical fact, the gesture is popularly believed to be a sign made by English bowmen, does this absolve the modern user from the charge of offense?

 

As Booky concludes, swearing is - at its core - nothing more than an expression of one's feelings and/or opinion. If you consequently take the 'offensive' component to be the application of said expression when it is directed toward another, the only realistic answer is that (a) no expression can be offensive when not directed at another person, or, (b) the decision of whether an expression is or is not offensive is dictated wholly by the indivdual against whom the expression is directed.

 

Of course, you then get an extra layer added, consisting of those whose own opinions are tempered for better or worse by their relation with the person being sworn at, and those whose are not, but are nonetheless members of a collective society that has seen fit to develop certain - and largely unwritten - codes of conduct on behaviour that is acceptable and behaviour that is not.

 

In short, a modicum of swearing is probably good for a healthy society. Oh, and Tez probably thinks too much.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Tezcatlipoca