Shows which make up their own expletives

[Vlad!]

I think you mean "frakking".

Isn't it kind of funny in a sad sort of way when shows make up their own expletives? Firefly did this too (gorram, grapple), though they also used what I understand constitutes actual vulgarity in a Chinese dialect.

[murlough23]

Isn't it kind of funny in a sad sort of way when shows make up their own expletives? Firefly did this too (gorram, grapple), though they also used what I understand constitutes actual vulgarity in a Chinese dialect.

Language grows and changes over time (or, in BSG's case, develops differently in a non-Earth civilization), so to me, made-up expletives seem just as logical as they wacky futuristic gadgets. Nothing sad about it.

In any event, "frak" was part of the vernacular from the original BSG, so the new version merely kept the convention. Hands-down, the best use of it has to be a scene where one of the deck hands refers to a Cylon as a "metal motherfrakker", and her superior just looks at her with amusement - "Motherfrakker?", and they share a quick chuckle over it.

NP: "Love Is the Compass", Delirious?

[Vlad!]

Language grows and changes over time (or, in BSG's case, develops differently in a non-Earth civilization), so to me, made-up expletives seem just as logical as they wacky futuristic gadgets. Nothing sad about it.

Heh, except that the invented expletives are the only part of language that has changed. Everything else is standard American (or British, depending on where the show came from) English.

What's sad about it is that it's a transparent attempt to appear edgy without actually stepping across the "line" drawn by the FCC. It speaks both to the mental state of the show's writers (that they feel it so necessary to imply foul language that they make up their own) and of the FCC (who consider specific words taboo but allow other words that are obviously designed to imply the original, forbidden words).

It's sort of like an issue we discussed before, where people who would generally consider it inappropriate to say "ass" would still write "a**" or the even more ludicrous "@$$" in a post, apparently wanting to imply the word without being subjected to the (perceived) stigma of having actually written the word.

[murlough23]

I like "@$$". It's funny. "A-double-dollar-sign" also works.

While I mayself have become a lot less offended by such words, I respect that there are some people who still are, so I make my best attempt to adjust my language to the audience present. I don't see any problem with that. When I feel like people are treating it as an outright sin to say "ass", but they throw around "butt" all the time like it's no big deal, then I might have a problem with it, but that's not what's happening here.

As for Battlestar Galactica, it was sci-fi in the 70's. I think we can cut it some slack here. Yes, the reimagined version still uses the fake expletive, but it's cable, so this is not because the censorship is being imposed upon them, as far as I can tell.

[Aaron]

You ass.





HA..sorry, that was set up so nicely.   

[Vlad!]

I don't expect everyone to share my neuroses, and I have learned to accept the fact that they don't, though obviously not accept without complaints. However, I definitely maintain that if you want to say the word, you need to have the balls to actually say it. If you don't want to say the word, you need to not even pretend to say it. If you don't want to say the word but want to pretend to say the word, you're not edgy or cool or even funny, you're just sad.

[NinjaRob17]

You're all a bunch of nerfherders.

[murlough23]

If you don't want to say the word but want to pretend to say the word, you're not edgy or cool or even funny, you're just sad.

How about if I just want to say the funny alternative more than the actual word? It catches people off guard.

[Brenden]

How about if I just want to say the funny alternative more than the actual word? It catches people off guard.

And sometimes it's actually fun to say, who says we have to limit our expletives to the ones that actually offend people?

[spacebrat311]

Smurf this thread.

[Vlad!]

And sometimes it's actually fun to say, who says we have to limit our expletives to the ones that actually offend people?

You are free to make up whatever words you want and then say them or to use others' made up words. I'm not sure I buy the "it catches people off-guard" argument, but whatever. I am certainly not without hypocrisy in this area, as I am fond of the word 'freaking'[1], but my general policy is that, if the sole purpose of a word is to imply a different word while evading the censors[2], it implies a certain wishy-washiness on the part of the speaker.

[1] This would be both because it was in common usage as its own word when I was a kid and because it itself offended a teacher I didn't particularly like in high school so I attempted to use it whenever possible just to annoy her.

[2] Whether those censors be network censors, government censors, or angry soccer mom censors.

[murlough23]

You are free to make up whatever words you want and then say them or to use others' made up words.

Awesome. Thanks for the permission.

I'm not sure I buy the "it catches people off-guard" argument, but whatever.

I'm not sure if I care, so that's fine.

I am certainly not without hypocrisy in this area, as I am fond of the word 'freaking'[1], but my general policy is that, if the sole purpose of a word is to imply a different word while evading the censors[2], it implies a certain wishy-washiness on the part of the speaker.

I don't see any hypocrisy here, so use whatever words you're comfortable with and stop trying to dictate how I choose mine.

I'm mostly talking about cases where there's no censor to get around by way of silly technicalities. I'm just talking about choosing my words in a way that suits my personality. I may adjust that around certain people because I choose to, not because I'm forced to. If you're going to make some grandiose argument for freedom of speech, then let me have the freedom to choose my words as I see fit. I'm making no attempt to censor yours.

[bloop]

I wonder what would happen if the censors were to suddenly become context-sensitive.

[murlough23]

I wonder what would happen if the censors were to suddenly become context-sensitive.

That's kind of what I'm trying to do with my own external censors. "This world is fucked up" - not offensive to me any more. "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" - yeah, still offensive.

[Vlad!]

If you're going to make some grandiose argument for freedom of speech, then let me have the freedom to choose my words as I see fit. I'm making no attempt to censor yours.

My argument is less for freedom of speech and more for the repression of stupidity (stupidity in this case defined as "swearing using made-up words"). The last time I was on a plane, the woman in the seat across from me was tending to a small child. The child dropped something in a place that was difficult for her to reach, so she said "oh, biscuits". She said this a couple other times in other contexts, and I gradually realized that she was censoring her speech around the child by substituting a word that makes no sense for a word deemed less appropriate. The only thing this teaches the child is that saying certain words in anger is not OK while saying others is OK.

I wonder what would happen if the censors were to suddenly become context-sensitive.

You mean censoring based on subject matter and usage rather than specific words? The world would start to make a lot more sense. I also think we'd be really surprised over how many phrases that we don't give a second thought to are deemed "offensive", and how many startlingly apropos usages of "inappropriate" words are, actually, remarkably appropriate (which is what murlough said much more succinctly above).

[murlough23]

My argument is less for freedom of speech and more for the repression of stupidity (stupidity in this case defined as "swearing using made-up words".

Which is the cruz of our disagreement. I don't think it constitutes stupidity in all cases. I've certainly heard people emphasize things like "What the heck" or "Oh my gosh" just to draw attention to the fact that, "See, I'm a good boy, I don't swear!" And that is irritating. But I also know that some people picked up, "Oh, shit!" from others around them and some people picked up "Oh, biscuits!" from those around them. And so what? It's a different way of expressing the same thing. In the case you cited, it's simple annoyance with life being difficult. And in any context, what's wrong with expressing that anger? People get frustrated - are they not supposed to express that at all? I'll grant you that the woman feeling somehow better about herself for saying "Oh, biscuits" may be a bit of sorely misplaced self-righteousness, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or stupid or immature to say, "Oh, biscuits". If I heard someone say that, I'd find it highly amusing because it strikes me as a bit unexpected and random. "Oh, shit" is funny in certain contexts, too. And sometimes the "bad words" add more resonance to someone being genuinely upset - they clue you into the severity of it, but it depends on the inidvidual.

Really, it's such a fluid thing that depends so much on local culture and so many other factors that I'm not going to jump to conclusions about whether people are censoring themselves or whether that's simply the way they naturally talk. I will grant that the way we censor the public airwaves is an erratic attempt at satisfying a perceived lowest common denominator (and that's changed over time, too - there used to be a point where you couldn't say "pregnant" on TV, and now it's the premise of several popular movies and at least one sitcom). Unfortunately the technical and legalistic approach leaves little recourse other than to censor specific "dirty words". An approach based on context would make more sense, but would be extremely difficult to implement. So for now, I'll willing to cut TV shows and movies some slack for finding amusing ways around the censors. Sure, some of it is toeing the line, but not all of it.

NP: "Open Water", Thrice

[Vlad!]

People get frustrated - are they not supposed to express that at all? I'll grant you that the woman feeling somehow better about herself for saying "Oh, biscuits" may be a bit of sorely misplaced self-righteousness, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or stupid or immature to say, "Oh, biscuits".

I get upset at three things:
* The fact that she's using the word in a way that clearly makes no sense. I could forgive this, except...
* As you say, she would probably look down on me for saying "oh shit", which makes at least slightly more sense ("excrement is bad, this situation is bad, and I am comparing the two"). Additionally...
* The self righteousness you mention is almost certainly there. What I find offensive is less the word usage and more the implication that using a certain word is bad while using a nonsense word in its place is not.

An approach based on context would make more sense, but would be extremely difficult to implement.

Oh, I know. People might have to actually watch television and understand what's being said instead of mindlessly looking for specific words.

Sarcasm aside, note that most TV is broadcast "uncensored", in that all censorship is retroactive (fines from the FCC for airing certain words or showing certain content). How does the FCC find out? Through viewer complains. A viewer complains, the FCC goons view the portion of the broadcast in question, and it is determined if an infraction has incurred. I think what you mean is that it would be more difficult to objectively enforce standards. However, this isn't particularly different from the court system we have today. You just get a few people who appear to be good judges of whether or not something has crossed the line and who can explain their reasoning fairly coherently, and you have them arbitrate potential infractions.

My argument is less for freedom of speech and more for the repression of stupidity (stupidity in this case defined as "swearing using made-up words".

By the way, I had intended to imply something more along the lines of "the repression of things that annoy me". I don't want to suggest that you or the woman on the plane or anyone else is stupid in an objective sense just because we disagree on language usage.

[murlough23]

* The fact that she's using the word in a way that clearly makes no sense.

A lot of swearing is nonsense anyway, so this isn't really a big deal to me. Most of the time we're not talking about feces, sexual intercourse, things that God has condemned, offspring of female dogs, et cetera.

* As you say, she would probably look down on me for saying "oh shit", which makes at least slightly more sense ("excrement is bad, this situation is bad, and I am comparing the two"). Additionally...

That only makes sense because it's been used enough by the people around you that you know somebody's not actually referring to excrement, but rather, something that's as bad as excrement.

The self righteousness you mention is almost certainly there. What I find offensive is less the word usage and more the implication that using a certain word is bad while using a nonsense word in its place is not.

Almost certainly, but I'd be careful assuming that for sure about anyone who uses something other than one of the "bad words" to express frustration. Judging this kind of requires knowing what people are thinking, and that's something I won't presume to know.

Oh, I know. People might have to actually watch television and understand what's being said instead of mindlessly looking for specific words.

I agree that there are a lot of adutls who have this capacity but don't use it. However, as an adult who understands these words and is only offended by them in certain contexts where they're actually used to blaspheme God or to degrade people, I wouldn't necessarily ascribe that same level of understanding to, say, a child who hears the word and repeats it out of context. (Granted, we're also talking about TV that comes on after kids should be in bed. But still. There's some sense to self-censorship around children.)

However, this isn't particularly different from the court system we have today. You just get a few people who appear to be good judges of whether or not something has crossed the line and who can explain their reasoning fairly coherently, and you have them arbitrate potential infractions.

So then a TV show should just go ahead and use the actual words, throwing caution to the wind? Or viewers should be offended by the fake words like "frak"? I'm not sure I'm seeing what you want to actually change here.

By the way, I had intended to imply something more along the lines of "the repression of things that annoy me". I don't want to suggest that you or the woman on the plane or anyone else is stupid in an objective sense just because we disagree on language usage.

Yeah, but I want to suggest that you're being a bit anal.

NP: "Normandy", Project 86

[Vlad!]

So then a TV show should just go ahead and use the actual words, throwing caution to the wind? Or viewers should be offended by the fake words like "frak"? I'm not sure I'm seeing what you want to actually change here.

Both, or neither. I want people to say what they mean, not make up substitutes because they're afraid what they really want to say will offend people or because they're too self-righteous to say it or because they were taught that certain words are morally wrong to say. I want people to avoid succumbing to the seduction of the quick fix and realize that it's possible to convey very insidious, disturbing, and corrupting ideas with very innocuous words. I want the MPAA to stop counting fucks and start counting the number of times someone is threatened, degraded, or defiled by words. I want nannies to stop worrying about which words they use in front of toddlers and start worrying about what concepts they express in front of toddlers.

Yeah, but I want to suggest that you're being a bit anal.

Yeah, nice to meet you. I get visibly upset when people use the wrong word or when they spell it the wrong way. An apostrophe in the wrong place makes me feel vaguely ill. My bookshelves are organized first by genre and then alphabetically by author. If me being a bit anal is news to you, I'd like to suggest that you haven't been paying very much attention for the past seven years or so.

[murlough23]

Both, or neither. I want people to say what they mean, not make up substitutes because they're afraid what they really want to say will offend people or because they're too self-righteous to say it or because they were taught that certain words are morally wrong to say.

Perhaps saying what you mean makes sense in everyday communication. I'm not sure it's always the desirable approach in music or in visual media such as television. I think that the coinage of euphemisms is an underappreciated art form. Maybe I say, "I'm going to go use the facilities" because I enjoy describing it that way, not because I worry that I'll offend people by saying, "I have to take a shit".

I want people to avoid succumbing to the seduction of the quick fix and realize that it's possible to convey very insidious, disturbing, and corrupting ideas with very innocuous words.  I want the MPAA to stop counting fucks and start counting the number of times someone is threatened, degraded, or defiled by words.

Sure. You could give a graphic depiction of how you want to rape someone without using any of the "naughty words". I get that. But that's an argument for more censorship, not less. Or at least a shift in focus. I don't disagree with that. But I don't see how a TV show using a euphemism for "fuck" contributes to this problem.

I want nannies to stop worrying about which words they use in front of toddlers and start worrying about what concepts they express in front of toddlers.

So what's wrong with expressing frustration when a toddler is being a pain in the ass and making you pick up something they've dropped 10,000 times?

Yeah, nice to meet you. I get visibly upset when people use the wrong word or when they spell it the wrong way. An apostrophe in the wrong place makes me feel vaguely ill. My bookshelves are organized first by genre and then alphabetically by author.

Yeah, you should see my CD collection. I'm not that different. And you know how the "your/you're" thing gets under my skin. But organizing things and making them clear and easy to use is a personal preference on both of our parts, not a moral mandate that everyone should adhere to. Grammar has certain rules that are pretty absolute (even if slang allows for some leeway, and we've all misspelled words or used grammatically incorrect constructs or made-up words for the sake of humor). I can see how bad grammar that isn't being used in an intentionally ironic or humorous context might be a sign of ignorance. But I'm not sure that using substitutes for swear words is a sign of ignorance. The best litmus for that is to see how people respond to the actual words.

I have a friend who is so self-conscious on this issue that she feels guilty even for saying something like, "Oh, man!" when she knows her brain is thinking something a little more PG-13. I think that's a bit overboard, so I go the other way for the most part, and try not to say things that are offensive to people, in terms of the actual meaning of the words, rather than the choice of individual words.

If me being a bit anal is news to you, I'd like to suggest that you haven't been paying very much attention for the past seven years or so.

I knew it bugged you, just not this much. I'm anal about certain things, too, as explained above. I've just had to come to accept that not everyone who doesn't appear to my rules does it out of utter stupidity. You have to be careful about taking an academic issue (such as a person's choice of words not clearly communicating to you what they are actually feeling/thinking due to the differences in your understanding of the language vs. theirs) and a moral issue (i.e. "Not saying exactly what you mean is wrong.")

NP: "Ocean of Noise", Arcade Fire

[Vlad!]

Perhaps saying what you mean makes sense in everyday communication. I'm not sure it's always the desirable approach in music or in visual media such as television. I think that the coinage of euphemisms is an underappreciated art form. Maybe I say, "I'm going to go use the facilities" because I enjoy describing it that way, not because I worry that I'll offend people by saying, "I have to take a shit".

I've always wondered why people say that, anyway. My usual response is "where are you taking it?"

That's something I wouldn't have a problem with, by the way. You're not just substituting something in for an "offensive" word, you've found a different, potentially more clever way to say it. This is what I'm arguing for.

Sure. You could give a graphic depiction of how you want to rape someone without using any of the "naughty words". I get that. But that's an argument for more censorship, not less. Or at least a shift in focus. I don't disagree with that. But I don't see how a TV show using a euphemism for "fuck" contributes to this problem.

It's just how it sounds. It sounds like they want to portray a character (or even the entire show) as edgy or cool, and they only way they know how to do that is by having the character say a word that the character is not allowed to say. So they make up a word that's (wink wink nudge nudge) definitely not the forbidden word, but sounds similar enough that there is zero confusion about what word they really mean. This isn't clever, or at least it doesn't feel clever to me.

So what's wrong with expressing frustration when a toddler is being a pain in the ass and making you pick up something they've dropped 10,000 times?

Nothing. My little speech wasn't intended to mean that people should always be sweetness and light. I'm just saying that if saying "oh shit" in anger in front of a child will harm it, is saying "oh biscuits" that much better? Maybe it would be; I suck at relating to children and would probably inadvertently traumatize one for life if left alone with it for an extended period of time.

But organizing things and making them clear and easy to use is a personal preference on both of our parts, not a moral mandate that everyone should adhere to. Grammar has certain rules that are pretty absolute (even if slang allows for some leeway, and we've all misspelled words or used grammatically incorrect constructs or made-up words for the sake of humor).

It's not really a grammar thing, it's more that this practice (self-Bowdlerization) is suggestive about the person's character and mostly just annoys me in general.

But I'm not sure that using substitutes for swear words is a sign of ignorance.

Not a sure sign to be sure, though it might be a useful first-order approximation.  It is a slightly more accurate indicator of blind fundamentalism of the sort that will criticize you for using a word without even paying attention to what you actually said. Having grown up around people like this for most of my childhood, I think it's more of a danger sense than anything else. It's possible that the person will turn out to be cool with it and just thinks it's funny to use appropriate words inappropriately instead of inappropriate words appropriately, which appears to be the case with you. But I think it's more likely that the person will jump all over me if I say something construed to be inappropriate, and I hate being in situations where I have to always hold myself in check and watch what I say for fear of offending someone.



I have a friend who is so self-conscious on this issue that she feels guilty even for saying something like, "Oh, man!" when she knows her brain is thinking something a little more PG-13. I think that's a bit overboard, so I go the other way for the most part, and try not to say things that are offensive to people, in terms of the actual meaning of the words, rather than the choice of individual words.

You have to be careful about taking an academic issue (such as a person's choice of words not clearly communicating to you what they are actually feeling/thinking due to the differences in your understanding of the language vs. theirs) and a moral issue (i.e. "Not saying exactly what you mean is wrong.")

I'm not sure how we got to be talking about morality. I certainly am making no moral arguments one way or the other, or if I am then I don't intend to be. I'm just bashing people and TV shows who do something that pisses me off.

[murlough23]

I've always wondered why people say that, anyway. My usual response is "where are you taking it?"

I prefer "Don't take one of mine!" But I would assume it came from the use of "take" in the sense of taking the time to do something, e.g., "Take a break" or "Take a vacation".

That's something I wouldn't have a problem with, by the way. You're not just substituting something in for an "offensive" word, you've found a different, potentially more clever way to say it. This is what I'm arguing for.

OK, so then how do you know the difference between me and the biscuits lady?

It's just how it sounds. It sounds like they want to portray a character (or even the entire show) as edgy or cool, and they only way they know how to do that is by having the character say a word that the character is not allowed to say. So they make up a word that's (wink wink nudge nudge) definitely not the forbidden word, but sounds similar enough that there is zero confusion about what word they really mean. This isn't clever, or at least it doesn't feel clever to me.

I heard something like this in a recent episode of Brothers & Sisters; two fairly young characters were using the euphemism "bump buddy" (or perhaps "bunk buddy"), which was clearly a bowdlerized way to say "fuck buddy", and I was like, "Oh come on, nobody says that in real life." I guess it seems different to me in the context of Battlestar Galactica, because it's a completely different culture - yes, most of the language is the same of ours (for the sake of not completely alienating the audience), but it's not like that's the only word that is different (some technical terms that aren't in the least offensive are different, such as DRADIS instead of radar, but we can figure out what they mean from context).

In general, I'm not a fan of the "wink wink nudge nudge", where you're getting away with sounding like you're saying something dirty by bending the rules slightly. But due to my love of puns and wordplay, I'll admit to being amused by movie titles like "Meet the Fockers" or SNL skits like "Sofa King" or the one about a home improvement show where they kept talking about caulk, just due to how much mileage they manage to get out of it. It could be that I'm just immature, but what's funny isn't the fact that they implied something dirty; it's just the cleverness of the double meaning, or the humor inherent in replacing the expect phrasing with something else and passing it off as normal. I enjo these types of humor when the double entendre isn;t something necessarily dirty as well.

Nothing. My little speech wasn't intended to mean that people should always be sweetness and light. I'm just saying that if saying "oh shit" in anger in front of a child will harm it, is saying "oh biscuits" that much better? Maybe it would be; I suck at relating to children and would probably inadvertently traumatize one for life if left alone with it for an extended period of time.

I'm no expert, either, but kids tend to repeat things without a filter for what they mean or in which contexts it's appropriate to say it. I say "Oh, crap" a lot, but probably wouldn't around a kid. The bottom line there is that I don't want the kid to be going around talking about fecal matter all the time. Kids don't exactly need an excuse, you know. I think it's fine to learn that humans can express frustration at things that happen to them or at their own folly, but perhaps it's healthier at that age to have alternatives like "fiddlesticks" or "phooey", or just something that sounds plain silly in general; it at least adds a little levity to the situation. I don't consider "screwed up" to be vulgar in the slightest, but I'd probably say "messed up" around a kid.

I also have a way of "testing the waters" when I don't know people. I have little tolerance for people who are very strict on language, but to some extent I think it's reasonable to adjust your speech around certain people - it may seem like unfair censorship, but really, if that's the only thing standing between you and getting to know a person who might be more tolerant once they know you and understand you better, then I'm willing to impose that limitation on myself for the time being. It depends on who it is and why it bothers them, though. Some people simply prefer that you not refer to excrement or sexual slang in their presence, which I think is a fair request. Some words like "bitch", I wouldn't use in the context of women I didn't know that well, who might misconstrue it as a misogynist attitude, but if someone knows me reasonably well enough to know I'm pretty egalitarian in my ideals, I don't mind applying the word to inanimate objects or situations (i.e. "Driving through downtown L.A. during rush hour can be a real bitch.")

I have about as much of a knee-jerk reaction to fundamentalism as you do, but I've found that not everything I presume to be a result of that at first is really the case. I think it's worth taking at least a little effort to tread carefully until I know for sure where the person's coming from, and if I think their sensitivity to certain words stems from something reasonable and not just a judgmental "do it because it's right and don't ask me the reasons why" sort of attitude, I can adjust. If not, I probably won't want to spend much time in their company anyhow.

I'm not sure how we got to be talking about morality. I certainly am making no moral arguments one way or the other, or if I am then I don't intend to be. I'm just bashing people and TV shows who do something that pisses me off.

it seemed to be bothering you enough that you felt like it shouldn't be that way, which in my mind constituted some sort of a moral failing. If it's merely an academic issue or a personal quirk, then perhaps you might want to consider not geting so urinated off about it.

[Vlad!]

OK, so then how do you know the difference between me and the biscuits lady?

One annoys me, the other doesn't. My guess as to why is that a) your version sounds much less awkward and b) yours doesn't make it sound like you ran a global find/replace over your script.

I think it's worth taking at least a little effort to tread carefully until I know for sure where the person's coming from, and if I think their sensitivity to certain words stems from something reasonable and not just a judgmental "do it because it's right and don't ask me the reasons why" sort of attitude, I can adjust. If not, I probably won't want to spend much time in their company anyhow.

Possibly so. However, even if someone has a legitimate gripe against a word or phrase, that doesn't make it less frustrating to have to watch my speech around that person. Two examples: I know a girl who was raped when she was younger, so naturally she and her family are fairly sensitive around the word 'rape'. Probably because I'm a bad person, I tend to use that word to describe a crushing defeat (Missouri was raped by Oklahoma last weekend in football). Also, back when I was at Virginia Tech, a friend of a friend was shot in the face during the shootings there last April. When I was hanging out with him after his recovery, references to shooting or facial trauma in general would probably lead to awkward moments.

In both these situations, the people involved have very legitimate reasons to be sensitive to certain words or phrases. I don't fault them one bit. That said, it's still frustrating for me to be around them, simply because the mental effort involved in throwing that extra self-censor in there is enough that I never feel at ease in their presence. It sucks that crappy life events beyond their control mean that I want to hang out with them less, and it probably speaks more to my character than theirs, but it's still annoying.

That's only tangentially related to the original topic, but since the conversation seemed to be drifting in that direction then I figured I'd mention it.

If it's merely an academic issue or a personal quirk, then perhaps you might want to consider not geting so urinated off about it.

It's honestly not a huge deal. When you're as OCD as I am but you want to live a normal life, you learn to deal with little things that bug you a lot. But telling me to not get irritated by it is like telling me to stop being allergic to poison ivy. I can try all I want, but next time I grab that suspicious vine with three-leafed stems growing out of it, I'm still going to be in a world of hurt.

[Wildcatblue7]

That's kind of what I'm trying to do with my own external censors. "This world is fucked up" - not offensive to me any more. "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" - yeah, still offensive.

What truly scares me is that neither of those at offends me.  At all.  I've heard it so much that it's just another word.  I've become so jaded to everything--language, violence, sex--that I am shocked at what doesn't shock me.  I'm not really sure what to do about it.

[murlough23]

What truly scares me is that neither of those at offends me.  At all.  I've heard it so much that it's just another word.  I've become so jaded to everything--language, violence, sex--that I am shocked at what doesn't shock me.  I'm not really sure what to do about it.

Well, that's college for ya.

NP: "Don't Panic", Coldplay

[murlough23]

One annoys me, the other doesn't. My guess as to why is that a) your version sounds much less awkward and b) yours doesn't make it sound like you ran a global find/replace over your script.

So your real complaint here appears to be a lack of clevereness.

Possibly so. However, even if someone has a legitimate gripe against a word or phrase, that doesn't make it less frustrating to have to watch my speech around that person... In both these situations, the people involved have very legitimate reasons to be sensitive to certain words or phrases. I don't fault them one bit. That said, it's still frustrating for me to be around them, simply because the mental effort involved in throwing that extra self-censor in there is enough that I never feel at ease in their presence.

I'm uncomfortable being around physically handicapped people because I'm constantly afraid that I will do something that shows my unwillingness to help them with things they can't physically accomplish on their own, or that I'll go the other way and try too hard and end up patronizing them. But you know what? That doesn't mean I can just not be around those people. Their handicaps are (for the most part) not their fault, and I can either choose to adapt, and get used to it to the point where it becomes more natural, or I can choose to avoid them.

Similarly, not everyone's sensitivities to certain speech are their own fault, and I appreciate that the mental effort to not upset them can be frustrating, but you know what's more frustrating? Having people avoid you because they're afraid they might offend you. If these people are worth knowing as human beings, then I'd say it's worth that "annoying" effort.

Not that I'm perfect or anything. I'm just saying, so what if it's a pain in the ass to communicate in some people's language, that doesn't mean we should ostracize them.

It's honestly not a huge deal. When you're as OCD as I am but you want to live a normal life, you learn to deal with little things that bug you a lot.

Maybe you just exaggerated your reaction to it, then. I know I can certainly  do that with some of the stuff I'm OCD about.

But telling me to not get irritated by it is like telling me to stop being allergic to poison ivy. I can try all I want, but next time I grab that suspicious vine with three-leafed stems growing out of it, I'm still going to be in a world of hurt.

Perhaps a better suggestion is to find a better outlet for your frustration. I get irritated by some silly things, too, and I have to ask myself, is it a moral failing on someone else's part, or just me being overly picky and judgmental?

I also find that sometimes having a better understanding of a person's reason for doing something can make it less of an irritant. If you're bothered by it because it seems stupid, and you find out the person's not being stupid, then you can learn to be less sensitive to it over time, right?

[Vlad!]

Not that I'm perfect or anything. I'm just saying, so what if it's a pain in the ass to communicate in some people's language, that doesn't mean we should ostracize them.

There's a difference between ostracizing a person and not hanging out with that person. If anything I'm ostracizing myself. I'm not telling others where they can and can't go, I'm just making a decision not to hang out around them as much.

I find that the people I hang out with the most achieve that unenviable position not because they're necessarily better people than those I don't hang out with but because they are the people I can feel the most comfortable around. I feel very little guilt for not wanting to hang out with people I can't truly relax with, just like I don't feel guilty for not visiting the house of the guy who's always talking about the latest online game and how awesome it is. I'm sure the people in his online guild or whatever love spending time with him. Me, I don't. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him or me. It just means I like to relax with people I can be relaxed with.

I also find that sometimes having a better understanding of a person's reason for doing something can make it less of an irritant. If you're bothered by it because it seems stupid, and you find out the person's not being stupid, then you can learn to be less sensitive to it over time, right?

Momma always said that stupid is as stupid does. Trying to rationalize my way into being OK with something that annoys me is like trying to rationalize my way into not hating Green Day and Linkin Park. Maybe you have a great reason, but my gut reaction is and will always be "ugh".