Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:06:54
In reply to Re: please be civil « christophrejmc, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:05:19
[Posted by trouble on March 31, 2002, at 5:05:19]
> Thank you Christopherme, I haven't stated my own opinion on profanity yet b/c I don't know what it is, can't decide.
>
> I despise any oppression based on class, and growing up where I did everyone swore (even nuns)as a way of greeting, colorful individualism, signifyin and just plain opening our hearts which we were too worldly to bare w/out hiding behind the naughty bits.
> Not very caucasion of us. I'm not saying minorities everywhere love to swear, just in my own experience only caucasion and caucasion-wanna-bees have had the hissy fits, family meetings, and parent-teacher conferences over plain old lumpen-prole hillbilly cussin' the rest of us motherhumpin Roman Catholics took such hooligan personal pride in.
>
> It's working my jones, too, but I don't want to get blocked so I'm trying to be good and contort, tho I would never ask anyone to contort for me, I think it's wrong. But I'm probably just alot more evolved than them. For now.
>
> There's always Plenty of room at the top.
> Come on Up!
>
> I disagree w/ the view that we must try to keep our misunderstandings to a minimum, to me that's nonsense. Misunderstandings are inevitable, the idea is to work through misunderstandings, that's how people grow, that's where intimacy begins, by doing that kind of work, together.
> Here's what I say: No bloodletting, no abuse. Don't hurt people. Don't stir up division, let's help each other get real big here, together. Big, large-minded, generous.
>
> My ambivalence, (and I do have some) stems from the knowledge that words are powerful, words truly can hurt and traumatize. I could be traumatized, absolutely, if I heard someone of known rectitude spew profanity. But why should I or anyone else be held to that standard? It's exclusionary. My language here composes *me*, and to exlude my idioms is to effectively exclude *me*.
>
> IMO there can be no Civility w/out Inclusivity.
>
> Inclusive: (WEBSTERS)
>
> a. comprehending stated limits or extremes (from Monday to Friday, inclusive)
> b. covering or intending to cover all items, costs and services.
>
> Swearing is really very beautiful to the initiated, and if you don't want to hear it you don't have to go there. By now I'd think everyone who lives here knows I'm a slut, so why is this an issue at all? Why the heck doesn't ole Listerine Lips stay away from Misses Trenchmouth? He knows I'm only going to give him cooties.
>
> Is this one of those Polarity Junkie thingies that Zo talked about before she left? It certainly has the markings of it. Just b/c an item *might* draw the sobsisters in for battle does that mean it has to be eliminated? Look what that did for prohibition. Women's Christian Temperence Union, I'm sorry I just don't see anything wrong w/ falling down drunk on a Saturday night, and starting all over on Sunday morning, why would that exclude me from anything a teetotaler is entitled to? But it did, and it does, and it shouldn't, and it's wrong. Why is everybody always picking on me?
>
> Anyways. The current civility policy is, my opinion, divisive, it is creating disunity and dissension. If there is any other cure for this other than a policy of Inclusion I'd like very much to see it.
>
> Thanks for your ear, as always,
>
> cornpone
> hiccup
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:3678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3679.html