The Mental Militia Forums

General Interest => Activism => Topic started by: S. Jester on September 22, 2014, 12:15:56 pm

Title: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: S. Jester on September 22, 2014, 12:15:56 pm
Here's a TV reporter that actually owned a Medical Cannabis Business and is quitting to lobbying for legalization.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/alaska-tv-reporter-quits-on-air-fk-it-i-quit_b239657

But such dirty language on the air! What about the kids?   :thumbsup:


S.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: mi6a2lm on September 22, 2014, 01:15:20 pm
Yeah, that was great.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: mouse on April 01, 2015, 05:23:49 am
Been thinking about this for a while and I concluded that I should leave it alone in case I said something that might offend someone, but it seems to me I'm being dishonest and disingenuous by not saying what I think.

This would have been great, and I certainly agree with her sentiments, she did everything perfectly and got her point across, BUT with her using an obscenity like that totally negated any good in what she had to say.  When people use obscenities when trying to make their point I often think that what they have to say can't be that important to them if they have to resort to using profanity to make people listen to them.

Likewise, no matter how good a film seems to be and how many good reviews it has had, if obscenities are used by the actors throughout the film, or even only one in the film, I often think "there can't really be must artistic merit in the film if they have to resort to 'shock tactics', even if the producer thinks, usually erroneously, that it is just 'realism'".

Now having said that I wish the woman luck with her business.  And hope it helps with the legalisation of marijuana in Alaska.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on April 01, 2015, 05:39:25 am
Been thinking about this for a while and I concluded that I should leave it alone in case I said something that might offend someone, but it seems to me I'm being dishonest and disingenuous by not saying what I think.

This would have been great, and I certainly agree with her sentiments, she did everything perfectly and got her point across, BUT with her using an obscenity like that totally negated any good in what she had to say.  When people use obscenities when trying to make their point I often think that what they have to say can't be that important to them if they have to resort to using profanity to make people listen to them.

Likewise, no matter how good a film seems to be and how many good reviews it has had, if obscenities are used by the actors throughout the film, or even only one in the film, I often think "there can't really be must artistic merit in the film if they have to resort to 'shock tactics', even if the producer thinks, usually erroneously, that it is just 'realism'".

Now having said that I wish the woman luck with her business.  And hope it helps with the legalisation of marijuana in Alaska.
So called "obscenities" are just words. Nothing more. There is no special power invoked when a person speaks them. In fact, the work fuck is probably the most versatile word in the English lexicon. It can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb....pretty much anything! If "bad words" turn you off THAT MUCH, then you must be an old fuddy duddy. :laugh: They are just words.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on April 01, 2015, 06:09:04 am
If "bad words" turn you off THAT MUCH, then you must be an old fuddy duddy. :laugh: They are just words.

Words have meaning. People can obviously use any words they wish, and I can just as obviously not listen to them. I'm with mouse this far... if people can't talk without interjecting filth into each phrase, they don't have anything to say I want to hear... so I don't listen to them - whether it is in person, a movie or a book. My choice... The English language is quite versatile enough without such drivel.

So, if that makes me an old "fuddy duddy," that's fine with me.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: sovereignbastard on April 01, 2015, 01:00:58 pm
Geroge Carlin.... 7 dirty words....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on April 01, 2015, 02:20:47 pm
Likewise, no matter how good a film seems to be ... if obscenities are used by the actors throughout the film ... I often think "there can't really be must artistic merit in the film if they have to resort to 'shock tactics', even if the producer thinks, usually erroneously, that it is just 'realism'".

I agree with that, Mouse with one exception*. So many films/TV shows could be elevated to great/awesome, but instead the gratuitous use of "bad language" keeps it bogged down in the sewer. I don't mind an "F-bomb" here and there - but geez Louise, sometimes it reaches insane levels.

* (For whatever reason...) I make "bad language" allowance for Robert De Niro :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on April 01, 2015, 04:32:55 pm
If "bad words" turn you off THAT MUCH, then you must be an old fuddy duddy. :laugh: They are just words.

Words have meaning. People can obviously use any words they wish, and I can just as obviously not listen to them. I'm with mouse this far... if people can't talk without interjecting filth into each phrase, they don't have anything to say I want to hear... so I don't listen to them - whether it is in person, a movie or a book. My choice... The English language is quite versatile enough without such drivel.

So, if that makes me an old "fuddy duddy," that's fine with me.
Never venture onto a construction site then! :laugh: I have a completely different vocabulary while working than I do at home or even online. Sailors got nuthin' on me! :icon_pirat:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on April 01, 2015, 04:38:45 pm
Never venture onto a construction site then! :laugh: I have a completely different vocabulary while working than I do at home or even online. Sailors got nuthin' on me! :icon_pirat:

My first husband was a mechanic, and I spent a lot of time at the garage and service stations where he worked. I don't ever remember hearing any of the men there swear, but that was 50 years ago of course. Both of my sons are doing construction work of all kinds. Neither one of them would dream of using foul language in my hearing. I was married to a sailor... and never heard a bad word from him either. If men (or women) want to talk that way, it's no skin off my nose. I just have zero interest in hearing it. I don't insist they stop swearing, unless they actually want to talk to me.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: stainzblue on April 07, 2015, 08:46:53 pm
Although I don't think I was ever a potty mouth (I curse for emphasis though) my partners at work are pretty mild-mannered. They never asked me to not curse around them. I don't curse around them because I care about them and do not want to make them uncomfortable; it's my choice, however. And when somebody comes into our area cursing indiscriminately it sounds kind of ugly. English is probably the richest language on the planet; I have begun to think of people that curse constantly as being impoverished.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: mouse on April 08, 2015, 04:49:54 am
Up until about 8 or 9 months ago I worked on the night shift with seven male co-workers and only saw women at breaks.  I had for the last 10 years.  On the first "day" I realised that five of the seven were hardened swearers who seemed to be unable to complete a sentence without at least three swearwords.  the boss was particularly bad and used the "f-word" as part of normal speech, not even to "emphasise" anything (you know:  "I'm going to f...ing smoko now, tomorrow I have to take my f...ing car in for an f..ing service").  After that I just said to all of them that I didn't like it and would they please clean up their language when I was around.

It worked perfectly and they all ceased swearing, even around the other two guys who didn't swear themselves.  (OK, one didn't swear because he was Brazilian and didn't know enough English to swear, but somehow I don't see him as a swearer anyway).  The other non-swearer said he was "greatly relieved" as he also didn't like swearing but had not wanted to say anything in case they accused him of being a "sissy" or something, but it is somehow acceptable for a woman to object.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on April 08, 2015, 06:11:12 am
 :rolleyes: They are just words.  :wacko:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on April 09, 2015, 01:52:48 pm
Quote
They are just words.

Are they though?

In the sense of, “what makes a word a ‘bad’ word,” why is that we use the common known cuss words and not say, “pinwheel,” or “cobbler,” or “wax paper,” or “unicorn breath?” Oh I understand there is a story behind the “f word” and the “s word,” for example. But, throughout history insults and “bad” words have changed. So on one hand I do understand how one might conclude, “they’re just words.”

On the other hand, words have context. We string a few words together to form a sentence. String a few sentences together and a mental picture can be constructed. Words can birth and nurture ideas. Words can inflame and words can comfort.

One can use words to lie and sabotage, even bring about murder. One can use words to express loyalty and love, and words perhaps even heal.

What gives a word special meaning? And who assigns a word special meaning: the one speaking them or the one listening to them; the one writing them, or the one reading them?

We lend voice fluctuation to our spoken words. Words can drip with sarcasm, disdain, cruelty. Words can ooze lust, jealousy, or ardor. We use words, specific words, to emphasize our anger, our displeasure, our sadness, our regret, our admiration, our love.

Energetic folks and shy folks use words differently. Children and adults use words differently. Men and women use words differently. Cultures and nationalities use words differently. We speak differently in turn to our children, to our spouse, to our neighbors, to our friends, to our extended family, to our coworkers, to total strangers.

Is it that words themselves have power, or do the words become powerful because of how someone wields them?

Are words, “just words?” I don’t think so. I think they have meaning, have purpose. If the eyes are the windows to our souls, then words are the mirrors to our hearts.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: mouse on April 15, 2015, 06:31:08 am
Quote
They are just words.

Are they though?

In the sense of, “what makes a word a ‘bad’ word,” why is that we use the common known cuss words and not say, “pinwheel,” or “cobbler,”

I guess this proves your point about "cultures and nationalities use words differently".  "Cobbler" (or "cobblers"), oh the irony!  Yep, that's one of "them words that are not good to say".

The kids watch a cartoon where the characters say "oh tail feathers" ("Sheriff Kallie"), I think that's brilliant.  And another cartoon has the characters saying "oh hamburgers".  My daughter taught the kids to "cuss" with "oh chicken nuggets", there are alternatives.


modified to fix typo
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: sovereignbastard on April 15, 2015, 02:22:21 pm
Cussing with "kiddie" words does not change the intention. When Sarah Palin starts up with the oh geez shimmy bangs, or whatever, how is that any better than an oh shit ? It's all about Intention, not the actual words. I am going to DONK your daughter, is that better ? I am gonna wiffle bat your muffled slop hole ? Someone drops a brick on their foot and they scream snickers, that might be the person in the crowd you would want to watch a little more closely than the rest perhaps ?
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: sovereignbastard on April 15, 2015, 02:24:33 pm
Patton Oswalt sums it up much better... CLEAN FILTH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbALbZ9bHFU
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on April 15, 2015, 04:25:09 pm
I was just reminded of the line from PG-13 Guardians of the Galaxy:  "If I had a black light, it would look like a Jackson Pollack painting in here."
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on April 15, 2015, 05:04:01 pm
Cussing with "kiddie" words does not change the intention. When Sarah Palin starts up with the oh geez shimmy bangs, or whatever, how is that any better than an oh shit ? It's all about Intention, not the actual words. I am going to DONK your daughter, is that better ? I am gonna wiffle bat your muffled slop hole ? Someone drops a brick on their foot and they scream snickers, that might be the person in the crowd you would want to watch a little more closely than the rest perhaps ?
+1  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on April 17, 2015, 01:30:28 pm
Quote
Cussing with "kiddie" words does not change the intention. ...It's all about Intention, not the actual words.

If I stub my toe in front of the kids, I would say, "Oh sugar plum fairy!" I would most likely say it when they're weren't around either, because I find creative words amusing. However, there is no substitute for "bad" words sometimes. When I was stung by a wasp last fall I said, "shit" over and over for about 20 seconds - in front of all my kiddos. They weren't focused on the word I was saying, they were focused on my obvious pain. (Besides they're pretty unaware of what "bad" words are.)

If I were in a super-heated argument with my spouse I might call him a f*cking *sshole in the heat of the moment. Calling him a "bunny foo-foo" would not have the same affect would it?

As for intention, perhaps it's a case-by-case basis. In the wasp scenario, I wasn't trying to hurt or aggravate anyone. I wasn't trying to be shocking and I wasn't mad at any person. However, if I were to call my husband a "bad" name, that would be intentional to hurt him and/or let him know just how displeased I was.

Quote
Someone drops a brick on their foot and they scream snickers, that might be the person in the crowd you would want to watch a little more closely than the rest perhaps ?

Not for me - I appreciate creativity!
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: sovereignbastard on April 17, 2015, 04:32:11 pm
We have no control over how other people are gonna react to our words no matter our intention. I consider bunny foo foo exactly the same as oh shit. But that's just one humans take out of billions. Steak and potatoes, steak and potatoes !
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on April 23, 2015, 03:26:29 pm
We have no control over how other people are gonna react to our words no matter our intention.

You are so right!

This reminds of me of something that happened along this vein a couple of years ago. I was about four months into my pregnancy with my third child and it was not a pleasant experience (and actually got worse!). I was stopped by a woman I casually know and she asked how I had been. I told her about the pregnancy and when she asked how that was going, I replied,"Ugh. It's been hellish!" The look on her face was priceless! I wasn't trying to be shocking or bold or whatever. I was just being - truthful. And I personally didn't see anything *wrong* with my choice of word. So yeah, some folks are a bit squeamish about um, certain words.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind. on December 17, 2015, 08:12:41 pm
Although I don't think I was ever a potty mouth (I curse for emphasis though) my partners at work are pretty mild-mannered. They never asked me to not curse around them. I don't curse around them because I care about them and do not want to make them uncomfortable; it's my choice, however. And when somebody comes into our area cursing indiscriminately it sounds kind of ugly. English is probably the richest language on the planet; I have begun to think of people that curse constantly as being impoverished.

Hah, actually, cursing can be a picked up habit.  Usually for punctuation or accentuation.  In a british fashion really.

As for English being a rich language, it sure is, so are many others.  The problem is, most english speakers you and I will ever meet will not know half the words we do.  Because we've got lib'rul 'cawladge educayshunz, yo.


--------------------------


@Moonbeam about DeNiro.  You know that makes you a hypocrite, right?  Do you make any exceptions for Magnum P.I.'s manly demeanor and stache?

Wow, you hang out with people so thin skinned that "hellish" offends them?!?!?!?!?!
-----------------------------------------

Also, to all, you may have noticed that there is a huge difference between "fuck this" and "fuck you."

The first is addressed at the situation and only a controlling numskull would get offended.  The second gets a punch in the face.

Or kicked out of my establishment for verbal assault.  :D
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Baked at 420 on December 23, 2015, 06:54:46 pm
I told someone they should feed their naughty little fucker to Krampus today, so I don't think I can complain about impolite speech...
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: da gooch on December 24, 2015, 02:02:56 pm
Up until about 8 or 9 months ago I worked on the night shift with seven male co-workers and only saw women at breaks.  I had for the last 10 years.  On the first "day" I realised that five of the seven were hardened swearers who seemed to be unable to complete a sentence without at least three swearwords.  the boss was particularly bad and used the "f-word" as part of normal speech, not even to "emphasise" anything (you know:  "I'm going to f...ing smoko now, tomorrow I have to take my f...ing car in for an f..ing service").  After that I just said to all of them that I didn't like it and would they please clean up their language when I was around.

It worked perfectly and they all ceased swearing, even around the other two guys who didn't swear themselves.  (OK, one didn't swear because he was Brazilian and didn't know enough English to swear, but somehow I don't see him as a swearer anyway).  The other non-swearer said he was "greatly relieved" as he also didn't like swearing but had not wanted to say anything in case they accused him of being a "sissy" or something, but it is somehow acceptable for a woman to object.

I don't suppose that you see the irony in your demanding that they "clean up their language when I was around"?

Let's suppose that another person comes into the work force and asks that everyone "Please do not use the word  it, it's or its when the subject or object already has a correct name."

How is that different from your demanding that everyone else adapt to your standards rather than you either adapting to the standard in use or leaving that work space and requesting a change of work space from your employer?
How does that differ from imposing your form of tyranny as opposed to the tyranny of the government? (spit)

There is no One Correct Way in anything in which humans are involved.
Even NAP/ZAP must be voluntary or it is just another form of aggression.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on December 24, 2015, 02:49:56 pm
Up until about 8 or 9 months ago I worked on the night shift with seven male co-workers and only saw women at breaks.  I had for the last 10 years.  On the first "day" I realised that five of the seven were hardened swearers who seemed to be unable to complete a sentence without at least three swearwords.  the boss was particularly bad and used the "f-word" as part of normal speech, not even to "emphasise" anything (you know:  "I'm going to f...ing smoko now, tomorrow I have to take my f...ing car in for an f..ing service").  After that I just said to all of them that I didn't like it and would they please clean up their language when I was around.

It worked perfectly and they all ceased swearing, even around the other two guys who didn't swear themselves.  (OK, one didn't swear because he was Brazilian and didn't know enough English to swear, but somehow I don't see him as a swearer anyway).  The other non-swearer said he was "greatly relieved" as he also didn't like swearing but had not wanted to say anything in case they accused him of being a "sissy" or something, but it is somehow acceptable for a woman to object.

I don't suppose that you see the irony in your demanding that they "clean up their language when I was around"?

Let's suppose that another person comes into the work force and asks that everyone "Please do not use the word  it, it's or its when the subject or object already has a correct name."

How is that different from your demanding that everyone else adapt to your standards rather than you either adapting to the standard in use or leaving that work space and requesting a change of work space from your employer?
How does that differ from imposing your form of tyranny as opposed to the tyranny of the government? (spit)

There is no One Correct Way in anything in which humans are involved.
Even NAP/ZAP must be voluntary or it is just another form of aggression.
Nothing to add. Just wanted to say nice post gooch! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: FDD on December 24, 2015, 04:22:21 pm
Up until about 8 or 9 months ago I worked on the night shift with seven male co-workers and only saw women at breaks.  I had for the last 10 years.  On the first "day" I realised that five of the seven were hardened swearers who seemed to be unable to complete a sentence without at least three swearwords.  the boss was particularly bad and used the "f-word" as part of normal speech, not even to "emphasise" anything (you know:  "I'm going to f...ing smoko now, tomorrow I have to take my f...ing car in for an f..ing service").  After that I just said to all of them that I didn't like it and would they please clean up their language when I was around.

It worked perfectly and they all ceased swearing, even around the other two guys who didn't swear themselves.  (OK, one didn't swear because he was Brazilian and didn't know enough English to swear, but somehow I don't see him as a swearer anyway).  The other non-swearer said he was "greatly relieved" as he also didn't like swearing but had not wanted to say anything in case they accused him of being a "sissy" or something, but it is somehow acceptable for a woman to object.

I don't suppose that you see the irony in your demanding that they "clean up their language when I was around"?

Let's suppose that another person comes into the work force and asks that everyone "Please do not use the word  it, it's or its when the subject or object already has a correct name."

How is that different from your demanding that everyone else adapt to your standards rather than you either adapting to the standard in use or leaving that work space and requesting a change of work space from your employer?
How does that differ from imposing your form of tyranny as opposed to the tyranny of the government? (spit)

There is no One Correct Way in anything in which humans are involved.
Even NAP/ZAP must be voluntary or it is just another form of aggression.


AMEN Brother
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 28, 2015, 02:10:26 pm
Up until about 8 or 9 months ago I worked on the night shift with seven male co-workers and only saw women at breaks.  I had for the last 10 years.  On the first "day" I realised that five of the seven were hardened swearers who seemed to be unable to complete a sentence without at least three swearwords.  the boss was particularly bad and used the "f-word" as part of normal speech, not even to "emphasise" anything (you know:  "I'm going to f...ing smoko now, tomorrow I have to take my f...ing car in for an f..ing service").  After that I just said to all of them that I didn't like it and would they please clean up their language when I was around.

It worked perfectly and they all ceased swearing, even around the other two guys who didn't swear themselves.  (OK, one didn't swear because he was Brazilian and didn't know enough English to swear, but somehow I don't see him as a swearer anyway).  The other non-swearer said he was "greatly relieved" as he also didn't like swearing but had not wanted to say anything in case they accused him of being a "sissy" or something, but it is somehow acceptable for a woman to object.

I don't suppose that you see the irony in your demanding that they "clean up their language when I was around"?

Let's suppose that another person comes into the work force and asks that everyone "Please do not use the word  it, it's or its when the subject or object already has a correct name."

How is that different from your demanding that everyone else adapt to your standards rather than you either adapting to the standard in use or leaving that work space and requesting a change of work space from your employer?
How does that differ from imposing your form of tyranny as opposed to the tyranny of the government? (spit)

There is no One Correct Way in anything in which humans are involved.
Even NAP/ZAP must be voluntary or it is just another form of aggression.

That's not the impression I got from her post --at all. I am surprised that you equate her politeness by asking (not demanding) with tyranny! I see nothing unreasonable asking someone to "clean up their language." I suppose MamaLiberty's recent request to S. Jester to refrain from using the "f-bomb" in his post qualifies her as being "demanding" and "tyrannical," too? [Regardless of the TOG.] I agree with you that MOUSE could have ignored the bad language or reported it or asked to be removed or she could have quit her job. However, I do not agree that merely asking someone to temporarily refrain from certain behavior would be on par with tyranny (her form or otherwise). I might be missing your point here, but I just don't see what's so offensive about the act of asking?
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Tahn L. on December 28, 2015, 03:30:41 pm
Moonbeam,  I certainly agree that it is OK to ask someone to refrain from certain language, whether from using a G--Damn or the f bomb.

When I was young and stupid(er), I acquired the phrase "Miss on you pister, you're not so mucking futch". I soon learned, after a brief encounter in a bar, that it wasn't the actual words that caused harm (to myself that time)  but the intent.

Now, I try to refrain from any insults but the PC crowd keeps changing the rules and I have pretty much given up on them. EVERYTHING insults them.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 28, 2015, 08:26:15 pm
So, I've been watching some of these Netflix Original series...  They have a lot of gratuitous sex in them.  And I'm a guy who likes pr0n.  I don't watch TV for that sort of thing.  I want to be told a story, and it just distracts from it.

.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Baked at 420 on December 28, 2015, 10:36:01 pm
So, I've been watching some of these Netflix Original series...  They have a lot of gratuitous sex in them.  And I'm a guy who likes pr0n.  I don't watch TV for that sort of thing.  I want to be told a story, and it just distracts from it.

.

Marco Polo has a lot of that.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 29, 2015, 10:28:39 am
That was the one.  Jessica Jones has some steamy stuff in it, but it fits the story much better at least.  Same with House of Cards.  It was just plain distracting in Marco Polo.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: da gooch on December 29, 2015, 03:38:10 pm
snip - snip for brevity

That's not the impression I got from her post --at all. I am surprised that you equate her politeness by asking (not demanding) with tyranny! I see nothing unreasonable asking someone to "clean up their language."
I don't suppose that you have yet been the victim of the feminazi sjw's as yet. Oh wait you have your status as a non-y chromazone citizen to protect you from that unpleasant situation.
Quote
I suppose MamaLiberty's recent request to S. Jester to refrain from using the "f-bomb" in his post qualifies her as being "demanding" and "tyrannical," too? [Regardless of the TOS.]
Oh but I do. I don't disagree with her decision however. ML has admin priviledges and makes her own decisions as to what is acceptable behavior here. Right off hand I don't remember if the TOS forbids such language. I shall go rectify that today. The TOS allows the admins to demand the removal of "vulgar" language. I guess you don't remember the days of the abundant references to beastiality and (good natured) coarse language that used to be so common here at TCF? I don't use such language myself but do actually believe that my freedoms and Everyone's freedoms are complete and omniscient or they are a hoax. Even in language re: free speech. In private situations (like here at TMM) the Owner or their designate gets to set the limits. Vulgar happens to be a very "loose" term but ML and the other admins are that designate here. We all agreed to abide by their supervision as a stipulation of our membership here.
Quote
I agree with you that MOUSE could have ignored the bad language or reported it or asked to be removed or she could have quit her job. However, I do not agree that merely asking someone to temporarily refrain from certain behavior would be on par with tyranny (her form or otherwise). I might be missing your point here, but I just don't see what's so offensive about the act of asking?

Do you think that IF her shift mates had Not complied with her "request" that she would Not have complained to her supervisor about them? Would she Not have instituted a complaint with the Company to enforce her "preferences"?
These things were not discussed but my experience with similar instances has always led to the non y-chromazone Person having her preferences enforced by the only too PC Company Bosses.

Oh But I am forgetting my Male Dominance Priviledge. (/sarc)  :rolleyes:

edit to correct TOG to TOS
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 29, 2015, 04:40:21 pm
It's actually like pretty much everything else in life... we have to negotiate our differences if we want to live in peace. And if someone has an absolute priority to impose that foul language on others who politely ask, at TMM they might find themselves no longer invited to the conversation... as gooch pointed out. If foul language is a priority for anyone, I'm sure they can find other fora where it is welcome.

But no hard and fast "rules" exist here. Speak away, but remember that mutual consideration for each other is the glue that makes TMM happen.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 29, 2015, 05:04:38 pm
I try to use the PG-13 guidelines.

In two hours of content, you are allowed one Fuck, two Shits, and can briefly show boobs and butt cheeks as long as no one is actually having fun with them.

Now I just blew my F and one of my Ss, so I'll behave for a while now.

For some reason I can be as violent as I want though...  That seems pretty messed up.  I think we'd all be much healthier if we had more sex and less violence, but I'm weird like that.

.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Baked at 420 on December 29, 2015, 07:25:48 pm
That was the one.  Jessica Jones has some steamy stuff in it, but it fits the story much better at least.  Same with House of Cards.  It was just plain distracting in Marco Polo.

Indeed. I get that the harem scenes were part of the story, but it could have excluded the actual sex without changing the story. The one that was really over the top was when he smoked opium out in the desert and went to that old guy's version of paradise.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 29, 2015, 08:46:12 pm
Hi Gooch! Happy New Year! I still think I am missing your point in your original response to Mouse as I did not understand the harm/offense in her asking? I wanted to understand how the act of asking is comparable to tyranny in your opinion. As for the latest response, I also fail to see what gender has to do the act of asking someone to curb certain behaviors?

I don't suppose that you have yet been the victim of the feminazi sjw's as yet. Oh wait you have your status as a non-y chromazone citizen to protect you from that unpleasant situation.

If you would be gracious enough to accept my response, I have seen misogyny up close and personal from both males and females. :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 29, 2015, 08:54:05 pm
...the PC crowd keeps changing the rules and I have pretty much given up on them. EVERYTHING insults them.

Indeed, Tahn. Indeed. :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 29, 2015, 09:00:51 pm
That was the one.  Jessica Jones has some steamy stuff in it, but it fits the story much better at least.  Same with House of Cards.  It was just plain distracting in Marco Polo.

Indeed. I get that the harem scenes were part of the story, but it could have excluded the actual sex without changing the story. The one that was really over the top was when he smoked opium out in the desert and went to that old guy's version of paradise.

There was another very sexy scene where they were flashing back and forth between the sexy stuff and what I thought was the most horrific violence in the show: the foot binding of the little girl.  I was actually kind of angry at that point.  Either scene would have been tolerable to me, but someone deliberately chose to put those two scenes together with the music crescendoing to that point.

.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 29, 2015, 09:18:16 pm
How is the show Spartacus in regards to gratuitous violence, sex, language?
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Bill St. Clair on December 30, 2015, 07:55:13 am
For some reason I can be as violent as I want though...  That seems pretty messed up.  I think we'd all be much healthier if we had more sex and less violence, but I'm weird like that.

I agree. Very weird.

I am reminded of an old George Carlin skit in which he bemoans the fact that the F-word is curse instead of a blessing. I'd link to a video of it, but I couldn't find one.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 30, 2015, 08:51:26 am
the F-word is curse instead of a blessing.

Could be, to some of course. But it depends on both the giver and receiver of that curse or blessing. A bowel movement can be an incredible blessing, but we don't call each other BMs as a blessing generally. And not many use the f word to convey a blessing either. If we did, the perception might be quite different. :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: RVM45 on December 30, 2015, 04:07:19 pm
EE…

My father brought me up to believe that sophisticated Gentlemen and Ladies do to need to resort to cursing to make their point…

I do not know why, but I largely excluded such language from my speech although I had no desire whatsoever to be thought of as either a gentleman or sophisticated. My ideal man at that time was closer to Robert E Howard's notion of a "Barbarian" or at least as a rough-and-tumble son of the blue-collar class.

This doesn't work.

I was constantly picked on and constitutionally unable to ever back down or to alter my behavior.

I remember things like sitting in class and being slapped quite viciously on the back of the head repeatedly—and though I strongly suspected the dude straight behind me it could have been two or three others.

It took me tweny-five years to realize that saying things like:

"If I catch you at that, I will stomp the poo right out of you!" Only occasioned contempt for one's toughness and for one's person.

Let me add that while I'm not gay—and regard it as an aberration—there is an odd tendency amongst late middle school and high school aged adolescents to suppose that Homosexuality lies at the root of all failures to conform and all eccentricities.

I remember a fat sow of a German teacher—I'm not condemning all fat German teachers—just this one.

Male students would call me gutter language terms for a Knobgobbler, Incest Practitioner, Eater of Feces and what have you.

I do not see how she could have failed to hear as the insults weren't shouted but the volume was well above conversational.

I'd reply with something like, "Actually you're the one who brushes your teeth with poo and then gargles pee and you like to sprinkle rat turds on your morning oatmeal."

And the favorite playing bitch would chastise me for talking "Vulgar".

I used to get the idea when talking to Authority figures that they must be pretending not to know certain things that they knew very well. I also felt that if they're truly that clueless I don't know exactly where to begin.

I would like to know what she'd say if I'd said:

"You cannot failed to notice that I'm struck with balls of paper; struck with surreptitious blows; poked with sharpened pencils hard enough to draw blood and excoriated in the harshest of gutter language. My "vulgar" use of words like "poop, pee, turd, etc." Is an attempt not to be a passive victim and is an attempt at verbal self defense and counterattack—so why do you always call me out?"

She was still in her twenties—I think—and unlike teachers who strove to enforce universal tolerance—I suspect that she disliked me as much as most of my teenage tormentors.

And please excuse the Latin. Nothing offends me quite as much as a non-healthcare professional calling "Naughty" body parts by their Latin names as a form of euphemism.


….RVM45





Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 30, 2015, 06:27:37 pm
RVM45, I suspect the real problem wasn't the language or lack of it... but the context. Nothing really functions to the benefit of the people involved in a collectivist situation like "public school."
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind. on December 31, 2015, 02:22:49 pm

That's not the impression I got from her post --at all. I am surprised that you equate her politeness by asking (not demanding) with tyranny! I see nothing unreasonable asking someone to "clean up their language."


Ahhh, we call this cognitive dissonance, aloofness, or just flat out wrong.

Seriously, you are aware that thin skinned female co workers have gotten many a guy fired or thrown in jail for "giving offense" to their pwetty leetl eaws... right?  Tell me you aren't aware of this, and I'll laugh in your face. 

Let me tell you a funny one from my personal experience.  I worked for one of the top 500 growing companies of the US (ranked there for several years in a row, and I worked with em since we started it in the owner's garage.)  Second year it was already a multi million dollar company.

We lost several people due to non performance, it was a hard core fast paced, hard push environment,  but the core team worked our asses off, and rode each other like cheap Thai whores, and that sort of joke was milquetoast in the shop, behind closed doors.  We were ROUGH!!  And then we hired our first woman.  Now we had to have a federally approved "equal opportunity" employer plaque, and all sorts of new policies.  No harassment, no offenses, etc.  Boss came in one day and said "we've been playing it fast and loose for a few years, and we've done well, but now we've grown up and we can't pull that shit any more, in other words, BE VERY CAREFUL AROUND THE NEW GAL, I don't want to get sued!"


Overnight the fun fast paced hard core environment we had all thrived on more than coffee, was gone.  We were at each other's throats a lot more often.  It wasn't long before I quit and reopened an old business and started another in a completely different field (in populated areas in economies not completely destroyed by government and hill billyism, you can get a lot done with a remote terminal.)  Then I moved to Wyoming and took a dump on my career and both my businesses.

So, don't give me that "polite asking" crap.  Polite asking is a precursor to a harassment lawsuit or "unsafe workplace" lawsuit.  My old boss knew it.  The gal said she didn't mind, but we all know how this crap works in the new psycho feminazi world... she says she wants your babies, and halfway through coitus she changes her mind, and now you're a rapist, screwed for life.  Its been going on in business a lot longer... and any boss and any male employee knows this intimately without saying it out loud.  We kowtow because we know the moment you get to whining to the boss, we get fired, because nobody wants the feds crawling up their ass because of an unhappy female employee.  This is why I wore several different covert recorders and kept almost a terabyte of cycling data storage of my conversations.  I got tired of having to watch every word I said and quit.

Quote
I suppose MamaLiberty's recent request to S. Jester to refrain from using the "f-bomb" in his post qualifies her as being "demanding" and "tyrannical," too? [Regardless of the TOG.] I agree with you that MOUSE could have ignored the bad language or reported it or asked to be removed or she could have quit her job. However, I do not agree that merely asking someone to temporarily refrain from certain behavior would be on par with tyranny (her form or otherwise). I might be missing your point here, but I just don't see what's so offensive about the act of asking?

See my post above.  We're here voluntarily.  Short of direct ad hominem attacks, I strongly doubt ANYONE is getting banned for naughty talk on a freedom forum.  If that practice is starting, I'll be sure to quit fairly soon myself.  Wyoming was a shit sale, and if TMM turns out to turn into a bait and switch it wouldn't be worth staying.  Again, at work you kiss ass and CYA, especially around thin skinned females.  On a FREEDOM forum, you learn to have a thick skin, freedom means some people will have very naughty prerogatives with other consenting adults who also hold those naughty prerogatives.

If you want a proper education, look up DarkMatter2525's videos Samson Da Barbarian on youtube.  For those who can't view videos, here's the breakdown: the third episode has a bedroom scene where Samson's naked body has a box around his nipples titled "inoffensive male nipples" which shows his nipples.  The gal has a black box on hers titled "offensive female nipples."  When he stands up, he has the same "offensive" black box dangling between his legs as he walks off.  That there covers the entirety of naughty and stupid control freakism.  Shirtless macho dudes "look good."  Not since the phoenicians have a pair of women's naked breasts been considered "her honor."  Janet Jackson shows a boob during the superbowl and all the hypocrite super-christians in America blow a fucking gasket about wardrobe malfunctions!  (Frankly I think she has nice boobs, I'm not into black girls, but she's a nice specimen, by far.)  All the idiots went berserk that "kids minds could have been damaged by seeing a nipple!!!"  Seriously, they sucked nipples for at least ONE YEAR of their lives, in their most formative stage, how come none of those idiots accused every kid in America of having an Oedipus complex?  Didn't all that breastfeeding damage their little minds a lot more than seeing Janet's nipple for a couple of seconds?

The double standards and hypocrisy are ridiculous, and I'd hope you gals here would be over that bullshit.

(also, moonbeam, the reason your hubby gets more offended or knows "you mean it" when you really curse at him is because he knows that's the only time you're honest with your words... saying "oh fudge packers" in a sing song voice when you stub your toe tells everyone around that you didn't really hurt yourself.  Saying "motherF***er!!!" (see, I censored it to not offend the easily offended) when you crunch your hand with a hammer while driving nails, and then flinging the hammer in rage, lets everyone know you actually did get hurt, and are actually pissed off.  Even my dog knows when I mean it and when I don't.  I'd expect the same of any healthy adult, and your hubby seems the type.  Hell, you seem pretty healthy yourself, other than the double standard issues.  :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on December 31, 2015, 05:23:52 pm
 :laugh: :popcorn:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: heyoka on January 01, 2016, 11:14:35 am
 :laugh:
DL.......da MAN  :notworthy:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Baked at 420 on January 01, 2016, 07:26:55 pm
That was the one.  Jessica Jones has some steamy stuff in it, but it fits the story much better at least.  Same with House of Cards.  It was just plain distracting in Marco Polo.

Indeed. I get that the harem scenes were part of the story, but it could have excluded the actual sex without changing the story. The one that was really over the top was when he smoked opium out in the desert and went to that old guy's version of paradise.

There was another very sexy scene where they were flashing back and forth between the sexy stuff and what I thought was the most horrific violence in the show: the foot binding of the little girl.  I was actually kind of angry at that point.  Either scene would have been tolerable to me, but someone deliberately chose to put those two scenes together with the music crescendoing to that point.

.

Yeah, I found that disturbing.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: da gooch on January 02, 2016, 08:14:41 pm
Hi Gooch! Happy New Year! I still think I am missing your point in your original response to Mouse as I did not understand the harm/offense in her asking? I wanted to understand how the act of asking is comparable to tyranny in your opinion. As for the latest response, I also fail to see what gender has to do the act of asking someone to curb certain behaviors?

I don't suppose that you have yet been the victim of the feminazi sjw's as yet. Oh wait you have your status as a non-y chromazone citizen to protect you from that unpleasant situation.

If you would be gracious enough to accept my response, I have seen misogyny up close and personal from both males and females. :)

Hi Moonbeam.
I wish a Happy, Safe and Profitable New Year to you and your family.

Now to respond to your post.
I will defer to Destin Faruda who has responded to your query sooner than I was able to do and has expressed the underlying principles much better than I would have been able to express them.


That's not the impression I got from her post --at all. I am surprised that you equate her politeness by asking (not demanding) with tyranny! I see nothing unreasonable asking someone to "clean up their language."


Ahhh, we call this cognitive dissonance, aloofness, or just flat out wrong.

Seriously, you are aware that thin skinned female co workers have gotten many a guy fired or thrown in jail for "giving offense" to their pwetty leetl eaws... right?  Tell me you aren't aware of this, and I'll laugh in your face. 

Let me tell you a funny one from my personal experience.  I worked for one of the top 500 growing companies of the US (ranked there for several years in a row, and I worked with em since we started it in the owner's garage.)  Second year it was already a multi million dollar company.

We lost several people due to non performance, it was a hard core fast paced, hard push environment,  but the core team worked our asses off, and rode each other like cheap Thai whores, and that sort of joke was milquetoast in the shop, behind closed doors.  We were ROUGH!!  And then we hired our first woman.  Now we had to have a federally approved "equal opportunity" employer plaque, and all sorts of new policies.  No harassment, no offenses, etc.  Boss came in one day and said "we've been playing it fast and loose for a few years, and we've done well, but now we've grown up and we can't pull that shit any more, in other words, BE VERY CAREFUL AROUND THE NEW GAL, I don't want to get sued!"


Overnight the fun fast paced hard core environment we had all thrived on more than coffee, was gone.  We were at each other's throats a lot more often.  It wasn't long before I quit and reopened an old business and started another in a completely different field (in populated areas in economies not completely destroyed by government and hill billyism, you can get a lot done with a remote terminal.)  Then I moved to Wyoming and took a dump on my career and both my businesses.

So, don't give me that "polite asking" crap.  Polite asking is a precursor to a harassment lawsuit or "unsafe workplace" lawsuit.  My old boss knew it.  The gal said she didn't mind, but we all know how this crap works in the new psycho feminazi world... she says she wants your babies, and halfway through coitus she changes her mind, and now you're a rapist, screwed for life.  Its been going on in business a lot longer... and any boss and any male employee knows this intimately without saying it out loud.  We kowtow because we know the moment you get to whining to the boss, we get fired, because nobody wants the feds crawling up their ass because of an unhappy female employee.  This is why I wore several different covert recorders and kept almost a terabyte of cycling data storage of my conversations.  I got tired of having to watch every word I said and quit.

Quote
I suppose MamaLiberty's recent request to S. Jester to refrain from using the "f-bomb" in his post qualifies her as being "demanding" and "tyrannical," too? [Regardless of the TOG.] I agree with you that MOUSE could have ignored the bad language or reported it or asked to be removed or she could have quit her job. However, I do not agree that merely asking someone to temporarily refrain from certain behavior would be on par with tyranny (her form or otherwise). I might be missing your point here, but I just don't see what's so offensive about the act of asking?

See my post above.  We're here voluntarily.  Short of direct ad hominem attacks, I strongly doubt ANYONE is getting banned for naughty talk on a freedom forum.  If that practice is starting, I'll be sure to quit fairly soon myself.  Wyoming was a shit sale, and if TMM turns out to turn into a bait and switch it wouldn't be worth staying.  Again, at work you kiss ass and CYA, especially around thin skinned females.  On a FREEDOM forum, you learn to have a thick skin, freedom means some people will have very naughty prerogatives with other consenting adults who also hold those naughty prerogatives.

If you want a proper education, look up DarkMatter2525's videos Samson Da Barbarian on youtube.  For those who can't view videos, here's the breakdown: the third episode has a bedroom scene where Samson's naked body has a box around his nipples titled "inoffensive male nipples" which shows his nipples.  The gal has a black box on hers titled "offensive female nipples."  When he stands up, he has the same "offensive" black box dangling between his legs as he walks off.  That there covers the entirety of naughty and stupid control freakism.  Shirtless macho dudes "look good."  Not since the phoenicians have a pair of women's naked breasts been considered "her honor."  Janet Jackson shows a boob during the superbowl and all the hypocrite super-christians in America blow a fucking gasket about wardrobe malfunctions!  (Frankly I think she has nice boobs, I'm not into black girls, but she's a nice specimen, by far.)  All the idiots went berserk that "kids minds could have been damaged by seeing a nipple!!!"  Seriously, they sucked nipples for at least ONE YEAR of their lives, in their most formative stage, how come none of those idiots accused every kid in America of having an Oedipus complex?  Didn't all that breastfeeding damage their little minds a lot more than seeing Janet's nipple for a couple of seconds?

The double standards and hypocrisy are ridiculous, and I'd hope you gals here would be over that bullshit.

(also, moonbeam, the reason your hubby gets more offended or knows "you mean it" when you really curse at him is because he knows that's the only time you're honest with your words... saying "oh fudge packers" in a sing song voice when you stub your toe tells everyone around that you didn't really hurt yourself.  Saying "motherF***er!!!" (see, I censored it to not offend the easily offended) when you crunch your hand with a hammer while driving nails, and then flinging the hammer in rage, lets everyone know you actually did get hurt, and are actually pissed off.  Even my dog knows when I mean it and when I don't.  I'd expect the same of any healthy adult, and your hubby seems the type.  Hell, you seem pretty healthy yourself, other than the double standard issues.  :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on January 03, 2016, 01:57:36 pm
I will defer to Destin Faruda who has responded to your query sooner than I was able to do and has expressed the underlying principles much better than I would have been able to express them.

Oh that’s too bad. I was positive you would have easily explained your position on why you equate the act of asking with tyranny instead of referring to someone else’s rant. It seems obvious to me that this discussion has taken two different paths as some have conflated the topic.

For me this isn’t about gender or cussing: this is about understanding why you believe the act of asking is comparable to tyranny. For others it seems this topic is not about the act of asking but about another example of a woman inflicting injury upon another.

In Mouse’s case the coworkers were not browbeaten or threatened or intimidated by her, but rather they agreed to her request (not threat) to curtail a very specific behavior. From her vast amount of postings I would hardly jump to the conclusion that Mouse would use any kind of force to impose her personal preference upon anyone. To project the horror stories of what some other women have done upon her is unreasonable, IMHO.

What I fail to understand and what no one has bothered to explain is why the act of asking is so offensive it would be compared to tyranny? Furthermore, what does gender have to do with the act of asking?

I am not without sympathy for the folly others have suffered at the hands of irrational, bad tempered women. [Nor am I without empathy for the horror that women have suffered at the hands of men.] I just don’t see the relevance of gender in the act of asking.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on January 03, 2016, 02:23:02 pm
I think they explained it already, perhaps with more heat and passion than was helpful.  The American workplace is rapidly becoming a hostile environment for anything overtly masculine.  In many places, "PC" (political correctness) has become the religion behind a growing witch hunt.  It's ugly. 

Decent men have been scapegoated, used as an example, etc. in workplace discipline, and had their livelihoods taken from them because a woman in the workplace "asked" for something.  She may have been right or wrong, reasonable or selfish in asking for whatever.  The culture of many workplaces now is such that this might be used to further punish the "patriarchy" by ruining a decent man's life.

.

Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on January 03, 2016, 08:05:10 pm
So the offensive line is drawn at the workplace? If Mouse would have asked the men folk at say a bar, that wouldn't have been tyrannical? I'm not being a wise-guy - I truly wish to understand why the act of asking is tyrannical. :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on January 04, 2016, 05:26:37 am
So the offensive line is drawn at the workplace? If Mouse would have asked the men folk at say a bar, that wouldn't have been tyrannical? I'm not being a wise-guy - I truly wish to understand why the act of asking is tyrannical. :)
Because to most people.......THEY'RE JUST WORDS!!!!! THEY HOLD NO POWER!!! It's not like "curse" words conjure an actual "curse". The only reason why some people get turned-off by those words is because they were brainwashed to. My freedom of speech does not end when someone gets offended or butt-hurt.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on January 04, 2016, 07:37:07 am
The only reason why some people get turned-off by those words is because they were brainwashed to.

Not at all. Some of us simply consider the use of foul language to be impolite, like picking your nose or your butt in the midst of otherwise polite company. Do you think that foul language or nose picking should be completely acceptable without question, everywhere? Seems to me that if one is impolite in public, they should not be shocked to find that others have no desire to see the butt picking and ask them to stop it, or refuse to endure their company any longer. Cursing and mindless repetition of a foul word are two different things, by the way. F*** is a slang word representing a verb, not an adjective or a modifier. It is meaningless garbage when used as a "flavor" in between every other word.

An armed society is a POLITE society, with common decency being the grease in the gears. That means mutual respect and negotiation of disagreements in the absence of aggression.

I fully agree that there is no "right" not to be offended, but the right of voluntary association actually takes care of that. Those who enjoy or don't mind the foul language are free to get together, and those who do not appreciate it are free to associate among themselves as well. Nobody gets to impose their stuff on others.

The idea of trying to force one group to accommodate the other is the real problem. In a workplace situation, the owner of the business should simply make the rules and the employees are free to stay or leave as they wish. If an employee simply asks others not to use this language, it is a request like any other... take it or leave it. It certainly does not rise to the level of aggression merely to ask.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on January 04, 2016, 07:54:26 am


Not at all. Some of us simply consider the use of foul language to be impolite, like picking your nose or your butt in the midst of otherwise polite company. Do you think that foul language or nose picking should be completely acceptable without question, everywhere?


Foul language hurts nobody. Never has and never will. Is it impolite in certain circumstances? Sure, you bet. It cannot be justly compared with nose or butt picking though. Those actions are unsanitary and could potentially sicken all those that the "picker" comes in contact with. The same cannot be said about foul language. Well.....as long as the F sounds are produced without spittle. :laugh:

All this aside, I only use "foul" language around certain types of people. Never around my minions. Not because I think that the words are bad, but because I know how many people would react if the minions used those words amongst the brain washed masses. It would be like sending them out with a t-shirt that has 666 across the front. 666 is just a number, right? But to certain people........... :rolleyes:
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: MamaLiberty on January 04, 2016, 08:33:31 am
Foul language hurts nobody.

Not a matter of "hurt," but of respect and mutual courtesy. Calling someone a "nig**" doesn't cause harm either... well, at least not to the ones addressed. They might HURT the guy who said it. But yeah, other than that, it's just a word...  What matters is how it is used, and maybe how often. I generally just tune it out, but every other word is terribly annoying and I just won't listen at all. Therefore, if someone wants to convey a message to me, they will avoid that language. If they didn't want to communicate with me anyway, nothing lost.

The point is that it is discourteous and disrespectful to use foul language in a situation where it is not generally appreciated and people have asked for it to stop. The foul language people can certainly say anything they want, but those who don't want to hear it have an equal right of free speech. 

Associate with whom you wish, of course. Just don't expect everyone to want to associate with you if they must listen to disrespectful, discourteous speech.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: da gooch on January 04, 2016, 12:52:44 pm
So the offensive line is drawn at the workplace? If Mouse would have asked the men folk at say a bar, that wouldn't have been tyrannical? I'm not being a wise-guy - I truly wish to understand why the act of asking is tyrannical. :)

"Freedom is not being able to do what you want to do; freedom is being able to NOT do what you don't want to do."


I am not even slightly interested in participating in your obvious and overt attempt to brand me as a misogynist.
If you have not understood, can not understand, will not understand the various explanations that have been expressed here then I cannot not help you.

I stand by my earlier statement which is an expression of My Personal Opinion.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Tahn L. on January 04, 2016, 04:24:40 pm
Moonbeam,

 As near as I can tell, the reaction is because of a fear of PC backlash (in the workplace, not here) because it could be construed as a violation of fed rules, which is certainly a valid concern in todays world.

Gooch and Klapton,   What if a guy "asked" the same question?   Oh wait, "he" might not be a "he" or might be a LGBTQ or something and also take offense. It's a sick world out there.

 When I was a hippy we just wanted to have free speech and say things like "fuck" and "stop the war" in public. Now it is wrong to even say "Sir" or "Ma'am" to someone as you might offend them. Sick, sick, sick.

 I say  "Fuck em  heck with them all!" 
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on January 04, 2016, 04:54:27 pm
Gooch and Klapton,   What if a guy "asked" the same question?   Oh wait, "he" might not be a "he" or might be a LGBTQ or something and also take offense. It's a sick world out there.

Being a favored class makes all the difference.

.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: da gooch on January 04, 2016, 05:39:12 pm



                    "Always pick your own battlefield."

                          Sun Tsu, The Art of War
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Moonbeam on January 04, 2016, 07:38:51 pm
Gooch - I am so sorry that my curiosity provoked you to such a degree that you would think such ill will of me. I would never consider you a hater of women. A salty dog perhaps on occasion ( :laugh: ) but never that! My focus when I posted those questions was in regards to understanding the action of asking - not on the gender asking nor where the asking took place nor what was asked. You obviously had a different interpretation/assumption/perspective.  :)
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: DiabloLoco on January 04, 2016, 08:01:27 pm
Gooch and Klapton,   What if a guy "asked" the same question?   Oh wait, "he" might not be a "he" or might be a LGBTQ or something and also take offense. It's a sick world out there.

Being a favored class makes all the difference.

.
Ding Ding Ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!

For those that can't/won't read between Klapton's lines (line :laugh:)...... EVERY CLASS is favored, EXCEPT a straight white male that identifies as a male. :rolleyes: And it's EXTRA bad if you own a gun!
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Rarick on January 27, 2016, 12:36:53 pm
The TOS allows the admins to demand the removal of "vulgar" language. :ph34r:

LOL, Jump right into the pot......

I have seen stuff like this happen, too.  You wonder why a company doesn't hire certain people, now you know why.  The owner made a mistake in asking the guys to tone it down, either the girl could handle it, or she would leave.  The 30-90 day grace period is there for that.  The problem is being that "special one" everyone has to comply to, not in the guy/girl thing.

I have been in a couple of start ups too.  I usually left and took my share of capitol with me as soon as the others could buy me out too when it became apparent the "Special One" rules were going to be intruding into a fun environment.

IN PUBLIC you stick with the formal form of the language.  That was one of the rules I learned because in public you never know who you are dealing with.  The formal form avoids those misunderstandings. 

Use your own judgement if you are at home here or in public.  Peoples response will tell if you made a good decision.
Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Splash22 on May 11, 2016, 10:07:32 am
"The employee has been terminated"...... uh, no.... she quit!

Swearing is usually for those who either haven't the vocabulary, or are caught in a spontaneous moment, as this woman appears to have been.

When in the company of those who cannot speak w/o cursing, I suggest they might want to invest in a thesaurus.
~S

Title: Re: TV gone to Pot?
Post by: Baked at 420 on May 25, 2016, 08:24:12 pm
*bong rip* I wish there was more pot on tv.