From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:56:54 +1000, Aqua   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > Brian M. Scott wrote:   
      
   >> I understand that they are very offensive to you; I simply   
   >> don't think that this justifies ignoring the context in   
   >> which they appeared, and from where I sit, that's what seems   
   >> to have happened.  Does it help any if I explain that by and   
   >> large words are for me at most mildly offensive in and of   
   >> themselves, generally (if at all) because I find them vulgar   
   >> or coarse, and that true offense -- for me, again -- comes   
   >> only from context or perceived intent?  That I'd like to   
   >> think that I'd still concentrate on context and perceived   
   >> intent even if I had stronger emotional reactions to the   
   >> words themselves?   
      
   > Let's try some different examples.  I, like you, find most   
   > word  unremarkable in and of themselves, and the context   
   > and intent is what  matters the most to my   
   > interpretation.  That extends to the written form  of the   
   > word "cunt", for me, but *not* to the spoken form.   
   > Because I  don't hear it spoken very often at all, and   
   > usually when I do hear it, I  and/or other women are   
   > being threatened (usually with physical  violence), so   
   > the sound of the word has intrinsic "alarm" status in my   
   > brain that I can't just turn off.  It sort of "jumps out"   
   > of the  sentence and detaches itself from its context, in   
   > terms of how I hear it.   
      
   It probably has the highest vulgarity rating in my lexicon.   
      
   > Until recently, I thought nothing much of the word "paki",   
   > considering  it a slang shortening of "Pakistani".   
      
   I assume as a matter of course that such ethnic terms are   
   likely to have derogatory connotations unless I definitely   
   know otherwise, so this particular issue wouldn't arise.   
      
   [...]   
      
   > I think the other thing that's bugging me is that given   
   > Sea Wasp wanted  to convey a meaning that didn't have   
   > anti-homosexual connotations, and  the words he chose   
   > weren't in his natural idiolect - it seems to me he  had   
   > so many other choices available and it just seems like   
   > plain poor  craftmanship to not say "oops, not what I   
   > intended, let me put this  another way".   
      
   If they're intended to make the point that a character can   
   be good and still appeal even to those who would naturally   
   use such language to condemn a too-wimpish character, then   
   I'd say that they're good craftsmanship.  The failure in   
   craftsmanship is in not making it clearer that this is the   
   intent (if indeed it is).   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)