Re: Bah!
>Well this Ex-pat doesn't believe any of the British comedy shows were improved by allowing the use of formerly forbidden worlds like "shit" or "fuck" into the scripts.
I wish I could upvote this more.
In 90% of cases swearing adds nothing of semantic value - the words are meaningless in their used context which means the user is simply incoherent and unable to express themselves.
In nearly all other cases where the semantics are accurate, the use of crude language is designed to be offensive. Fry's assertion that "I'm offended by that" has no meaning is incorrect. It's a polite way of saying, "Your deliberate offensiveness is an indication of what an obnoxious person you are. I disapprove of such behaviour and would prefer it to be absent." That's a perfectly valid view which deserves to be taken into account. As far as media goes, you can turn it off, but it is equally valid to express your opinion that "I don't think these incoherent / obnoxious expressions are beneficial to society and I would prefer them to not to be promoted / funded." Perhaps like so many in the modern media, he finds disapproval offensive.
There is a tiny percentage of use-cases where the semantics are accurate and the user is illiterate enough to be unable to express themselves otherwise. That's not funny either.
So, illiterate, incoherent or obnoxious - take your pick of reasons, but none of it is a cause for pride. I saw Ricky Gervais' "Politics" show on TV recently. His "Carling" product placement should have been a warning - you'll enjoy this more if you've dulled your reasoning - even the presenter face doing this sober. Not very clever, not very funny and yes, the laughter seemed to be mostly to hide the embarrassment over what was happening on stage. I get that humour is varied, but this was just sad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
