English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm not talking about not replacing the word with something better. I don't want kids spouting the word all over the place, and I'm not asking to start using the f-word everywhere. What I'm wondering about is what covering up the word with "bleep" or in writing, **** does. Doesn't **** mean the exact same thing as the actual word? Even if you've never heard the word before, you can use context clues to figure out what it means. Parents can't stand to hear swearing in front of children, but 'bleep' is ok? What exactly is the difference?

Shouldn't we be censoring the meaning and context of the word, not the syllables and letters? If a kid doesn't realize that what goes in the place of the bleep is bad, they aren't going to notice if the real word is there, either. If anything, bleeps just draw attention to the subject. Does no one else think it's weird we're censoring letters instead of meaning? It's ok to talk about ****ing, as long as you don't say the word ****. It's ridiculous

2007-07-29 15:39:38 · 21 answers · asked by camof2009 2 in Society & Culture Etiquette

Weird rant, I know. Have no idea where it came from. Did not expect everyone to just comment with asterisks, though. Fair enough.

2007-07-29 15:43:59 · update #1

21 answers

Agreed - it emphasizes the profane. What a wonder if someday you read a ******* phrase and you don't know what the ******* is!

Lenny Bruce's 13 "dirty words" (or was that George Carlin's 13 letter dirty word - **********, I don't know)

And hail Bob of the church of the subgenius!

2007-07-29 15:42:40 · answer #1 · answered by R M 1 · 0 0

I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with you. A "bleep" does not take away from the censor the content or context of the meaning. However, censorship of any kind is wrong. If you don't like what you are seeing or hearing, you don't need to. Simply turn it off. If you don't know what your kids are watching or listening to, and are concerned about it, then shame on you. There are plenty of ways to avoid exposure of the media on children.

2007-07-29 15:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by Jeffery G 2 · 0 0

IMO, the bleeping or the written "covering up" is to keep the meaning and essence/emotion of the dirty word, without having to listen to or read the actual offensive word. IOW, to use a "polite" sound or written symbol as a cover-up, instead of an "impolite" dirty word. Doing this helps people who just can't help saying or writing that way, express themselves more freely without censorship.

It works exactly as an euphemism --In fact, "bleeps" and "cover ups" are just that, written or sonic euphemisms. The foul-mouthed person gets to express himself/herself and the general public (especially kids or prissy adults), don't get offended by actually listening to the speaker's insults.

Yeah, of course most people know what the person really wanted to say, but it is still much more tolerable and "politically correct" that way.

It's like clothing: What is preferable, to see people with gross bodies covered up by clothing, or see them naked? Many nudists would rather go naked all their lives, without any care of the visual and emotional damage they may inflict on kids and even adults. Bleeps, word "cover ups", euphemisms, clothing, "political correctness" on the media and social events, all those things serve the very important function of preserving freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular, but making it look less offensive or disgusting.

Would you rather have censorship? Artists, writers or regular people being restrained of saying/writing what they REALLY want to say? That would be super-boooring, my friend, and we might as well become communists, for that matter.

2007-07-29 16:15:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, there could be kids surfing the channel and if there was no bleep they would start saying it around friend or to friends and family without knowing its a bad word.

2007-07-29 15:58:30 · answer #4 · answered by angel 2 · 0 0

A word isn't bad until someone gives it a bad meaning. Most bad words are actual definitions of other words, but since people use them in bad ways, they are considered bad. For example, the A-word is another name for a donkey, but people don't call it that because they are afraid of swearing. No words are bad, the definitions given are bad.

2007-07-29 15:44:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm sorry friend..you're asking for too much personal responsibility! In today's climate, if the cable channel and internet guru can't provide all the "socially aware" parent types with a quick fix to responsibility then....well....here's the Visa, go enjoy the mall.

2007-07-29 15:44:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

You have a point. This also brings up the point of why are certain bad words even 'bad' words... some don't even have a proper meaning or could refer to many things... who decided they were bad...

2007-07-29 15:43:41 · answer #7 · answered by madIZz 2 · 0 0

Bleep.

2007-07-29 15:41:30 · answer #8 · answered by Clauzilla 4 · 1 0

so that little kids don't start saying it.....but what is the point of making them bad words? y aren't they just words like all the rest of words? oh well! :)

2007-07-29 15:43:38 · answer #9 · answered by relientkfanatic 2 · 0 0

it's to make parents who don't parent and buearocrates(sp) feel like they have actually done something good. a better solution would to not swear in the first place, it's so trashy

2007-07-29 15:43:22 · answer #10 · answered by sweetcoloradochick 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers