Profanity

[CollinLeon]

I'm from New York City.
Profanity is our native language.
That is NOT a joke.
It's how we communicate among ourselves.

AFS

How do NYers say "hello"?

Person #1: "Up yours!"
Person #2: "Oh no, up *yours*!"

As someone who is ex-military, let's just say that words by themselves do not tend to provoke a reaction in me... It's the way that the words are said that can provoke a reaction... Plus, you need to learn how to cuss in the recipient's native language so that you can have to proper insulting effect...

For example, in Thai, you can get by with a "yet mair" given the right tone of voice... Or perhaps a "yet mung" as the case might be... Or in Vietnamese, a "du ma nhieu" will often do...

And the always colorful, "hab sosli' Quch"... I'll leave the determination of the language up to the reader...

For some reason, I've never needed to learn any cuss words in Flemish...

 

[JohnKSa]

I used to work with a guy from New York. I'd come in to work in the morning and greet him with a "Good Morning" to which he'd respond "%%%% you!"

I guess some folks would like us to think that I just didn't understand the culture. Reality was that he was just a royal sphincter of the nether gastrointestinal variety.

 

[bikerdoc]

How do NYers say "hello"?

Howyoudoin?

 

[PowerG]

IMO, there is a little bit of oversimplification occurring here. Fights and selection for crime are dynamic and there are issues of commitment and initiative that are decided as part of the dynamic process, rather than as static or fixed variables. In fact the danger in your attitude (ranking or categorizing "attackers" or criminals as "fully committed [and] serious," or otherwise) is that you are likely to respond passively and expect very blatant cues indicating an assault. By the time you get those cues you are behind the curve...you need subtler cues, which are not black and white, to respond to. When you respond to those subtle cues you can regain initiative much faster and end the fight before it starts, or be less behind the curve.

Believe it or not there are ways you can move in one direction vs another, or say one thing vs another, and become "deselected" or deter an attacker...or at least make him pause long enough that you have time to think more about your next move.

Tom Givens says "Two what the Fs win a fight. All you have to do is make him say What the F twice..."

Not really sure how you read all that into what I posted, your response has very little to do with what I said. There's no way I could categorize an attacker as serious or otherwise, I don't know him, only he knows how serious he is. As far as I'm concerned, if he's getting aggressive he is deadly serious, and will be treated as such. My point is that once the approach has been initiated, profanity isn't going to help much; profanity mixed with a move to prepare for a draw will work quite wonderfully, and it's not the verbalization that's having the effect. The swearing at him is just as likely to provoke a monkey brain response.

Swearing or aggressive language, even if directed at someone else, will obviously attract my attention, but without positioning, it's just a bunch of verbiage.

 

[CollinLeon]

Sometimes you just need to use a more basic language to get your point across after having tried more proper language.

I was having a situation once with my teenage daughter's boyfriend in which I told him that his failure to leave when I told him was not exactly survival oriented behavior and that it would be in his best interest to leave NOW... After I told him that if he didn't leave right now, I was going to rip his head off and shove it up his

, he understood that I meant what I said. And who said that teenage boys are STUPID?

 

[fixrspazz]

Lots of good stuff posted here.

The motives of a person cussing me out while supposedly trying to do business with me are immediately suspect.

And while I strive mightily to eschew profanities, and generally succeed, as a former sailor, trucker, and current mechanic, f-bombs and other vulgarities are peppered throughout my daily speech at work. Regrettably, also sometimes at home.

 

[CollinLeon]

A wise man once said, "Profanity is the last refuge of the illiterate mother-f-bomb-er"...

Somehow, it just doesn't have the right sound to it when you self-censor like that...

 

[Loosedhorse]

Can you offer any street experience that would lend credibility to your position? I know Southnarc's background and have some idea of the depth and breadth of his activities in law enforcement undercover narcotics work (mostly 'buy and bust' operations) that gives him the background to make the statements he does

I had been thinking on how best to respond to this question/statement, so:

What possible relevance could Southnarc's LE and undercover narcotics experience have to me?

His use of profanity may be based on his perception of its effectiveness when he is arresting (dominating, controlling, disarming, and otherwise instigating and maintaining an encouner with) a criminal, or on its ability to maintain his credibility as a criminal while deflecting a criminal's attack. I will be doing neither.

His use may have "worked" because of the psychological effect it had on his opponent, or the effect it had on him--making him feel more aggressive or more confident. If the use feels false to me, and has the opposite effect on my confidence, why use it?

He does not have to worry if his use of profanity makes witnesses assume he is a criminal involved with other criminals in a dispute over drugs--in fact, if the witnesses did think that, it would be a feather in his cap! In any case, he would have no trouble sorting out with any responding officers or DAs that he was a sworn officer acting in the line of duty.

For me, having witnesses assume I'm a criminal if I have to defend myself would be disasterous.

As LE or instructor, here are the experiences he might have that I'd consider relevant:

1. "While traveling armed out of state, with no arrest powers and no back up, I have nevertheless been attacked a few hundred times. In half of these, I used profanity; in the other half, I used the same tone but no profanity. Profanity made a huge difference, and none of the witnesses thought I was a criminal or aggressor."
2. "I have responded to hundreds of calls involving suspects who claimed to be armed citizens defending themselves from violent attack, and have followed those cases up through the DA's office. It was amazing: those who used profanity had far less likelihood of having to use their guns; and for those who did have to shoot, their use of profanity didn't make a single witness assume they were instigating a fight."
3. "I have trained hundreds of non-LE students who eventually became involved in a violent attack. The unfortunate ones who chose not to use profanity have generally ended up in hospital or the morgue, because they couldn't stop the fight verbally; the others had to resort to gunfire. Most of those who used profanity were able to end the confrontation without a shot fired, and those few who were forced to fire had no problems with witnesses thinking they had egged on their attacker."

What do I have? I've been to several nationally known schools, and have never been trained on "BACK THE ____ OFF!" Again, maybe this is a new trend, and my schools were dinosaurs. It is also not part of the NRA Personal Protection courses (ITH or OTH). And my personal experience, as a potential witness, is that if someone shouts something that includes an obscenity, that word might be the only one I later remember ("Not sure what he said exactly, but he did say ____!"; and the impression left on me would likely be one of an angry or out of control person (two images I don't want to project to witnesses). If I "swore" at all, I might prefer, "OMG, STOP!" so witnesses might later recall, "He sounded scared to death." Which I would be, if I were about to use my gun.

I have no doubt that Southnarc is due respect and consideration in his opinions, even if I disagree on this point. I'm sure he has thought about these issues seriously, long and hard. But so have I. As a thinking man, he has nothing on any of us. To assert otherwise would be a classic "appeal to authority" error--unless he has specific (preferably large and tabulated) experience on the use and non-use of profanity by non-LE during violent attack and the subsequent outcomes, both on the street and in the court.

 

[thesecond]

There was that exercise, way back when, demonstrating the 'command' voice ....

"Get the 'F-' outta here or I'm gonna shove this up your 'F-ing' 'A-'!"

Not suggested by the NRA script, but whaddya gonna do?
(Don't recall the name of the rude guy doing all that cursing .... )

Latitude in expression. Instruction encouraged thinking on one's feet and inside-or-outside the box (focus on different learning processes, not simply on substantive content), finding value in stress response (e.g., time-sensitive tasks, adding 'disruptive' and 'contrarian' variables to each exercise), letting egos go head-to-head, and hands-on, within limit.

Kudos to JN in AZ for an innovative lesson plan.

I won't be at your gunfight.

I won't be at your 'non-gunfight'.

Hammer and a world full of nails and stuff like that.

No absolutes in teaching folks about 'human interaction'.

Know your context.

(Good thread topic, btw.)

 

[conw]

, if he's getting aggressive he is deadly serious, and will be treated as such. My point is that once the approach has been initiated, profanity isn't going to help much; profanity mixed with a move to prepare for a draw will work quite wonderfully, and it's not the verbalization that's having the effect.

Once again: I posit that you are overlooking one of the most important aspects of pre-fight positioning by assuming criminals fall into a black or white "serious" or "not serious" category. I further assert that you can ensure a better outcome for yourself by looking deeper and realizing that anyone within a certain vicinity (say 10 yds) whose attention is focused on you may be a potential threat, and that there are MANY responses you can initiate short of "preparing for a draw."

 

[conw]

What possible relevance could Southnarc's LE and undercover narcotics experience have to me?

His use of profanity may be based on his perception of its effectiveness when he is arresting (dominating, controlling, disarming, and otherwise instigating and maintaining an encouner with) a criminal, or on its ability to maintain his credibility as a criminal while deflecting a criminal's attack. I will be doing neither.

His use may have "worked" because of the psychological effect it had on his opponent, or the effect it had on him--making him feel more aggressive or more confident. If the use feels false to me, and has the opposite effect on my confidence, why use it?

Please don't think I'm disagreeing with everything you're saying. The parts about your own preferences are entirely reasonable. To thine own self be true .

However the thing about S'narc is that he wasn't necessarily attempting to pose as a "criminal," just as a dope buyer. (We can argue semantics all day long but dope buyers are not as a rule violent criminals.) He is a skinny white dude who made himself look/sound like a crack head and act kind of drunk, i.e. not only a convincing dope buyer but also a good target for criminals, incidentally.

Now please keep in mind I am just telling you what I have heard from him, not trying to persuade you that you should accept on his authority alone that cursing would be a good idea for you specifically.

Anyway...while you may not specifically seek out dangerous environments populated with criminals, as he did professionally, you could find yourself being judged as a "good target" by the same type of dope-using strong-arm types that he ran into.

Again, this is a guy who had to blend (i.e. not look like a cop or hard target) while being able to turn the tables of an encounter going south. That means if he was in the hood he might be interacting with 3rd parties (not those selling dope at all) who approach him per the "interview" so often discussed here.

That's one of the reasons (but not the only reason) why I listen to him, and others do. The other reason is that as a part of the overall facts about self-defense, and accepted theories such as OODA loop, etc, he has many novel and cutting-edge ideas that are both logical and relatively well-tested.* No one that I heard was attempting to argue for the validity of his ideas based solely on an appeal to authority, but rather that was offered as a part of the whole picture.

*One of the most remarkable things about SN is that he has his classes set up as a laboratory rather than a classroom type setting. He sees what works in a microcosmic sense and also bases his approaches off behavioral science, criminology, data/anecdotes received from LE and students in the field, etc.

 

[conw]

I think one other thing really needs pointing out. It's really easy to things out of context if you have not had the Managing Unknown Contacts module from Southnarc. No one is saying it's always a good idea to curse, or that it is a total game-changer. It's just a tool to be used in certain situations.

 

[JustinJ]

A post that advocated a law establishing religion, and/or prohibiting free exercise thereof, and/or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, and/or prohibiting free assembly, and/or outlawing petition?

Generally i've found that "society should not tolerate" means "it ought to be illegal" as in "the US should not tolerate handguns".

If a law is passed specifically to prevent citizens from doing something for no other reason than a certain religion says it is wrong, that is a clear violation of the establishment of religion clause. Establishment of religion is not saying only "we shall have no official church". And if that something is a speaking phrase that can be used to express an opinion, idea, position, feeling, emotion or even mood then it is a violation of free speech.

Saying "give me all your money" is not protected under free speech because it does none of the above. But if there were additional penalties for saying "give me all your bleeping money" that would be a free speech issue.

 

[Loosedhorse]

But if there were additional penalties for saying "give me all your bleeping money" that would be a free speech issue.

Agreed. Although no one here proposed such a law.

Of course, saying, "Give me all your money, you ____!" does entail additional penalties these days, if "____" refers to a defined "protected" group. Hate crime.

Generally i've found that "society should not tolerate" means "it ought to be illegal"

Again, no one here has said, "society should not tolerate..." I searched the thread, and there's only one use of the word "tolerate" prior to yours:

There are some people who don't tolerate profanity well in the presence of their families...

Doesn't sound like a call for legislation.

Now, if your phrase was, "Polite society should not tolerate casually or angrily spoken profanity," then I must admit I agree unreservedly. But I'm still not calling for any laws.

 

[JustinJ]

Again, no one here has said, "society should not tolerate..." I searched the thread, and there's only one use of the word "tolerate" prior to yours:
Quote:
There are some people who don't tolerate profanity well in the presence of their families...

Excuse me, "tolerated" was used instead. Maybe it just meant that people who use the phrase should be shunned by society but such statements often mean "there ought to be a law".
"One of my pet peeves with our society is that profanities are more easily tolerated than are obscenities and vulgarities. By my reckoning, it ought to be the other way around."

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks for the pointer to that post. I'll let the poster speak to his intention if he chooses, but I didn't take that to mean, "there ought to be a law!" Especially as it would have been an odd law, outlawing a "blasphemous" oath, but not--uh, well, you know...

And I think that very few people, whether they are impolite or criminal, have anything to fear from "shunning" these days. Registered sex criminals are perhaps the only exception.

 

[CoRoMo]

Good thread.

Loosedhorse is my hero.

 

[Serenity]

I would be tempted to try an opposite shock tactic: use an authoritative voice but formally polite words; the last person someone from the criminal sub-culture is going to expect is to be called Sir. I don't think it shows weakness to be polite to someone; it shows an expectation that they will remember their manners and snap out of it.

When I was bartending and dealing with belligerent college boys (admittedly not criminal subculture but still difficult to deal with) it worked wonders. I had a great deal of success moving people out of the bar without any physical contact, let alone force, by being polite to them. The bouncers who were the most successful (measured by not being engaged in violence) were the huge but very mellow guys who didn't raise their voices or get angry at all. None of us were armed and we were far outnumbered by alcohol and testosterone fueled 21-25 year olds (but still college students, yes I know).

The point that has been made here that seems the most practical is what will witnesses remember, and more importantly, report? And for me, it would also be looking back at the incident, if I survived it, and thinking did I do what I could to avoid the escalation?

 

[Losov]

So upon hearing one or two words you find objectionable, that he knew you would find objectionable, you handed over to him control of your emotions and actions. He told you what he was thinking and you reacted. Who cares what this guy thinks?

It might be your choice to hand over such control of yourself to an insignificant stranger on the basis of insults. It is not mine.

 

[Loosedhorse]

you handed over to him control of your emotions and actions.

Why do you say that--you feel that, all along, he wanted me to go into the store and report him to security?

He told you what he was thinking and you reacted.

I reacted to (what I took to be) his inappropriate aggression, by informing store security. If that was handing control of myself over to the stranger, I can live with it. Just like, by responding to you, I handed control of my words to you; right?

 

[Losov]

Why do you say that--you feel that, all along, he wanted me to go into the store and report him to security?

I don't feel anything. I think he became angry at your dismissing him. You had won. By insulting you and getting a reaction, he regains control. You lose.

Just like, by responding to you, I handed control of my words to you; right? :

Yes, you did. You're starting to catch on.

Look, a stranger who insults me is nothing, his thoughts have no value. So why should they affect me? I walk away. If I stop and confront him, what do I win? What's the prize? More likely than not it escaltes into something I could have avoided by walking away. Given that I am armed, it could end badly for both of us.

Now, if he touches or threatens me, it will definitely be a bad day for him, and an at least annoying one for me if I'm lucky. I'd just as soon avoid all that.

I do understand that you've arrived at a different conclusion. So there we are.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Yes, you did. You're starting to catch on.

Wow. I am getting it. So, I go to the check-out counter at the store, and when the gal asks for my money...she's trying to control me!



Hey, Losov--why did you get make me say that?

Well, Skinnerians do believe we make no choices at all, that we simply react to stimulus under the perceived "schedules of reinforcement." And many other phlosophers say that free will is an illusion, and does not exist. So, I may have given him and you control. But I had no choice, neither did he--neither do you.

Almost makes me what to swear!

I do understand that you've arrived at a different conclusion

No. I just have a different "If/then" list. You apparently walk away unless touched; and direct your reaction only to the toucher. I react when I sense something--or someone--wrong, and that reaction may be directed toward a security person. Both fine.

Perhaps we can tie this back to profanity...?

 

[Darkbob]

I would think that if the stranger had won, he wouldn't have felt the need to relocate.

I agree with the OP, the elevation to the use of vulgar language from the stranger in a parking lot would have raised me to orange as well.

To any of you who feel that obscene language is acceptable in conversation with strangers, just know that there are many who disagree and would take offense, especially in public were there are likely to be children around.

 

[mgmorden]

just know that there are many who disagree and would take offense, especially in public were there are likely to be children around.

There are many others who care not if someone is offended though. Its odd, but I've found that the people who generally complain the most about everything becoming too "PC" are the same ones who want to complain about all the "cussing" when profanity comes into play.

Everyone, in all walks of life, and in all situations, would do well to learn to simply not concern one's self with the words that others say unless it directly concerns you. If someone is threatening you, then react. If they're not, leave them and their language be. As a matter of fact if you get involved there there's a distinct possibility of escalating the situation to violence in a case where you yourself have become the aggressor/instigator.

 

[PowerG]

MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972
As Amended

SEC. 97-29-47. Profanity or drunkenness in public place.

If any person shall profanely swear or curse, or use vulgar and indecent language, or be drunk in any public place, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than thirty (30) days or both.


SOURCES: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 4(1); 1857, ch. 64, art. 340; 1871, Sec. 2833; 1880, Sec. 2974; 1892, Sec. 1219; 1906, Sec. 1295; Hemingway's 1917, Sec. 1028; 1930, Sec. 1059; 1942, Sec. 2291; Laws, 1912, ch. 212; 1971, ch. 448, Sec. 2, eff from and after passage (approved March 25, 1971).

We go from "there ought to be a law" to "there IS a law" LOL.