Mr W Phallus

I don't see what is outdated, archaic or moralistic about designating certain words as vulgar or extreme, in order to give people a means of expressing that vulgarity or extremity of emotion. The whole point of a swear word is that there is a social taboo on saying it. When we swear to add emotional emphasis to a sentence, we are reliant on this taboo; we are effectively saying 'I am so *insert emotion here* that only a word this strong, this profane can express my emotion' - the extremity of the taboo broken is indicative of the extremity of the emotion. Alternatively swearing might express that you are so worked up you can't even stop yourself from breaking that social taboo. You wouldn't stub your toe and shout out sex, or call someone a sexing idiot because that would sound ridiculous and would have none of the impact - there is no taboo on saying the word sex and this is what differentiates the words sex and fuck. If profanity stops being profane, it becomes redundant all together.

I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your comment but this last bit is a bit of a stretch; context and inflection should make it pretty clear on their own that a question is rhetorical. In writing it's a little bit more iffy since you don't have any inflection to go on, so maybe it'll help a little bit, but even then the second statement could be an angry but genuine question that the speaker actually does want answered so really it's all about context still. Edit: This is more of an English vs English thing, but the use of 'swear' and 'swears' as nouns is alien to me, and whenever I read it I just imagine a small child not knowing the actual noun for a swear word (although apparently the use of swear as a noun is fine).

Urgh, the Penguin's voice. Apart from the accent it isn't high pitched enough. @Dean: The Hush story arc managed to cram a lot of the Rogue's gallery into it and get away with it, so it's not impossible. If the game is long enough, and each villain is involved in the overall story arc in some way it should work.

With regards to Spanish and Cantonese swearing, profanity in English can be used in the same way - though we don't have as wide a vocabulary, and I'd hesitate to call many of our swear words beautiful - but people don't, they use it lazily. If you remember this argument was precipitated by the comment that children 'don't need to see words like "cunt" flung around so carelessly'. It's not profanity itself that is the problem, but people's attitudes to swearing. Treating swearing as 'just another word' leads to it's overuse, the meaning and impact becomes diluted, basically it takes the fun out of it.

I really enjoyed Men Who Stare At Goats but the ending is so cringey. (I really like George Clooney though so the odds were in it's favour).

Lads (lad singular has recently acquired its own specific meaning of a lad's lad or particularly blokish person, this should give you an idea), mate/mates, guy/guys all get used her up north (although in slightly different contexts, you might address someone as 'mate' but not as 'guy', for example). My most Yorkshire friend (in terms of his mannerisms) uses pal quite often and as such I find it slipping into my own vocabulary from time to time. But if anyone were to use chaps in a non-ironic situation it would be quite jarring, with the exception of something along the line of 'he was a nice chap' which I can imagine people of an older generation saying. Free membership for OED online, one of the (admittedly many) things I love about uni.

Fuck that noise. Most kids know most of the standard swears by the time they're five or six. Fucking swearing never hurt anybody and isn't likely to. Knowing swear words and seeing them normalised by being posted on websites by paid writers is not the same thing. No it doesn't hurt anyone to see a swearword neither does seeing anything ugly - that doesn't mean I want to see it or be subjected to it every day. What makes swears ugly? They're just phonemes. The phonemes are precisely what make many profanities ugly (in terms of modern swear words at least). The word cunt, for example, is a harsh, aggressive, ugly sounding word, before it is even combined with it's meaning. I still use it sometimes but only ever in an ironic sense where it's ugliness and violence are so inappropriate as to be amusing. I completely agree with Atom about profanity limiting your vocabulary. I do place a lot of store in swearing in the right time or place, it can inject emotion into a sentence and rhythmically it can make a world of difference to the flow of a sentence, but more often than not (and I am guilty of this myself) people swear out of laziness, substituting in profanities when they can't be bothered thinking of a more appropriate word. And saying that swearing never hurt anyone is a gross underestimation of the power of language. No it shouldn't be demonized to the extent it often is, but nor is it by any means neutral or without prejudice.

Do you pour hot tea over the teapot and everything? If not there are people in China calling you a philistine. I was horrified to find out my friend makes tea in the order Teabag > Milk > Hot Water. I've always made it Teabag > Hot Water > Teabag Out > Milk, there's something weird about the milk and teabag touching. :3

Slagathorian: Do you subscribe to the theory of evolution? Because frankly, if you do, that should be argument for innovation enough. But even within your own argument you mention the car manufacturer who first put a sound system into a car. This was a moment of innovation. You then go on to say that you would never buy a car without the product of this innovation. This proves the value of innovation, if people had sat back before cars had sound systems and said 'there is nothing more we can do to improve the automobile', no car would have a stereo and we would all suffer for it. So there you go, you've disproved your own point. There is a huge difference between not being innovative and incorporating existing good ideas.

Well, you're obviously a fanboy then! Kotaku are objective. Because they are journalists. I don't get your attitude. If anything it was a completely subjective statement. One that is believed by the writer of the article and not that it is fact. That's why I still read Kotaku along with other sites... multiple viewpoints and opinions. Objectivity is boring anyways. Sorry to backtrack a little but Faiblesse is right here, if you can't tell the difference between opinion and fact without the writer telegraphing this information for you, then it is you who is struggling with the English language, not the writer. Most articles on how to improve your writing will tell you to exorcise any superfluous prepositional phrases such as 'in my opinion', my university lecturers tell me the same thing. Emphasising the subjectivity of your statements undermines your argument, making your opinion look weak. Kotaku are not the BBC; they are not required by law to be impartial (note that being impartial does not mean that the BBC cannot broadcast opinion, but simply that they have to broadcast a range of opinions). The entire idea of reading a blog for objective journalism is ridiculous. OED (my emphasis) As Dean has already said, the percentage of actual gaming 'news' is relatively small, which means that any gaming site is dependent on opinion pieces and editorials for the majority of its substance. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the opinion side of Kotaku (which ties into the close-knit community of gaming discussion which they like to pretend their commentators are) which attracted many of us to Kotaku in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Kotaku; here are a few criticisms you could have made about the statement in question: 1. Sheer stupidity - opinions are not all born equal. 2. Lack of evidence - even the most contrary, out-there opinions can be justified with sufficient reasoning. 3. Inconsistency - let's all appreciate the irony that the Joel led the previous paragraph with the statement '"Best" is subjective', which as I mentioned before completely undermines any opinions that follow. 4. Trolling - now maybe Joel really believes that xbox live is superior to Steam, but I find it hard to imagine anyone successfully arguing the case, suggesting Kotaku are simply baiting readers in an attempt to increase the number of comments and make their articles seem more popular. As far as things to criticise go, Kotaku hands it to us on a plate, so if we're going to call them out on it, let's not go for the things that can be easily defended.

The person above the person above me... is not complaining. (And apologises for derailing the thread so much).

Nah, it's just that people usually think I'm either not European or that I am American. OT: Did not offend. I know you're European, you're just not from the EU. OT: Does offend, frequently.

OT: Settling in nicely. p.s. I didn't offend you did I Cyber?

Why would it be dimmer? And you're right, I do have it on VHS, which is why I've never seen it in HD.

Non EU member.

Didn't realise we had this topic. My friend inherited a DC last uni term and we sessioned Jet Set Radio to completion over a week or so despite random never-ending loading-screen crashes and the odd constantly-steering-left controller bug (solved by the magic fix-all of blowing into the controller port).

They just mean the conclusion of Nolan's Batman trilogy. They've already discussed how they want to take the next film in a new direction: http://collider.com/batman-reboot-warner-bros-christopher-nolan-producer/83025/ I'm hoping that they simply mean the next film will have it's own distinctive 'feel' and interpretation of the character, but follow on from where the Nolan films left off (or jump ahead in Batman's career even) much in the way that the comics follow on from each other, despite different artists and writers taking the characters in different directions.

Hmm as much as I'd hate to support Disney's franchise milking ways, seeing The Lion King at the cinema would be good...

Very hyped for TTSP; the cast, the director (of Let The Right One In fame), the old TV series is a fantastic slow burning, realistic spy series with some great performances and I'm willing to bet the book it's all based on is good too though I haven't read it myself.

I don't hate Chewie...I do pre-raise an eyebrow in preparation for reading his posts though. The person below me actually hates Chewie.

Indeed. Nor Uncharted the First. The person below me was disappointed that News Corp dropped the BSkyB bid.

That's all very well for language as a tool for communication, but for those of us who like to appreciate the art of language that would be a terrible thing. The day language stops evolving (and variety is vital to this process of evolution) will be a very sorry day indeed.

There's something a little twisted, that the BBC decided to end an article which provides a fair and balanced view of Americanisms with 'A selection of your most disliked Americanisms will be published soon.' It's like they just sifted out the positive side of the article, presumably because negative things are an easier sell. Good article though, I'd have liked him (/her. Where does it say who wrote the article?) to dwell a bit longer on actually arguing the case for keeping the two 'languages' distinct.

Damn, I had high hopes but missed it at the cinema and mostly forgot about it. I'll probably still watch it eventually, though, I'm assuming it still looks good and has a good soundtrack?