Why Do People Talk and Write Like This?

No, I'm not.

No, its not.

I personally cringe when I read those and refuse to click on the title to read more!

So what if I'm showing my age...I am a grama after all!

MissTerraK

This decline happens whether there's TV or not. Cultural decline is something that happens eventually to all empires.

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment grew out of the ruins of a collapsed culture, much like I'm sure some new enlightened so and so's will rise out of the ruins of modern day Western civilization as well. Culture itself isn't entropic necessarily. We just live in a society that has a value system that's at odds with long-term success. Tie that to a media that's run by a generation that's never lived without said media, a culture who no longer understands its purpose, who no longer has the discipline to control it... ticking clock.

Thank you, I'll keep an eye out.

I didn't say it had no effect. I said it wasn't the media that's at fault. There's this trash pile near a resort in Africa where the baboons fight to the death over shards of mirror. I think this media/culture decline is due to an ouroboros-like feedback loop. There's no fixing it. We over-venerate youth, and cater to that "demographic" so much that they think they are equipped to run the world. They are so cynical and think they're above the influence of the tools they wield. Unchecked tastes lead to crass content. Crass content creates yet more unchecked tastes.

We are, and we agree almost completely. You're saying it's some invention and kids these days that are bringing us down. I say it's something inherent in human culture. Only about 15% of the population are born mentally more man than monkey. The problem is that in ancient times, that 15% took the 85% of dummies out of the natural selection engine. Not enough of them died and not enough of the smart ones reproduced.

So here we are, a population of mostly-monkeys led by a few who are slightly smarter and more self-aware.

But it's not like I'm not hopeful. I think there were lots of folks who thrived during the fall of Rome. You live when you live and you use what you find there. It won't ever be like it was ever again. But you can prepare for how it's going to be.

(Don't worry, there's no real point to this post either. )

He called people ****weazels all the time, but... his serious copy for other clients didn't have a lick of profanity. You gotta know your audience. He very well did.

I might add that other words can turn off potential buyers too. Some would be offended by "Thank the Lord" or " You will be Blessed " or "Praise the Lord" in copy. Again, knowing your audience is the key.

For what it's worth, any sales letter or web content I read online that resorts to innuendo, bad language, and/or profanity, will not get my respect and, consequently, very likely not my money either...

I think there is a difference between using actual curse words and letters. That is, there is a difference between using "What the ****?" in your content and "WTF?" I've heard plenty of people use the word "snafu" who are of the type not to use the f-word. Likewise with people who use "B.S." instead of saying "Bull****".

LOL! I am 57 and I started this thread and I know very
well what it means. I just asked my wife and she knew
what it meant.

I knew what FTW meant also.
I know what RTFM meant also.

But I still don't like it.

I saw an old episode of Family Feud with Richard Dawson. In the '70s he clearly said "For The Win" in the show I saw. So, the acronym may be new, but FTW has been around for a while.

It's used quite frequently in world of warcraft. As is its opposite, FTL...For The Lose. Usually referring to something that's really really bad or undesirable.

I've never seen it used for "F" The World.

Just because people go to a base level doesn't make it right.

And if you think an ad agency knows what they are doing
you really need to spend a lot more time study and testing
sales and marketing.

I was a National Sales and Marketing Manager for years,
I've been to the meetings. The one thing ad agencies track
really well is their billing!

Yes sex sells and look at where that has gotten us.

We all need some correction Michael every now and then. Me included
Honestly, I saw that but decided to not go back and put that comma in !!

***Edited what I wrote earlier

Hmm...no, I don't think so. I just responded to your invitation. I did assume it was aimed at me since the prior part of your comment was. Was that an incorrect assumption?

Besides, I would suggest your "bring it on" comment was the touchy one.

Kimw, this could all be solved and this post could get back on topic if you just admit you was wrong to condemn a generation and say sorry. Then we can all move on and let this post get back to what it was.

(If there is a typo/misspelling in there, I don't care...)

I don't know if he uses the F word but he sure says "sh*t" a lot. In fact, in the same chapter I was talking about earlier, he talked about how he does use a rough persona and lets it all hang out because the majority of his paying customers are conservative male mid-westerners who appreciate his gruff "no b.s." tone.

I agree that when the messaging content comes as a surprise, it can be jarring. For Kennedy, it says "No B.S." on the cover, so you have a clue as to where he's going. It won't be any surprise that the inside of the book matches the cover.

The mistake the marketer is making in your example isn't in using the profanity, but rather in not using it as part of a persistent persona (whether it's authentic or made up like the Rich Jerk). There's no doubt what you'll be getting in that instance, but if you signed up for Granny Goodness' Weekly Cookie Recipe and Unicorn Sticker Newsletter and it turns out "Granny" cusses like a sailor, you're going to have a little bit of a disconnect.

Of course, real world examples won't be as drastic, but what you're talking about is vitally important, and I think Dan calls it market-to-message matching.

Your best bet really is to just be your own authentic self, and attract others that like you the way you naturally are. Now to the OPs point, you're going to see others that aren't your cup of tea for a variety of reasons. It's the internet - it's pretty easy to avoid the stuff you don't like with ignore lists and whatnot.

Thanks for the kind words Michael. I appreciate and generally agree with most of your posts as well.

BTW, I assumed that offering your "package" was an unintentional joke-but now it seems my "misinterpretation" was actually the reaction you were looking for-you naughty naughty boy! I love it-LOL!

I'm glad for any degree of being wrong in this case, glad to hear you say you're anti-censorship, and glad you were against Tipper's efforts to save our youth from the foul mouths of recording artists.

Still, re-reading your words, I think any confusion is coming from the words you wrote, not my imagination. If you hold a position of uncompromising opposition to all forms of censorship, your words make it impossible to tell.

It seems to me that you're being pretty unclear, perhaps in an effort to inhabit the "middle ground" you believe exists in the issue, and avoid the "black and white" thinking, and "false dichotomy" you think I'm guilty of. Ultimately I get the impression you have mixed feelings about the topic. I do think you're leaning toward being against censorship, but your opposition seems tepid and incomplete.

The only support I see for your declaration that "there IS a middle ground" or that I'm guilty of setting up a "false dichotomy" is that you dislike "black and white" thinking. The problem is that some dichotomies are real, and it seems to me the one that exists between censorship and free speech is hardly imaginary, or false, nor did I "set it up".. There is a such thing as irreconcilable ideas. For example "humane torture chambers", or "free speech with censors to keep it from getting out of hand".

Any topic should be approached with an open mind; whether it's "black and white", or gray and fuzzy is to be discovered, not assumed because you're only comfortable with the way you assume it to be. I agree though, with what I imagine your intent is in disliking "black and white thinking"-that oversimplifying things can lead to very bad results (like the invasion of Iraq).

However, like Albert Einstein once said (paraphrasing), "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". I don't think I'm guilty of reducing the topic-rather I think you are needlessly complicating and muddying it, because of your discomfort with straying from the imagined "middle ground" thus ending up in a compromised position, but still calling it oppositional. One needn't study all the ways that censorship is being and has been applied to take a rational, principled position against it, nor is it wrong to be absolutist in defense of free expression.

I'm not about to shed anyone's blood over it, but I'm also not about to look for a compromise between the censors and the first amendment. What is the "middle ground" you insist exists anyway? I can only imagine it would be some degree of restraint on speech, but less than total control. Or perhaps a more rational, "consistent" approach to what the censors ban. Perhaps we could give up the word "douche" as long as we get to keep "toilet", and "beaver".

I don't see the point in calling for better censorship decisions-a hopeless compromise in my view, or more "consistency"-the very act of censorship is paranoid, oppressive, unconstitutional, irrational and arbitrary by nature, and if you see an acceptable compromise, I would suggest that your position is less than oppositional.

If you saw it the way I do, it would seem ridiculous to be calling for a more "consistent" approach to censorship, let alone saying it would be "great to see some sort of consistency", given that censorship does exist. Why would that be great?-it's still censorship. It's like calling for child abusers to give less severe beatings.

I don't think anything short of stopping it would be "great" because I see it as wrong on principle, and the fact that it exists, doesn't mean I have to recognize it's legitimacy, as anyone recommending a better approach to doing it implicitly does.

Who cares which words get banned? So what if Rob and Laura had to use the word "expecting" instead of "pregnant". It's all arbitrary and idiotic. It's no better or worse than making us all find a new term for "dustpan", "glove", "sausage", "dried apricot", or whatever.

(I blushingly apologize for not knowing how to do multi-quotes for the following). Earlier things you said went farther down the path of tacit acceptance. It seems to me, for example, when you defined "the problem" as being that, "once those [needlessly banned] words were allowed", others [which apparently you think really are bad] "crept in", you compromised your opposition to censorship-"the problem" in your words, didn't even include the fact that censorship is wrong on it's face, and should stop altogether, just that the past censors went overboard, causing a backlash, so that now we're confronted with "curse words" on almost every show. Your post expressed more concern about having to watch people curse, that having people restrict speech-since the latter didn't even achieve mention as part of your definition of "the problem".

But you went even further astray from principled opposition to censorship itself when you said "I'm not saying they should have an anything goes attitude on TV". It's hard for me to see that as consistent with a clear and unequivocal opposition to censorship. Maybe you can clarify what you meant so I can see how I'm "reading way more into [your] post than is there".

No matter how I slice it, that statement appears quite at odds with the view that censorship is flat out wrong, and should be strongly opposed. If you disagree with "anything goes" on TV, the only alternative that leaves is "some things don't go". How is that to be enforced, and how is that not censorship?

As to your finer distinctions on what is offensive, I agree with the general idea that using words to insult or alienate people (especially oppressed groups) is offensive (unless it's defensive). I also think it should be protected with equal vehemence as any other speech. If freedom of speech doesn't include speech that offends or causes others discomfort, it's quite meaningless. To me Don Rickles can be far more offensive when he's insulting audience members with no "bad words" than when he's "working blue", but either way, my opposition to curtailing his rights is total.

I'm sorry you were offended by my use of the word "prude", but I disagree that it's offensive, since I wasn't using it as an insult, but rather a fair description of the type of person that requires the curtailment of other peoples' speech so as to avoid embarrassment certain words trigger. Now that's not only prudish; it's truly offensive.

Peace, and sorry for rambling, Greg

'everytime' ????

uhmmmm.......so you are sitting smack in the middle of the BET Awards and right next to you sits P-Diddy who gives out a big hug to his man Jay Z and you hear him say to Jay Z
"whats up my N**** "

Oh I can see it now in the headlines..............Warrior gets knocked silly for 'calling out' P-Diddy after using the N word to his Buddy Jay Z.

Right, sure your gonna call a person out everytime !! And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.

Sorry, I just dont believe this one single bit !
And I couldn't resist commenting !! cough **cough

In caveman days, dummies were eaten by tigers. Eventually, the smarter people were the ones in charge and they made some good decisions that led to civilization.

The problem is, comfort breeds laziness, laziness breeds stupidity. Eventually, stupidity ends up in charge, and then that's pretty much the end of things.

Civilization falls, dark ages wind on. Plagues eventually kill enough dummies so that the smart people can get back in charge again. Then the Renaissance happens, and largely, smarter people have been in charge since then.

Until recently. I'd say at no point in the history of earth has it ever been possible for people so dumb to be able to directly influence and control so many other dummies at once.

That seems like a dangerous precedent. But I try not to be cynical about it. You seem to be saying that people have been this stupid all along, which they have. They just have sort of been limited in effectiveness by that stupidity until modern advances.

Chelsea Handler is HILARIOUS!!!!!

Jason, I spent the first 28 years of my life in Minnesota.

Trust me, it's the ice talking...