I'm not offended by it, but I wouldn't use the word in front of, say, my neices (all under 11yrs) and don't expect it to be broadcast in pre-watershed viewing.
If you don't understand why you are going to struggle to integrate into society.
I see a number of things happening here and in the end it's all OK really. It's normal.
- many are confusing policy based on personal as opposed to a collective position. The FIA took a position on swearing during podium ceremony interviews that are broadcast to a large heterogeneous population of viewers across nations. The FIA position has to be one of compromise. A collective position, especially involving a large group of people, will invariably involve compromise. We can't reasonably expect otherwise.
- superficially, this long and animated thread does seem like a storm in a teacup. However, on looking deeper, we're seeing that this incident has opened a sort of Pandora's box, i.e., one of censorship. Many have simply been using this incident as a means of sharing their personal problems with censorship, the use of so called 'foul language' being one of them.
- many are just plain ignorant, I'm afraid. They all too often do not have much insight into the consequences of their actions, verbally or otherwise, and what it really means to live among a heterogenous group of people. Because of this, there will always be governing bodies, the policing of 'rules/regulations/policies', punishment/penalties and <cough>... censorship.... <cough>.
Everyone has their personal limits and you'll be surprised how the most vocal ones against this incident of censorship with regard to language, will in turn be the most vocal when their own personal limits on other social matters have been crossed. There's just a blatant lack of respect for the limits of others. If it doesn't offend me, it should not offend you.... why should it?.... how the hell could it?... are you an idiot or what?.... you need to grow some thicker skin, get educated, don't be so backward etc. etc. etc., and round and round it goes. Many people just have a serious problem with being asked not to do something because others may not like it, especially when they fail to see or understand how or why others may have a problem with it. In short, if I
don't see the problem, then this OBVIOUSLY means there isn't one.
We have just seen in this thread why there needs to be a body of authority for a society of self-centered, opinionated folk to live together in some sort of cohesive fashion. We see where bodies of authority don't work so well since overcompensation often occurs on the part of authority, so they are not above reproach and I appreciate this. However, there's nothing wrong if there's a willingness to see things differently or appreciate that others actually do, and as a result, be willing to make a compromise based on this.
Vettel apologised. Good for him and a great demonstration of compromise. Why insist in a situation as this? I'm sure he'll continue to comfortably swear elsewhere.
If words have no meaning then why utter them at all? It's so silly to claim there is no meaning behind swear words and to those who make such a claim and still use them, I can only say that a responsible person aught to try to inform him/herself about the huge fuss around their use and why such words exist. In any case, if there are potentially different meanings for words (offensive meanings being among them) based on the listeners involved, and you don't have the opportunity to clarify, then it makes good sense to avoid such words if possible. It's so often quite easy to do so with swearing and this is why this is the solution applied by society in their use. The curious thing is that when it becomes difficult not to swear, others will see this is the case, and the intended meaning does become less ambiguous.
No one really cared about Kimi or Vettel's swearing until they suddenly thought it OK for the entire F1 viewership to hear it during the official podium ceremony interviews.
Edited by ali_M, 12 November 2012 - 16:38.