More On Cuss Words
Dean
I was rather amused by some who chose to weigh in on the subject of so-called "foul" language.
I find that people who oppose salty, colorful language generally have no idea how boorish their viewpoint seems to a lot of other people. Indeed, if we take offense at their view, they are actually shocked: it couldn't possibly be they who have offended, so there must be something wrong with us.
Au contraire, mes amis! It is you who have given offense--even if you are too dense to recognize it.
Mind you, not everyone who raises objections to colorful language is unreasonable. Some make good points; Sean Kinsell gives the most eloquent and rational defense of curtailing salty language I have ever read, and I don't disagree with him on any of it.
I understand why I sometimes must wear a necktie (and I really hate neckties by the way). I also understand that there are social and business situations where you don't let fly with colorful language. Similarly, there are situations where you simply do not rip off your shirt and burst into song--no matter how bad you wanna boogie oogie oogie till you just can't boogie no more.
What I find annoying are the irrational generalizations: that if you use salty language it indicates you're not very eloquent, are boring, or have little meaningful to say. Someone who suggests such things is setting himself above anyone who doesn't share his hangups about expressive language--and is saying far more about himself than anyone else.
Other objections, such as those by Thought Mesh, simply don't make sense to me. For example, there is the claim that salty language is somehow "imprecise." This is balderdash. I can give you two dozen uses of so-called "imprecise" or "foul" language that anyone from age 10 to 100 would understand with no effort and with great precision. If you think flexibility and precision are incompatible, you've never watched a gymnast, a martial artist, or a welder in action--and frankly, you probably neither speak nor write the English language very well. Furthermore, like the cursed Thomas Bowdler, who thought he could improve upon Shakespeare by editing out all the cuss words and naughty bits, you're likely to have a cramped, frustrated, and sadly limited view of the world that I simply do not care to share.
Another objection frequently raised is that such language is inherently "aggressive." What those who say this fail to acknowledge is just how aggressive their own attitude can be. The notion that the rest of us should alter our personal social behavior in order to please their sensibilities--coupled with the presumption that we should not take offense when we are called ineloquent, boring, uncouth, or aggressive--is really quite presumptuous. I may be forced by circumstances to associate with such haughty people, but I have a very hard time relaxing around them or thinking of them as friends. I'd certainly be reluctant to trust them with any matter of personal importance.
Can these two worldviews be reconciled? Perhaps not. But people who see fit to lecture me on how my wife and I, and many of our friends and relatives, are dull, ineloquent, crass, ill-educated, and so on simply because we don't share their hangups about the beautifully expressive cuss words of the English language? They shouldn't expect a very polite response from me.
F**ktards that they are. :-)
Related Posts (on one page):
- More On Cuss Words
- On Four-Letter Words
"Flip you, ya flippin' melonfarmer!"
"What did he say?"
You haven't touched on one aspect of the cursing thing.
I curse and I use it for emphasis. However, I am a hypocritical, male-chauvenist-pig in that I'm turned off by women who curse as much as I.
Do you feel that way Dean?
Err..mes amis, isn't it?
Ever seen _The Night Porter_, Dean?
Nope, haven't seen The Night Porter. A movie, a play....?
I admire Dean
For marrying the Queen.
I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean. HAIL TO THE KING OF DEMOCRACY....!!!!
I'll save my colorful language for the end of this comment. As for "salty" language, the word speaks for itself. Salt is good, Roman soldiers were paid their "salaries" in salt. "You are the salt of the earth...." But I don't put salt in my coffee. And, "....if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?" "Shocking" language has long ago ceased to be shocking and become boring.
I'm not swearing off "swearing" where I think it's called for. Context is everything. Cursing, in the harshest and even most profane language possible, is entirely proper when directed in the right direction. Since we're "letting fly" with it here, since we're "letting it all hang out", as the "hippies" of my day liked to say, I'll do it myself right here and now: FUCK COMMUNISTS! FUCK NAZIS! FUCK TOTALITARIAN MUSLIMS! FUCK HITLER AND HIMMLER AND GOEBBELS AND LENIN AND STALIN AND "CHAIRMAN" MAO AND HO CHI MINH AND POL POT AND KIM JONG IL AND CASTRO AND "CHE" GUEVARA AND CHAVEZ AND MUGABE AND ARAFAT AND SADDAM AND BIN LADEN -- AND FUCK EVERY ONE OF THEIR ASS-LICKING POLITICALLY CORRECT SYCOPHANTS! FUCK EVERY ONE OF THESE MOTHER-RAPERS UP THEIR ASSHOLES WITH AN IRON PIPE! LET THESE LYING, ENSLAVING, TORTURING, MURDERING RATS EAT THEIR VICTIMS' SHIT FOR ETERNITY! DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL! I HATE THEIR GUTS! DEATH TO TYRANTS! DEATH TO TRAITORS! STICK AN H-BOMB DOWN THEIR THROATS! AND TO HELL WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! I HAVE HAD IT!
AND DAMN AKHENATON FOR HIS COMMUNIST BLASPHEMIES AGAINST THE ETERNAL GODS AND GODDESSES, ESPECIALLY THE MOST HIGH GODDESS, THE ETERNAL QUEEN OF HEAVEN! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN....!!!!
Feel better now? Was that explicit enough for you?
Ratcheting it down just a tiny bit, I also say "screw" (i.e., fire or demote) every pretentious, phony-as-a-$6-bill, college professor who thinks he's being morally superior, more "democratic", more "liberal", more "free", more "hip", more "earthy", etc., by PUNCTUATING HIS EVERY ----DAMNED FUCKING SENTENCE WITH LANGUAGE LIKE THIS!, when he's being PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS (who are thereby getting FUCKED UP THE ASS) to teach history, philosophy, physics, etc., to their offspring -- not to show off how "cool" he is with the "in" crowd. Scribble it on a men's room wall if you must, but don't yell it endlessly in a classroom when you're being PAID to teach something else, don't print it in the newspaper, don't slap it on magazine covers, don't name TV shows or movies after it. And not every character in a movie or novel has to talk that way either. And I, for one, will most certainly never call it "music". There's a time and a place for everything, as the old saying goes. "If the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?...."
Leonard Peikoff once had an excellent show about "dirty words! -- words nobody should ever use!" These weren't words pertaining to excretion or perdition or a profane attitude toward sex, but "anti-concepts" designed by "intellectuals" to destroy thought. Here are some words that I myself never use except in derision: "post-modernism", "de-constructionism" and "multi-culturalism" (both of which mean, simply and only: destruction of Western culture), "diversity" (when used as a synonym for Politically Correct uniformity), "sensitivity" (i.e., servility), "moderation", "tolerance". I have no use for any of that.
I am a Politically Incorrect Zionist Western Imperialist Warmonger -- proudly. I am a Reactionary Elitist Square -- proudly. I am an Up-Tight Jehovanistic-style Gnostic -- proudly. I am an Extremist and a Dogmatist -- proudly.
I stand by every word I wrote about sex. I have had it with the Naturalists who say sex is merely "natural", "normal", everyday, ordinary, banal, "not such a big deal". Damn them all to their "moderate", tepid Hell. Sex is the most extreme passion of all, super-natural, transcending the normal, the everyday, the ordinary. I say sex is a big deal. I say sex, ultimately, is either sacrament or sacrilege. Sex expresses and embodies one's deepest, if not highest, values. It expresses and embodies one's deepest sense of oneself. The noble soul has reverence for himself or herself, and therefore, for his or her sexuality. The total passion for the total height. The Ego in the Infinite. The Individual striving eternally for the Divine.
On that note, here's some colorful language for you. And here and here and here and here and here. Colors, colors, colors, colors.... I love colors. Colors I do love.
HAIL TO EVERY ONE OF THE ETERNAL GODS AND GODDESSES!!!! HAIL TO THE MOST HIGH GODDESS!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN....!!!!
Yeah, join the club. I think I'd rather have someone humiliate me on national TV during primetime (using the salties language possible, if applicable) than wear a necktie. Unfortunately, sometimes, it must be done...
Far be it from me to suggest a lack of verbal imagination on the part of college students. After all, they are the recepients of "higher learning." But it has been my observation that the acceptance of the coarsening of acceptable language has paralleled the coarsening of American culture.
Is it possible that self-restraint in language might signal a similar self-control in other aspects of life - say for example, forcing yourself sexually upon a woman, or realizing that "No" is a perfectly legitimate answer to many self-centered demands?
I have been known to use coarse language. But almost without exception, it signals to the listener some type of emotional outburst upon my part, i.e. a lack of self-control. There is a difference between "being" better and "acting" better. To imply that those who refrain from using coarse language believe they "are" superior is a false implication. But do they "act" better?
The first instance is a state of being about which those of lower class (however defined) cannot control themselves. The second instance indicates a belief that not only can I act in a more appropriate way, but so can others. Those who chafe at such societal restrictions reveal their disdain for the common historical American culture as much as any lefty war protestor, just in a different way.
It is no surprise that the coarsening of the culture has paralleled the revolt of Hollywood lefties of the 60's generation against the prevailing morality of historical America. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the decline of educational excellence, the decay of the family, etc., etc., has occured in an environment where the acceptable level of public language has been coarsened.
I am not "setting [myself] up as better than people who don't" use coarse language. I do use it, and have used it in the course of commenting on this blog many times. But I don't think creating a moral equivalence between those who routinely use coarse language and those who attempt to limit their use of, or even refuse to use, coarse language is particularly noble.
It strikes me as a self-justification for doing something we all know is inherently bad. I am not suggesting I am never bad. But it is at least minimally useful to know and admit when I am being bad, even when I know better. Maybe to some, that is being hypocritical. But the only way to avoid being a hypocrite is to have no moral standards at all. I think that the 60's generation has pursued a society without hypocrites and has unwittingly created an amoral society without boundaries.
In someIn many instances, those boundaries were very useful. I remember a time when children could roam freely in the summer without fear of being abducted by a pedophile. Nowadays, in our society where everyone creates their own morality, and to judge is to become "intolerant", our children are locked up in our homes and/or daycare facilities.Is there a link? I think so. I don't mean to say that coarse language causes pedophilia. But I do believe that an environment that cannot recognize the difference between "bad" language and "good" language is indicative of a society that also cannot distinguish between bad and good on many other levels as well.
One last comment: I have noticed that when trying to screen out child innappropriate content on satellite or cable TV, if I screen only for language (AL), I can be confident that other categories like violence (V), and Sexual Content (SC) are redundant. Cartoons can be violent, and love stories can have Sexual Content. But if shows have no Adult Language, I don't have to worry about the Violence or Sexual Content ratings. At least, that is my experience.
That begs the questions, "Is a society that elevates Adult Language to normal status a child appropriate society?" and "Do we want a child-friendly society?" and "Is there a value to innocence?"
A lack of standards is not indication of sophistication. It is a signal that the society no longer believes in its own intrinsic value. And a society that does not value itself is dentined for destruction. For those who seek to destroy traditional American society, that is a "good" thing. I do not count myself among those people.
And it is my experience that it is those who do wish to destroy traditional American culture who have the superiority complex, not those who try to defend it. But then, that is surely a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Is it really surprising that the Vanguard of moral relativists (the hard-core left, the MSM, and Hollywood), those who themselves have instigated an internal assault on traditional American moral values over the last generation find it difficult to defend America from her physical enemies as well?
Is it so shocking that those who have spent their adult lives castigating American society cannot even recognize the legitimate threat of Islamic Fascism?
When the standards of society have been broken down, is it really surprising that a large chunk of the American citizenry cannot distinguish between "right-wing fundamentalist Christians" and Islamic Fascists?
Is it surprising that those who view ANY moral standards as bad view ALL systems of morality as equally bad - ergo practicing American Christians are equally as evil as suicide-bombing Islamo-fascists?
What do these questions have to do with using foul language? It goes to the validity of establishing and maintaining ANY standards for society at all, without which society itself ceases to exist.
Finally, have you ever wondered why the Anglo-sphere seems to value freedom moreso than other countries of the world? Could it be that language is the repository of culture?
The real question is does your ship have a pilot, or does the rudder take the ship whichever way it chooses without any pilot to control it?
Now I was responsible, and thus I was able to avoid being mean and dense, and able to also finish 2000 words on my rough draft of a story making fun of Libertarians inspired by Arnold's comment that Libertarians only needed rational leaders not saints. It has Objectivists using their Holy Books to defeat a vampire.
"Saint Ayn, Save Me!" makes that a win-win-win for me. Avoid bloodshed, finish a story, make fun of Libertarians (who I like mostly).
But as I finished that, I wanted to write something that made fun of the idea (not the people) that swearing is A-OK. But I couldn't think of something. I feared it was really too trivial to make a story of, but I was wrong, and so hopefully tonight I shall have a new flash fiction. "BLEEP!!" should be fun too although it probably won't convince anyone, but it may help people see things from a different light which is one of the jobs of SF. And importantly, it may get me some money.
I have a specific question for you vis-a-vis being aggressive. Let me set it up.
Islamic-Fascists are seeking to overthrow American society by violent force.
Historically, the use of foul language in Public has been verboten. Some believe that a social prohibition against using foul language should be abandoned.
In both cases, there are those who feel compelled to DEFEND American society. Granting that the "assualt" on American society in the two examples are different in kind and scale, my question is this?
How can you characterize a DEFENDER of traditional American societal values as the aggressor?
Would you accept the label of aggressor for defending American society from Islamo-fascists? I'm not trying to equate cursing with being a fascist, else I would also be a fascist curser. But let's be honest about who is being aggressive and who isn't.
Thank you!
I shall have to read your story about Objectivists. And I still can't wait to get my hands on James S. Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.
Scott Harris:
Excellent analysis of the moral relativism and nihilism that is weakening our culture, and also of the tie-in between all that and the breakdown of linguistic taboos. Language shapes thought as well as reflects it, as George Orwell knew.
To anybody who disagreed with what I wrote, I can only say: +_)(*&^%$#@!
Great, when I get it polished up, I'll bounce it your way.
Eric
I'll look for it. Warning: Don't send me an e-mail about it. It may bounce. I've been having problems with my e-mail ever since I got back on the Net. Thank you.
While I'm at it, here are some FOUR-letter words that I LOVE (pertaining to a woman of pulchritude): FACE.
EYES. EARS. NOSE. LIPS. (I'm a FACE-ist.)
HAIR. NECK. ARMS. LEGS. CUNT (often used profanely, but I must confess that I cannot think of any more powerful word for that part of her which is designed to physically capture....). CLIT (Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology). HOLY. HOLY. HOLY. HOLY.
Historically verboten? Yeah. Right. Profanity's part and parcel of American culture. Perhaps not in print, but in everyday speech. I'd bet a goodly amount of money that the colonials of the old days could be a salty lot, and had the linguistic tendencies to prove it. Do some hard research instead of propping up what you wish to be true as literal truth.
"Do not use obscenities -- and never mind all the arguments about 'realism.'
"Obscenities are language which implies a value judgment of condemnation or contempt, usually in regard to certain parts of the body and sex. Four-letter words all have non-obscene synonyms; they are obscene not by content, but by their intention -- the intention being to convey that what is referred to is improper or evil.
"Obscene language is based on the metaphysics and morality of the anti-body school of thought. Observe that the more religious a nation is, the more varied and violently obscene is its four-letter-word repertoire. It is said that the Spanish are the most obscene*. I do not know Spanish, but I know that Russians have a whole sublanguage -- not just single words, but ready-made sentences -- all of it concerning sex. (I myself know only a few examples.)
"Obscene language is not an objective language which you can use to express your own value judgments. It is a language of prefabricated value judgments consisting of the denunciation of sex and of this earth. You do not want to subscribe to this premise.
"If you write anbout slum inhabitants or men in the army, you have a difficult literary problem. Modern writers specialize in conveying that men in the army talk in nothing but four-letter words. That i do not believe, but I have heard men of that sort use obscene words under stress. If you have to establish such an atmosphere, a few 'darns' or 'damns' will not quite do it. It is not, however, necessary to use prefabricated language for the sake of 'realism.'
"The trick is to suggest by the context of what is said that it is abusive or obscene. Do not use the actual terms. Avoid them on the principle by which you would avoid describing horrible operations or ghastly physical illnesses. You may suggest these if you want a description of horror -- but you do not go into every detail of the color of an infected wound or the maggots on a dead body.
"If you are ever tempted to describe something ghastly, ask yourself what your purpose is. If it is to suggest horror, one or two generalized lines will do. It is sufficient to say that someone stumbles upon a half-decomposed corpse; to describe that corpse in every horrifying detail is horror for horror's sake. All you will achieve is that your book, no matter what the rest of it consists of, will always connote in the reader's mind that particular touch of horror."
(from The Art of Fiction)
*About the Spanish, I must mention that one of the commenters in Eugene Volokh's thread on this subject noted that a great deal of the Spanish vocabulary in obscenities came from the Muslims, who also have a rich vocabulary of such words. Apparently, Lawrence of Arabia impressed his Muslim hosts partly by cussing non-stop in Arabic for hours on end.
Myself, I don't know any Spanish or Russian, but I do know a little French, including a few obscenities, my favorite of which is this: "Je t'emmerde, en pied, en cheval, et en voiture." Just don't ever say that to a Frenchman!
Neither Scott Harris nor anybody else here is disputing that men of the colonial era knew all the Anglo-Saxonisms and spoke them when they felt the occasion called for it. What they did not do was print them in their books, not put them on the covers of newpapers or magazines, and they restrained themselves from uttering them when it was not proper to do so. Those kinds of words have always been with us, spoken privately and in anger, but so also have the taboos against their use in public. As Scott Harris points out, the decline in the taboo against public use of profanity goes hand-in-hand with the general decline of standards in our culture, and thus the weakening of our culture in the face of its enemies. I agree with his thesis.
About Ayn Rand and religion: It is all too true that too many religions are and have been anti-sex, but I do not believe that that is intrinsic to religion. I believe that religion can also exalt sex.
The Christian in Eternity is not a disembodied spirit, but a perfected body that goes about work and worship (which is probably the same thing) with joy. Incidentally, while I'm sure some singing is involved, I'm also fairly sure that every possible human gift is involved. That writers will write, and long jumpers jump in Glory.
After all, did God create Humans as spirits? No, we are spirit and body, and now bent, warped away from our true purpose and place by the choice and consequences. For those who cannot understand choice and consequences, consider that you live in America, and are thus blessed by the wise choices and the wonderful consequences of the many generations that preceeded you.
An interesting speculation is that which caused Lucifer to rebel was repugnance at the perversion of creating amphibians, creatures of spirit and matter, ie humanity.
But it is certainly true I hear that many religions are anti-body, and anti-woman. Ayn Rand does make a good point.
I do remember visiting a heavy metal site after some rocker came out with some conservative point, and the general response was also massive poseurhood. I mean, Great Scott! I thought heavy metallists were "guts and glory" freaks, instead of wimps. We get into more hardnosed fights on tabletop roleplaying gaming sites.
I guess its because the Geek is, and the Heavy Metallist has an image which attracts a lot of people who aren't whatever.
Okay, I need to stop poseuring myself, and get to work.
Very good.
It came in at 2000 words instead of the 1000 I was hoping for, and this is still a rough draft, but fairly presentable I think.
is the permalink since I can't figure out how to make Dean's links operate. I'm probably supposed to cuss first at the computer screen...
That was a very interesting story, illustrating the long-term effects that such seemingly small things as linguistic habits can create. You are a good writer. Keep them coming. Thank you. And I always love your comments here.
As for the culture that had public nudity, I only hope they wore clothes when in private. Otherwise, I have to oppose that. As to that third culture (the ones who "really, really, really like red"), if you paint the town red, you end up seeing no red at all.