« On site design and blog software | Main | For those who need things simply put »
No, really. Fuck the "F-word". Not the word "fuck" but the phrase "F-Word". While we're at it, fuck the "n-word", the "c-word" and all the rest of this cowardly alphabetic avoidance.
Fuck
Nigger
Cunt
<Looks around> Holy shit, nothing burned down, exploded, or was degraded.
But how can that be? How can I say FuckNiggerCunt, and not have anything bad happen?
Because folks, words have little inherent meaning out of context. For example, if I just walk up to a random person on the street and say, at the top of my lungs in an aggressive tone of voice with aggressive body language the following phrase:
You are SO getting fucked in the ass tonight!
At best, they're going to walk away from me. Quickly. At worst, I'll get my ass beaten, shot, or have a nice chat with Mr. Policeman about the proper way to behave in public.
Yet if I walk up to someone from the crowd I hang out with at Macworld and say it, the reaction will be to return the favor, laugh, or turn around while yelling "SWEET!". Same phrase, totally different reaction. Why?
Context
Words have little meaning outside of context. The things you say to lifelong friends in a bar would get you in some deep shit in a board meeting. I have friends who say what would appear to be the most horrid, foul things to me on a regular basis. But they have the right context for it. Someone else saying it? They may get a rather hostile, or at least annoyed reaction.
But now we have such a fear over certain words that context no longer matters. We now fear some words so much that we DARE NOT EVEN SAY THEM TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CAN'T SAY THEM...You can't say that...it's the N-WORD?
or
Oh my GOD, he used the F-Word
Da fuck? Have we all become so consumed and ruled by fear of...whatever the fuck these <letter>-word prats are worried about that we can't even say the word? Holy shit, we're all like characters out of Harry Potter running around saying "you-know-who" instead of "Voldemort", only with less reason and we look twice as stupid. You can't say the word people aren't supposed to say! It's recursive stupidity!
Actually, it's worse than that. We're so fearful of saying even the remotely wrong thing to anyone anywhere that we end up in thought processes like this post from Violent Acres. Holy crap, it's not just the obvious offensive shit like calling someone a nigger/spic/kike/wop/greaser/wetback/gook/frog/mick/whatever. Now you're a racist if you use black instead of african-american? Well that's fucking stupid now isn't it. The fact you say "Bill's black" instead of "Bill's African-American" doesn't make you a racist, and it's stupid to say it does. Even if the person saying so is black. First of all, unless you were born in Africa, and are now a citizen, you ain't African-anything. You may be of African descent, just as I'm of Irish/Luxemboug descent, but if you were born here, you're not African any more than I'm Irish. Get over yourself. You know who the first African-American I knew is? Jed. Jed's about as white as he can be. Fishbellies say "Damn son, get some color". Jed has a British accent due to his parents being from England. But Jed was born in South Africa, and now he's a U.S. Citizen. (I think. It's been a decade or so, but I think Jed is a citizen.) Jed, skinny, fish-belly white, british accent Jed is an African-American. Now, you want to call yourself anything you want, hey, that's your right. But someone not reading your mind and calling you something else with no offense or ill intent? Not racist. Just someone who made a mistake.
(Aside: You know what pisses me off? All the rest of the world has cool-assed racist terms, and all us fucking white goyim get is "honky". Shit, where's my cool-assed racist term that only me and my white goyim get to use. Hell, even worse, it's just the guys. At least the Christian sisterhood has shiksa. Damn, being a white man is lame. I WANT MY COOL RACIST TERM!!!!)
I guess perfection is now the requirement. Imperfect = Racist in our brave new world. Whatever.
Oh, and to all the lamewads who still cling to this asinine idea that somehow, not using profanity makes you a better/more intelligent/nicer person, like the commentary going on in this post of Le Scoble? Sorry, wrong answer, you are the dumbest link, good-bye. Get a fucking grip people. Profanity, or lack thereof doesn't make you good, bad, or indifferent. The only thing that using profanity means is that you use profanity. Period. These inane mental defectives whose hypocritical lack of moral direction lead them to practice this idiotic pop-psycology based on the presences of invective make me want to vomit.
Oh look, no profanity at all. That's obviously nicer than "These more-holy-than-thou fucktards who let their egos delude them into thinking they're the Sigmund-Fucking-Freud of cussing make me want to fucking puke". Yeah. The version without profanity just reeks of love and brotherhood. Yee-haa, I can hear "Kumbaya" in the background everytime I read that sentence. Oh wait, I can't, because it's just as mean as the version with all the profanity. Whaddya know, another pretentious blimp of an idea shot down in flames again. Hindenburg redux.
Look, if you don't want to say "fuck" or "nigger" or "cunt", great. More power to you. If nothing else, most people can't cuss worth a damn anyway, so it may reduce the number of amateurs cocking things up in profanity-land. But if you really think that saying "You're just a N-WORD" is even SLIGHTLY less offensive than "You're just a Nigger", well, you're just a moron. What, saying "Yo' momma's a c-word" is magically better than "Yo momma's a cunt"? What planet DO you live on if you think that? Besides, it's just going to get confusing. Pretty soon, we'll have to specific whether by "f-word" we mean "fuck" or "faggot". "That's the f-word!" "Which one?" "I can't say it!!" "Well, you're just a BIG fuckin' help there Bill. Can you pantomime it? NOT ON ME for christ's sake."
You want to not use certain words, then don't fucking use them. Ever. Don't dance around them, don't <firstletter>-word them, don't *ster*** them. If you pull that shit, then not only are you a coward and a hypocrite, but you're also a failure, because you're still using the words! Not only haven't you had a net positive effect, but you can't even stop using the word! Yet, somehow, I'm the mental defective for using profanity? At least I can successfully not use a word when I choose to.
Carlin is right. This..."flaccidization" of the language has nothing to do with making the world a better place, and everything to do with some bullshit attempt at behavior control. The people pushing this really think that if we use "n-word", (or even worse, "niggA". Don't even get me started on that stupidity) instead of "nigger" or "f-word" instead of "fuck", that somehow, society will become better.
Bullshit. People being the contrary asses they are, it probably makes them want to say them more. Trust me, without this n-word bullshit, cinema genius like "Boss Nigger" would lose a metric shit-ton of giggle points.
Just because some racist fuck doesn't call Jesse Jackson an uppity nigger doesn't mean he's not still a racist fuck. He's just better at hiding it. I don't know about you, but hiding racism is not the same as ending racism, at least not in my world. You can't change thought or behavior with bullshit like the n-word. You know what ends racism? People stop being racist. You know what ends sexism? People stop being sexist.
But I suppose doing that's too hard, so we're all fixin' to settle for the appearance of progress instead of accomplishing progress. As long as we all look like we're all getting along and respect each other, that's just as good right? Tell you what, go ask James Byrd how well that shit's working out. Lemme know what he says. Somehow, I doubt he or his family will agree.
Fuck the "F-word".
Technorati Tags: Language, Profanity, TEH STOOPUD
Posted by John C. Welch at 22:41 | Permalink
Comments
You fucking idiot.
There is a real, tangible, and easily comprehensible difference between using a curse word to express strong emotion or make a point, and using one casually to separate "you" from "them." When you use a word describing a member of a group of people to which you don't belong, a word that has historically (sometimes for centuries) been used to mark those people as inferior, you've fucked up.
Whether the words are hateful in your mind or not, O King of Context, they are to those groups, and so you don't use them. It's not a matter of "political correctness," it's a matter of manners, and you do have some even if they're jammed so far up your ass that your proctologist can't always find them.
And this bit about "I can't call black people black" is dumb-ass conservative "ooh, everything's too P.C." nonsense designed to muddy the waters. Auguste at Pandagon said it right this weekend:
The truth is, a certain subset of them - the subset who cheered Ann Coulter - just want to be free to call people “faggots.” They already lost all the good racial slurs, they’re not going to stand still while they lose their homophobic ones too. And they want there to be some sort of natural consequences when we tell them to go fuck themselves?
You want to agree with the last sentence and you wind up agreeing with the countermeasures instead. No one said you can't call black people "black" except Pat Buchanan, or maybe someone trying to derail the Obama campaign. It's a smokescreen so the racists can continue to practice their craft openly.
And yes, a hidden racist is better than an open racist, at least outside of politics. The cure to bad speech is still more speech, but we denounce racists for plying their hatred because when a lie goes unchallenged, someone thinks its true. Even unreconstructed segregationists have the right to their abhorrent views, but when we don't object to them portraying some people as inferior to others by way of genetics, they may eventually convince others to agree with them. Societal restrictions on hate speech keeps them from getting a foothold.
The words are shortcuts to the ideas, and you damn well know it, and it doesn't matter if you don't mean the words to have those ideas. They do. No matter how well-intentioned you are, you don't get to redefine hateful words not to be hateful, you fucking idiot.
Posted by: Matt | March 5, 2007 12:54 AM
(and then we all voted.)
Posted by: Matt | March 5, 2007 4:10 AM
Right on, John. You fucking star.
Hey, Matt, why is 'you fucking idiot' an insult, yet 'you fucking star?' is a compliment? Words aren't "hateful" until you ascribe them meaning. They're just sounds until we decide what they mean. And forget the Platonic ideals, everyone will have different connotations to every word they know.
OK, sometimes that meaning is ascribed by the person listening and not the person speaking. And often, if that happens, it's the fault of the person who's too ignorant to think about what he's saying.
But that's not specific to swear words, is it?
//There is a real, tangible, and easily comprehensible difference between using a curse word to express strong emotion or make a point, and using one casually to separate "you" from "them."// - is this not exactly John's point about context?
Finally, if you'd really prefer a hidden rascist than an open one, well I guess that comes down to opinion. But I'd rather my bigots be in a place where everyone knows them for what they are, and the free press (such as it is) is free to lampoon them. if these voices and ours are out in the open, who do you really think will be listened to?
Posted by: Tom Hillman | March 5, 2007 8:13 AM
Hey Matt? Why is it wrong to use "nigger", but okay to call someone a "fucking idiot"? Both are hateful, right?
I also find it funny that you bring up the whole "you're not a part of that group, so you don't get to use the word" thing. I find that amusing, because I read more and more black columnists like Leonard Pitts who are saying that there's no group "allowed" to call someone a nigger. Black, white, or somewhere in between. So that odd little justification is on shaky ground too. But you just cling to it don't you.
But it is this sentence that shows me how completely willing you are to be blind to things:
And yes, a hidden racist is better than an open racist, at least outside of politics.
There's no racist that's better. None. Hidden, open, or whatever. But in your world, as long as they hide it, that's the same thing. So when some guy gets set on fire or dragged behind a truck for being black in the wrong part of town, that's somehow a sign that slapping a new veneer on things is what's needed? What, Matthew Shepard was a sign that all we need to do is stop saying "faggot"?
Here's a clue Matt...those folks didn't get yelled at by dorks in white pointy hats. They were burned, dragged to death and crucified by people who, most likely, didn't walk around yelling out racial slurs. They knew better. They just hid their hearts until they thought they had a chance to act on their beliefs and get away with it.
Oh yeah, hiding racism is SUCH an improvement. Look how well it works.
Even unreconstructed segregationists have the right to their abhorrent views, but when we don't object to them portraying some people as inferior to others by way of genetics, they may eventually convince others to agree with them. Societal restrictions on hate speech keeps them from getting a foothold.
If you really believe that telling people how they're allowed to talk and the words they can use will keep racism and hate from gaining a foothold in our world, then you're truly in denial. If you think that banning words will end racism and hate, then I'd say you've stepped over into delusion.
It's FAR easier to convince someone that racism is good and hate is okay when it's hidden away in the dark. People think strange things late at night when they don't think anyone is watching.
Hiding never changed anything.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 5, 2007 8:35 AM
To put it another way...funny how fast government-supported segregation ended when the news cameras showed what it did to people live and in color.
Lasted for almost a hundred years in the dark, couldn't last twenty years in the light. It will take more time to change people than it will to change laws, but we aren't going to do it by letting it fester in the dark.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 5, 2007 8:38 AM
John thanks for saying what most of us pussies (faggots) are unwilling too.
I 100% agree with you John. Go figure? I would have said that before Coulter "did not" actually call Edwards a faggot. But according to Matt here, clearly you need to enter rehab to get the "I believe in free speech" out of your ass.
Hey Matt are you serious?
The truth is, a certain subset of them - the subset who cheered Ann Coulter - just want to be free to call people “faggots.”
I totally want to be free to call people faggots and dumbassess. It of course, does not mean I always have to exercise that right or that I should. But, thank God we "are" "free" to call people faggots you schmuck. Give me a freakin break to quote Pandagon as the moral arbitrator of "clean" (ha ha) non-racist speech is the height hypocrisy. Are you a psychopath or just a dumb-ass? They are filled with more hate speech than the local KKK meeting that presumably John attends according to you.
More Matt: And this bit about "I can't call black people black" is dumb-ass conservative "ooh, everything's too P.C." nonsense designed to muddy the waters.
Amazing how you use Pat Buchanan or conservatives as a pejorative word of which are racists and "dumb-asses." What a piece of work. You have such contempt for those that disagree with you it is clear that your real concerns are to limit speech of those who you don't like--namely conservatives (which of course are all racists). I call that a coward or pussy or faggot. You can pick, just be sure to bend over when you get it.
a hidden racist is better than an open racist
This kinda of talk is the very reason the F-word was created in the first place. But dumb-ass really is more appropriate for you. You proved yourself so stupid I don't know why John responded.
Even more Matt:
Even unreconstructed segregationists have the right to their abhorrent views, but when we don't object to them portraying some people as inferior to others by way of genetics, they may eventually convince others to agree with them. Societal restrictions on hate speech keeps them from getting a foothold.
Learn the difference between discrimination, views, and a persons right to free speech--one is illegal. Not only do they have a right to their "views" but to their spoken "words." They also have a right to "convince" others. Go hate all you want. Shout at the roof tops for all to see the stupidity of your ways. Go speak that hate all you want. Go have a hate parade in the streets or at Pandagon--it is your right. What isn't your right to do is to "discriminate" based on those views. But what really entertains me is that you turned John's righteous diatribe on PC word absurdity into a political rant proving only thing: free speech is only allowed as how you define it.
No thanks.
Posted by: Jack | March 7, 2007 9:57 AM
John thanks for saying what most of us pussies (faggots) are unwilling too.
See Jack, this is why profanity should be left to the professionals. Your use of "faggot" in this context is completely incorrect and unecessary. Calling someone a "pussy" for being weak is asexual, and completely outside of orientation. A gay man can be a pussy about something just as easily as anyone else. You're not even using the slur correctly. "Faggot" is, as a slur, the "gay version" of nigger. It's a personal attack directed solely at a gay person, or in more common usage, a gay man.
Pussy has a much wider range of use and meaning here.
Seriously. Learn how to use profanity man, you're just no good at it.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 6:45 AM
I wasn't calling anyone a faggot! It was a reference to Ann Coulter's comment about a comment--where later she claimed that in her use faggot meant pussy--and you knew that. It is kind of hard to doubt her sincerity, it's not like the girl is afraid to say what she means. Nevertheless, back to the word games. Funny how you twist that.
I have to admit I never thought I would read the phrase faggot meant "the gay version of a nigger" but hey you're probably right--you are the master of profanity. I wasn't trying to be profane accept to call someone a dumbass. I will leave the more "colorful" words to you.
Posted by: Jack | March 8, 2007 1:47 PM
See Jack, you can't even imitate your hero well. See, Man does well because behind the "I'm an evil harpy" exterior, Man's actually a competent wordsmith. Combined with a decent sense of timing and a competent talent for playing with people's heads, it works well.
You however are like all imitations...just never quite as good. Oh, you can try, but you're never quite as good. Where Man can use your justifications with a bit of evil humor at having played the audience well, you just sound rather shrill.
Amazing how when you get called on something, you always have some rather bad justification for it, and how it wasn't your fault, you were just misunderstood. In fact, that's your only tactic isn't it. Say something stupid and offensive, then when you get busted, cry and whine about how you were misinterpreted and misunderstood. It's not your fault is it, it's never your fault, it's everyone else's fault for not being smart or sophisticated enough to see the subtleties in your statements.
You know, you really are like Man that way too. I don't think either of you believe a damned thing you say. Sincerity just isn't something you're good at. Everything you say reeks of calculated trollery. Sad.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 9, 2007 1:59 PM
My hero John is not Ann Coulter, but that is too difficult for you to comprehend which must mean my hero is Jerry Falwell. You got me. By the way, I am not trying to be like Coulter. And for you to say I am "never quite as good as her" I will take as a compliment.
You put everyone you disagree with in the same box. How cute. You assume everyone in your self-made lock box thinks alike. How convenient. Homophobics, religiophobics, christophobics, republicanphobics, yes and even liberalphobics do the same. It is the work and mind of a pubescent child. That is a simpletons way of thinking and unfortunately for you, you have mastered it par excellence. Kudos to you bigot.
But let's get to the truth of the matter. Funny thing is, you really don't misinterpret people's words or thoughts. You intentionally rape and pillage them. You think it is funny, much like a child does when he rips the wings off of a butterfly. This is why you are compelled when people call you on misinterpreting them, to justify your disingenuous dementia. You are a child. You think like a child and correspondingly you argue like one. Your typical weak response to your intellectual superiority is to assert that people are "hiding" their true motives, that they are "insincere" and that they are "trolls" or worse. What profundity! That is what is "sad" John. Oh, and if I am anything, I am not "shrill," --I will leave that for Hillary.
I would be remiss if I did not point out, if you cannot follow a conversation and its subtleties that speaks poorly of your intellect not mine. An argument you have made numerous times in your own blog--so go eat your words.
But the truth is, you don't have that problem. It is just another trick in your bag of convenience. You know damn well what people are saying or if not then: 1) lay off the crack pipe dude; 2) seek medical attention; or 3) you're lying to justify your pathetic arguments. You can let us know which it is.
Finally, I like reading Violent Acres too. Unlike you, she actually is funny and consistent. I found it interesting you recently added her to your blogroll. So since you support her, I will quote her: "In closing, anyone who votes for John Edwards is a faggot." http://www.violentacres.com/archives/133/ann-coulter-should-be-allowed-to-say-whatever-the-hell-she-wants
hmmm?
Posted by: Jack | March 12, 2007 1:45 PM
Ah, Jack, how facile you are. How nimble at changing your argument so that you never ever can be anything but absolutely right. How skilled you are in personal attacks while always leaving yourself an out so that you can dodge that bullet too.
In short, you are without sincerity, character or backbone. You are, in every meaningful definition of the word, a coward. You stand for nothing other than attacking your latest target.
It doesn't occur to you that I agree with VA's point, that Ann Coulter, and anyone else should be able to say whatever the hell they want. Because banning words, as some have tried on both sides of the fence, is wrong. That's actually called banning ideas and aside from being simply foul on every level, is also ineffective.
Ask Woodrow Wilson or John Adams how well banning certain types of speech worked. That's not to say that you don't call Coulter out on being lame and inappropriate, but I think that relentless mocking of her "wish I was a real girl" ass is far more effective a way in the long run of handling the Coulters of the world. It's interesting how poorly they take what they dish out with such verve.
But again, you miss the point in your dancing and dodging. The point of this and the followup isn't, nor ever was to ban words. It was that words, even ugly ones, especially ugly ones need to be faced dead - on in a forthright manner. It is the dancing around them, and the attempt to deal with the ideas they are labels for by sanitizing them that is so very dangerous. "N-word" will no more help the cause of ending racism than banning "faggot" will end hate crimes against homosexuals. It is foolish, and stupid to think so.
Admit it Jack none of this matters to you.You don't care what the point of anything I post is. You're just about the argument. Points, beliefs, none of it is important, which would be why you never get around to stating what you believe and stand for save "whatever John is against", and it all comes down to the post where I dared to publicly disagree with you about Abortion. Wah. Adding an occaisional light-hearted comment to ensure you don't come off as a total douchecrumpet isn't working nearly as well as you wish it was.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 13, 2007 10:41 AM
FYI, the male equivalent of "shiksa" is "shegetz" (pronounced approximately "shay-gets").
Posted by: Aaron Davies | March 13, 2007 10:47 PM
