profanity

[Al Rubottom <aer -at- PCSI -dot- CIRRUS -dot- COM>]

LeeAnn Smith wrote:
>Isn't vulgar language, especially the kind
>getting thrown around as examples by those who
>are culturally deprived, an abuse and insult to people's minds?

Isn't the adjective "vulgar" [not to mention "culturally deprived,"
"abuse" and "insult"] a hopelessly *loaded* judgment word in this context?
And, to equate written expletives [this is an e-mail 'discussion'
ferchrissakes!] with abuse and/or insult is ... well, adding insult to
injury, to thoroughly mix the metaphorical stew!

If any readers of this list are honestly hurt [whatever that means!;
I assume s/he meant offended?] by seeing the F- word [or shit or any other
of the reliable Anglo-saxon function words] in print, then I humbly submit
they are indulging in some hypocritical self-righteousness ...
unless they are so devotedly sanctimonious that they never read *any*
of the current novels or non-fiction books that most literate
adults read nowadays, which are liberally laced with such words.

Even if you prefer not to utter the F-word, you should [i.e. must]
understand that there are millions of others who use it without
hesitation, comfortably and inoffensively [amongst their peers]
as an essential, if perhaps overused, filler. [better than "err" "umm"?]

And why do these words get used so much?  Precisely because
they are irreplaceable, succinct, to the point, and for many users,
colorful, evocative, yea even poetic, as are their equivalents in
every language on earth!  Whaddya think people said before
they learned the polysyllabic Latinate substitutes [euphemisms]
for bodily functions?  We still prefer eat to ingest, generally
speaking.  The onus of a disapproving MissGrundy judgment
on all these good ole words as being vulgar is purely a product
of some elaborately forced class distinctions. [how valid those
may be is another discussion entirely]

There seems little or no chance of a rational discussion, if that
was what anyone had in mind, about this dear-to-my-heart topic,
when everyone appears intent on loading their comments with
undiluted editorial [advertorial?] prejudgments in the form of
biased words like "vulgar" to describe such ordinary language.

Some are offended by the implicit assumptions conveyed in
and by the language used by such spokespersons as Newt Gingrich,
to name but one very public hypocrite. But I can only deplore him
privately insofar as he is offensive to me personally -- far more than
any occurrence of the fuck word!  Others may prefer to see his
distortion of language as somehow politically appealing; god help
them.  To judge another's *real* intent by your surface reaction to
the presence of "vulgarity" is to suspend your critical faculties.

Less-than-humbly submitted,

Al Rubottom  /\  aer -at- pcsi -dot- cirrus -dot- com