used over and over and over, often in the same topic. It gets moronic sounding and really boring and lame, like DUH.

No?

that other people are seeing words they don't like to see...if they had trashed the word they would have seen none of this and there would be nothing to be upset about.
Some people like to be outraged at what others do or say...and should we deny them that pleasure?

Fuck or "no" Fuck.

Last edited Sun Jun 22, 2014, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

if you could only converse using profanity that you were a lazy thinker. Relying on profanity is indeed lazy. Why would one wish to limit onself to a handful of words when the language is rich with a myriad of other words which would serve as well or better?

Addendum: Wow! An amazingly vitriolic little bunch of responses to my sharing of a rule of thumb my mother gave us as a tool to use in life about fifty some years ago. It is not to say that my siblings or I or even my mother, for that matter never uttered an expletive in our lifetimes but I almost never use one in writing. I have yet in my lifetime to curse out someone to their face even when offering criticism. I try to comport myself toward others as I wish to be treated by them. But that is me and how I conduct my life's business.

"if you could only converse using profanity that you were a lazy thinker. Relying on profanity is indeed lazy. Why would one wish to limit oneself to a handful of words when the language is rich with a myriad of other words which would serve as well or better?"

This English teacher salutes your mother's good sense and good taste.

People express themselves that way. Bad language has always been associated with the more revolutionary element in a society. Those words don't hurt anyone. I'm happy to hear a wild eyed rant with bad words included that expresses the emotion behind the words. Consider the fucking national /world crisis we are mired in and yet here you are all worried about bad language. Priorities.

It is not necessary to descend to the level of coarse language and behavior just because others do.

I have seen some very uncivil behavior from nations that engage in the most diplomatic of language.

Littering posts with gratuitious references to copulation and excrement ("fucking" and "shit&quot is not expressive. It's rather the lack of expression.

I'm not advocating anything negative like censorship or "santizing". I'm advocating positive improvement by writers themselves. Many will ignore the call just so that they can prove how tough they are. Many others will just remain ignorant. A very few will actually use the words to good effect.

DU was getting along just fine before a small group made it their mission to change everything. It amounts to back door censorship.

And, Bernardo, your post is pure bullshit. Fucking bullshit.

It's not censorship, and it's not a mission to "change everything". I'm explicitly not calling for censorship.

It's not about "reeducation". It's about progression and self-improvement. By their words we shall know them. People are free to use the words and others are free to comment about it. Some people will progress and their writing will improve as they think more about what they are doing and realize that they rarely need to use blunt dull words when there are lots of powerful nuanced ones.

Children love to use "fucking" and "shit", especially teenagers.

There used to be a time when using those words in public was shocking. Then a time when using them in public speaking or writing was shocking. Now in public writing its just generally a dull usage of language with very few exceptions (the Rude Pundit being an effective exception and even he doesn't use it that much when you actually read what he writes).

George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Jon Stewart, Jon Oliver--many comedians, playwrights screenwriters and novelists whose writing and thinking would put that in the OP to shame--if they were into shaming message board posters--used profanity freely.

Saying "fuck" does not evidence lack of ability to think or to express oneself. Brilliant writers say it, as do those who do not express themselves very well. "Fuck" can appear in a brilliant post or a vapid one. Saying "fuck" is evidence of saying "fuck," period.

Nor is claiming otherwise evidence of good behavior or good writing or discernment. Nor is it a very original thought. Or, for that matter, a very accurate thought.


If the real complaint is about boring or poorly written posts, say so. (But then, you and the Op might be the ones expressing yourself clumsily.) If you expect every post on a message board to be brilliantly thought out, pithy and well written, maybe you should manage your expectations or stay off message boards, unless you wish to be perpetually disappointed.

Vulgar language is symptomatic of them.

When writers (like you?) are out of reasoned arguments they make posts that are personal attacks. My writing is not brilliant, duh. It would not be made more brilliant if I used "fuck" with the same frequency as Jon Stewart who is a smart man who I admire.

It's not a "complaint". In the final analysis it's derision.

I have low expectations for the average post on forums, so my expectations are well-managed thank you. At the same time, there is room for improvement in the average post. If you don't think so, fine.

Is that your admission that you're out of them then? Because that sure seems like a personal attack, despite the parens and question mark.

Moreover, apparently, I was not out of reasoned arguments at all. Either that, or you just let yourself be "talked" into an admission via my "unreasonable" prior post.

Am I to assume it's preferable for a poster like the OP (and you?) to attack a whole group of posters (DUers who use the word "fuck" in their posts), rather than for me to point out that you and the OP complained about posts that were unimaginative and not expressing the thoughts of the poster well--in your own not very imaginative posts that were not expressing your real complaints very well? It was okay for you and the OPto complain about a whole group of DUers, but not okay for me to call the two kettles black?

Your tactic seems to be call whatever you don't like evidence of someone else's inadequacy. Using
"fuck" is a sign of inability to express oneself. Yet, you admit that people who express themselves excellently use it. My pointing out that you were doing the same things you were condemning--excuse me--deriding--others for is evidence that I am out of reasoned arguments. Or not.

It would not be made more brilliant if I used "fuck" with the same frequency as Jon Stewart who is a smart man who I admire.

You and the OP condemned a whole group of DU posters for not expressing their thoughts well and not writing well. In your next post, you acknowledged it was derisive. But, my pointing out that you and the OP were not so far above other DUers in those regards that either of you should be condemning them was the real wrong? So, the self-righteousness is not confined only to your allegedly superior posts?

Ah, okay. I'll apologize to you and the OP right after the two of you apologize to the DUers you both insulted from your respective not so high horses.

Or, is your implication that my saying that the two of you were not the most brilliant writers either forced you to insult me back?

Not really sure what you are trying to get across. Could you please express it more clearly?

Your approach is to try to turn this discussion about some posters, none of whom are named or specified, into a personal discussion of my writing.

That's analogous to there being a discussion of, to pick a semi-random example, people who over-use antibacterial soaps, none of them named or specified, and somebody who doesn't like the concept of over-use makes a back-handed slam about a poster's personal hygiene thinly disguised as a personal question.

I think you have, during our exchanges, demonstrated, whether you meant to or not, and whether you will ever admit it, even to yourself, or not, that your real complaints are not actually about the use of profanity at all. Indeed, use of what you call vulgarity is pretty much irrelevant to your actual complaints. So, I had no further question for you about that.

It would be illogical to conclude that absence of vulgarity is indicative of thoughtful writing.

Unfortunately I will not have written that well enough to meet your standards for internet forum postings.

You seem to be trying to articulate your ideas without using the language you are defending. I think you know deep down that the OP is right. Excess profanity is usually an indication of a person that doesn't have good language skills. There are exceptions as you point out.

Think about the people that you used for examples, Bruce and Carlin rode the profanity train when it first started from the station, Carlin even did a skit about the 7 words you couldn't use on TV or radio.They rode the shock value of profanity and weren't that funny otherwise. Bruce was just a shock jock and Carlin was more philosopher than comedian in my mind and was very good at that part. Stewart and Oliver? They don't use that much profanity and are very good at what they do, very good. All of your examples are experts in their fields and know when and how much profanity they can get away with. I have no doubt in my mind that Stewart or Oliver would tell you that profanity is something to be used sparingly because too much use will dull it. If it shows such obvious skill levels why didn't you use Joe Whatshisfuckingname from down the street or one of our prolific profane DU posters for an example? Because everyone you used for examples has studied their language for years and years and know what their audiences expect and tolerate. Do you think Colbert will fall apart when he goes to network TV and can't use what little profanity he uses now? Colbert is an expert in language he will be just fine.

Take a course in writing or just read a book on how to write and one of the first rules you will learn is, unless you intend to write X rated books, not to use profanity, it is hard to use well, normally shows a lack of language skill, is not very expressive, and will alienate a sizable share of your intended audience, all of which will cost you money in lost sales.

At least you didn't use the old "it's the language adults use" excuse. Adult language? I learned it as an adolescent, I'm 63 we started being adults later than kids do now, and quit using it when I finally considered myself grownup which by the way is later in life than I would like to admit.

There are a lot of posters on DU that only know one adjective, it really is quite sad.

I am "trying" to articulate my thoughts?

You think you know what I am thinking "deep down" but not posting? Is that because you somehow know my thoughts better than I do? (Why not? Apparently you know Jon Stewart's and John Olivers' too.) Or, is because you think I'm lying about what I really believe?

If I would only take a writing course, I'd learn the truth (meaning, of course, your view) right off the bat?

And, perhaps my personal favorite:

At least you didn't use the old "it's the language adults use" excuse.

And not one profane word in your post, good for you.

Perhaps you don't use what you defend because you really know it is indefensible.

So how do you feel about the adult language defense? Valid or bogus? I say bogus, how say you and your stacks of CV on Sunday.

And I thought only God knew us better than we knew ourselves.

Wait, is that you, Lord?

Well, no wonder you think you think you're so superior.

But, then, why would God bother to ask me questions knowing I'd be silly to answer anyone who talked down to me to the extent you did? So, I guess you're not God. If only I had ever taken a writing class, perhaps I could try to express that to you without using profanity. As it is, you'll probably just stick with the belief that you're vastly superior to the rest of us.

"Good for you." Stay hooked on that condescension now, hear? It's ever so becoming.

Look I gave you a lot of credit for your writing, you are the one that thinks you can't express yourself very well. I thought you were doing a fine job.

though we know what that can lead to!

Pushing past your mom's "only", "relying" and "limit", she suggested that the entire language is "rich with a myriad of other words which would serve as well or better". One wonders what magical powers undermine epithets via an inability to convey a meaning comparable to their "decent" fellow words and phrases. After all, an indecency is merely a social construct, subject to the era, to the fashion and norms of society, even to regionalism, race, class and religion.

I suggest that screeching "FUCK" when hammer meets finger is not only perfectly adequate, but often the best choice.

For reference, I offer this:

Sorry. I butchered that.

Among other things.

is merely an invitation to a righteous fury fest, and the point of the argument, rant, or whatever, is lost in a cloud of caliche dust. I cuss a lot at times, but most the times I skip OPs which flash neon FUCKS. Whatever the other points in the OP, if he/she is correct, more folks in DU will tune -out those posts, and gradually tune-out DU as a one-note samba.

Now, back to my gun-humping.

To the contrary, I recommend it. (Luckily for me, few posts really bother me. But I do have a problem with attempting to shame a fairly large number of other DUers. And that is how the OP comes across to me and others on this thread.

And, one can easily start a fury fest on this board (and most others) while never posting a single cuss word. I've seen it and I've done it--though not intentionally. So, again, I don't think there's anything magical about using a cuss word. Or anything especially incisive, or even accurate, about attributing things like not expressing one's self well to use of cuss words.

People who never use them can be just as inexpressive as those who use them all the time. Contradistinctively, people who pepper their writing and speech with them can be perfectly expressive and geniuses in thought and word, starting with Aristophanes and going through Shakespeare to John Oliver and Jon Stewart.

So, blaming certain posting deficiencies on use of cuss words is an example of not thinking the matter through very carefully and/or not expressing one's real objections as well as one might if one were really rigorous about it. Aka, the very things about which the OP is complaining. Plus a soupcon of talking down to a lot of DU.

and spread, now, to GD (Guns Deplored). But even with a meaningless TOS, the effort has backfired.

I think the shame/stigma game has been used by a number of feminists and anti-gun folk, and has been kick-started numerous times in the white privilege argument. It's getting as old as it is easy. Shaming is one of those primal resentments born out of the Sixties: No one liked it as a kid, and even we old farts don't like it now. It reminds me of the darker moments of family life.

I am pretty grateful for hippies and feminists, Eleanor. Sure, some can go over the top sometimes, but that is also true of every group, including your fave.

So, let's see: You are a gun enthusiast who has no use for feminists and who believes hippies in the Sixties invented something that appears in Genesis.

And, you're posting on Democratic Underground.

"humps guns" (presumably, while stroking said), "compensating" for something, and having B.O., ri-i-i-i-ght cheer on DU! All those GD threads about whether certain words & expressions are sexist, racist, coarsening everthing. Acting like RKBA wasn't even in the running. Sheesh! No respect.

profanity remind her of dirty fingernails.

Work hard and never be afraid to get dirty, specifically.

This small family farmer has earned that dirt under my fingernails at the end of the day. So has the rest of my family.

Your mom is damn insulting to an entire subsection of Americans who aren't afraid to do the dirty work.

you never seen a well dressed business man with dirty fingernails? That's what Mom was referring to.

would probably be helpful instead of doubling down....



I should inform you that because of the nature of my particular farm I deal with a LOT of bankers, wealthy folks, investors etc so I interact daily with the "clean fingernail club" as your mom would put it. I simply know that judging ANYONE by the state of their fingernails is incredibly stupid and insulting to many hardworking folks.

Especially when you are using it as a pejorative.

tired. Simply not important to me. 'nite

-- using this as a measure of linguistic sophistication. Any writer who uses profanity (my heavens! the Bard's plays are quite full of profanity and sexual jokes! My fur and whiskers!) must not be capable of thinking of euphemisms to describe, say, fucking.

Gratuitous usage of the word "fucking" simply because the writer is angry or is lacking of imagination to find words like "very" or "great big" or "enormous" or "extremely" or many others is not symptomatic of the writing of Miller, Nin, or Shakespeare.

Really, very well stated.

then am I wrong for speaking the language they understand?

Or should I use proper English, with proper grammar and vocabulary, so they look at me as if I had just grown horns?

From what I can tell, fuckety-fuck language and lapsed grammar are the dominant traits here. I tend to communicate at the level of my present company, on a scale ranging from dive bar all the way up to an academic event.

There are lots of methods mothers and fathers use to teach their children not to use language that others may deem foul. I am capable of switching the way I relate with certain people, depending on the situation. I can cuss like a sailor at the bar. But when I am in the company of someone I do not know or in a situation where it is not proper, I speak accordingly.

So, how can I be a lazy thinker while being able to communicate no matter the situation or the present company?

profanity or lapsed grammar? Why should you insult someone's intelligence in that manner? Having worked with people from all walks of life in a professional setting, I have found that people are able to communicate with civility and respect when it is expected of them unless they are out of control or have extenuating factors which interferes with thier ability to filter.

in using "proper" language themselves, they'll make fun of you for doing it yourself. So, it's easy to know that as a fact, not as an assumption.

For instance, I spent the evening at a friend's camp site last night with about 14 adults who were all chatting and laughing over the campfire. The host noticed that I use clean language, because there were a couple of people there I didn't know. He said I'm like a professor, although he knows better as I've know him for 20+ years and he knows I can cuss with the best of them..

If someone is fuckety-fucking, is it too outside of reason for me to use similar language? Or, am I insulting their intelligence by not speaking to them like an English professor?

Yea, pretty much the whole wold does.


Have a nice day

I appreciate that you took the time to share this. The past few days DU has been more like middle school.

some of us use those to avoid those things that bother us. We are adults you know.

And with that... well... have a good life... I can do without another puritan in my life. Welcome to ignore, I am using those tools you see.

Oh and consider this fucking unrecced.

but if you want to join the victorian age, there are places you could go to. But tell you what, you put me first.

but the OP was begging for it, for fucks face. His command of the language, a rude pundit he is not. And he missed the point of that column, I am betting he would miss others, as well. After all, why care about what is actually going on in Iraq, when we can all go into collective conniptions over the words dick and fuck. And his use of the N word is also lacking both linguistic or historic sophistication.

It was not about puritanism in the least. It was about the expression of actual ideas versus the non-content approach that consists of nothing but juvenile words of scorn.

I'm with the OP: if you have an idea, I'm all ears. If you just want to say fuck (insert name), I'm too bored to bother with it. And the constant refrain here of "trash thread and ignore are your friends" makes me crazy. Like, if you don't like what's going on in the world, should I tell you to stop reading the newspaper or listening to the news? That's not an answer. This is a community, not somewhere where people should have to hide everything: advocating trash and hide is the worst kind of censorship. To me, it is the antithesis of what a board should be.

I never minded the language used with that sentiment, If people feel that passionately about hating whistle blowers it expresses it well.

I think they are authoritarian followers afraid lest some news or exposed facts might imply "Daddy" is not perfect, but that is only my own opinion and such expression is their right, I doubt other words would express their feelings as well as that, they should be allowed such freedom of expression.

For example, [font size="3", color="red"]Fuck Cheeneey sideways with a rusty chainsaw!!![/font]
Expresses how I feel about that war criminal empowered to continue spreading vile shit because he was protected from the consequences of his crimes by another that believes certain people are above the law no matter how heinous the crimes.

Somehow, using PG language would likely not express my feelings nearly as well.

I never understood people that think they should decide how other people should express their feelings, this is after all not a board for children and posters should not be treated as such by prudish idiots that are afraid of words.

if you do not like the word, fuck. If you do not like that word and and refuse to use trash thread and trash keywords, you are going to see the word, fuck, on DU. Even the site owner has used fuck on several occasions. You can either gripe and complain about usage of the word, fuck, or you can move on to whatever conversations on DU that you think are good enough for you. Good luck finding a thread puritanical enough to satisfy the anti-fucking mentality you seem to possess.

IMO, you have a responsibility, though not a legal obligation, to know what is going on in the world. And not knowing may hurt you in some way. However, the same is not so when it comes to reading an OP that you yourself characterize as content free.

Usually, content free posts are a habit of certain posters that you can put on ignore and should, if seeing their posts is so troubling to you. Seems like the sane thing to do. I have used ignore for only one poster in ten or eleven years of posting, but, apparently, I have a better ability to move on than does the OP.

What does annoy me, though? People who are not content with controlling the content of only their own posts, like the rest of us, so they also try to control the content of the posts of other posters, by attempts to shame or by concerted alert strategies or other means.

And, by the way, neither using "fuck" nor starting sentences with "and" changes the value of a post. Either a post has something to say or it doesn't. As has been pointed out on this thread, plenty of people who are (or were) well worth listening to. John Oliver, Jon Stewart, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce had plenty to say and used profanity quite freely. So, the OP sets up a false construct, also more annoying to some of us than the use of so-called profanity.

P.S. Use of a double negative in the subject line, ending some sentences in prepositions, sentence fragments and starting some sentences with "and" --all intentional and for the enjoyment of the fucking word police.

The English language is a rich hodgepodge of word-roots from the world over. Embrace what we've got! Why quarrel over a literal handful of words due to perceived offensiveness? If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em! And if you don't like seeing people write them, maybe try to stay that judgmentalism lest you receive the same.