What's up with all the vulgarity at liberal websites?
The reason I'm asking is a poster named "Thers" at the liberal Whiskey Fire blog referred to yours truly this morning as a "Poor little f****r."
Why was I bestowed such a dishonor? Well, Thers was either displeased with the suggestion that Saturday's announcement of "24" going carbon neutral proves the show not to be conservative, or he disagrees with my view of anthropogenic global warming.
Either way, I'm not sure this qualifies a fellow American as a "Poor little f****r."
As I noticed vulgarity Friday from Markos Moulitsas, the proprietor of Daily Kos, I decided to search for other instances of obscenity from this ilk to see whether this is a random or frequent occurrence. What I discovered was clearly the latter:
- According to the Daily Kos search function, there have been 88 "Diaries" (comments apparently excluded) in the past week which included the F-word, and 67 that used the S-word or versions thereof. Not bad for seven days.
- Even more amazing, the DK search function identified 1,567 comments in the past seven days which included the F-word, and 1,310 with the S-word.
- Over at Firedoglake, where there are far fewer submissions each day, the search function identified seven articles in July that contained the F-word, and seventeen with the S-word.
- Wonkette's search function identified an astounding five F-bombs and two S-words just on Friday!
It certainly seems safe to assume that vulgarity is essential for these folks to make a point. Might it be due to the typically specious point being made?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
*****Update: The Whiskey Fire blogger's name in the original posting was incorrectly stated as "Wingnuttery." That has since been corrected.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
cursing
July 22, 2007 - 11:55 ET by the mad poleI have seen a rise in open vulgarity in local high schoolers.Loud cursing in very public places, I beleive they are trying to shock for attention. I see myself getting in trouble for asking for them to stop, they seem to know what the law will and won't do. I thoght it was an offense to be offensive.
Desensatized yoots
July 22, 2007 - 12:04 ET by VT Con ManIt is now cool in some circles (though they would never use "cool") to cuss up a storm. But i don't believe those "circles" have a whole lot of deep thought going on, just alot of "f" and "s". IMO Kinda like the lib website phenomenon...
Not a big problem
July 22, 2007 - 12:02 ET by dagdaTalking/writing like this shows that the writer has "street cred." They have been out in the world and not cloistered in some Ivy League institution.
Personally, I do not see this as a big deal. Western civilization is not coming to a roaring halt because of it. Actually, those are good Anglo-Saxon words that should be brought back into common usage. They are vulgarities only because the Normans won. Had the Angles and Saxons won, words like feces and fornication would be considered vulgar.
Vulgar speech is the speech of the "common man." This is something that Democrats want to be. I think that if Republicans, conservatives and/or libertarains ever really want to get to the hearts and minds of the "common man" they need to start using these words, too.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I understand that
July 23, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Challenger GrimI understand that vulgarities are a part of the "common man" and all that but...
1) I still don't think it should be encouraged. One now and then might be appropiate (like when you hit that thumb with a hammer) but regular usage just distorts and degrades the language. When writers can no longer use certain words even with their proper context and meaning because "someone" is going to get offended... that just stinks. Can you imagine Lewis today writing "The Final Battle" (book #7 of the Chronicles of Narnia) referring to the donkey as an "Ass" every time? Plus the repeated use such vulgarities erodes and shreds their 'shock' value anyway.
2) Back in the day, even the "common man" had a sense of decency and value. There was talk "in the bars and fields" and talk when you were at home or around women and children. The loss of a sense of "a place for everything and everything in its place" is the worst feature I find in today's culture.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Battle of Hastings
July 23, 2007 - 10:52 ET by dagdaBecause the Normans won the Battle of Hastings, these words became the lingua of the common man (Anglo-Saxons) while the language of the elite became French. When you look at the reasons for the words being "outlawed" it becomes pretty silly.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I'd reply dagda but I think
July 23, 2007 - 11:01 ET by Challenger GrimI'd reply dagda but I think we're talking past one another on two fundamentally different things. Not sure how to get it straightened up or reach a common starting point though. For all I know we could be arguing about how we agree. Did I say anything about words being "outlawed"?
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Outlawed words
July 23, 2007 - 11:05 ET by dagdaUsing the term outlawed (out side the law) in its original meaning, common anglo-saxon terms like shit and fuck were outlawed by the Normans. So, historically, if you ascribe to the idea that they are still linguistically outlawed (outside the norm) then you are saying the French still are in control of our language.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
*looks around* Are you
July 23, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Challenger Grim*looks around* Are you drunk or on hard drugs? Seriously I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from.
All I said was that once upon a time (say... the 50s) it was understood that there was a time and place for everything. You might "talk like a sailor" when you were hanging out with the guys on the job or around the bars, but you did NOT talk like that when a lady was present or a young child. (This certainly helped add to the mystique of those 4-letter words being "grown-up".)
Nowadays there is no sense of propiety in our culture and I find myself morning that. I'm not advocating that the words be outlawed, but that they be understood as having a place and rightful position. As every other noun/verb is NOT that place or position. In front of mixed company is NOT the place.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Where I am coming from
July 23, 2007 - 11:27 ET by dagdaI am coming from the place that your aversion to the words comes from 1066 and that by not using it you are playing into a racism that has gone on for almost a 1000 years. Just as the British suppressed the home language of the Irish, the Normans suppressed the home language of Angles and Saxons. Today, that suppression continues. That racism continues. Everytime you say "That should not be said in mixed company" feeds into that racism. That is all that I am saying.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
No offense, but that is the
July 23, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Challenger GrimNo offense, but that is the dumbest thing I've heard NOT in a NB node.
Because I believe there should be some boundries and rules within society makes me a racist? So you're saying you swear like a sailor in front of your grandma?
Well from the south, you definitely are not.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Noel I would think that
July 22, 2007 - 12:06 ET by botgNoel
I would think that many libs tend to have juvenile thought processes. Thus the cussing makes them feel all-growed up. Instead of actually being mature they substitute a symbol of maturity
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Markos is this little
July 22, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Gat New YorkMarkos is this little vulgar man who fancies himself in the image of Napoleon - same height but not as smart. To his credit at times he does substitute the F word with "friggin" just to be fair.
This is reminiscent of the 1960's and the Yuppies where demagogues like Abbie Hoffman loosely used vulgarity in their dialogue.
Their impact on the political scene was controversial but relatively small and short lived. I am certain that Markos and his ilk will have the same fate shortly.
Language changes
July 22, 2007 - 12:17 ET by dagdaJust before the hippie movement, Lady Chattersly's Lover was released. D. H. Lawrence's purpose in writing the book was to put s*** and f*** back into common usage. I think he succeeded.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
"Poor little f****r."???
July 22, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Dave RLOL-Well, what can you expect from a guy (I assume it's a guy) who calls himself Wingnuttery.
Well, Wing was either displeased with the suggestion that Saturday's announcement of "24" going carbon nuetral proves the show not to be conservative, or he disagrees with my view of anthropogenic global warming.
That's okay, Noel, as I am fairly certain he didn't know, either.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Which was the insult?
July 22, 2007 - 12:20 ET by dagdaAre you offended by "poor", "little" or "f****r"? Or which combination of the words?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
or even "run-of-the-mill
July 22, 2007 - 12:24 ET by botgor even "run-of-the-mill cretin"
botg
July 22, 2007 - 12:33 ET by dagdaWhere are/where you going with this?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
in the linked article it is
July 22, 2007 - 12:38 ET by botgin the linked article it is how Noel is described
Sheppard is ordinarily rather a run-of-the-mill cretin of the anti-MSM variety, but here he does himself and his Movement proud with some really first-class gibberish.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Unaware
July 22, 2007 - 12:45 ET by dagdaDid not read the article, so I did not get the reference. I was unaware that cretins were capable of first-class gibberish. However, DKos would know, wouldn't they. They have all those shining examples on their site.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Dag
July 22, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Noel SheppardDag,
You can't be insulted by people you don't respect or care about. The reason for the article was not literary retribution. After seeing Markos' silly obscenity Friday, and then this, I wanted to do a piece on netroots vulgarity. Once I started searching top lib sites, and saw the frequency of such, it wrote itself. Fair enough? ns
I followed you Noel.
July 23, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Challenger GrimI followed you Noel. Somebody said something and it inspired a little data mining from you.
Good Job btw. I think you could have an interesting paper if you compared the word occurances with those sites compared to say... leading "right-winger" sites. (although some, like Frontpage mag have language filters on them. That should tell you a lot right there.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Wingnuttery is a real piece of work.
July 22, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Dave RI think this part of Wingnuttery's foul-mouthed little rant speaks volumes as to the true intellectual capabilities of the average lefty these days. Their "grip" on reality is tennuous, at best:
Good, smart "Conservatives" are apparently supposed to now believe that:
These ideas are all quite simply insane.
That speaks for itself.
BTW-Noel, perhaps Wingnuttery is speaking in generalities here, but I've never seen you post an article here at NewsBusters, or anywhere else, for that matter, that advocated torture. I wonder where he pulled that one from?
Help Fred defeat everybody.
-- The "MSM" wants to
July 23, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Challenger Grim-- The "MSM" wants to elect a Democrat;
What I want to know is how he DENIES this.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Leftist style
July 22, 2007 - 13:08 ET by BEGRUNTNoel,
The reason these knuckleheads resort to f-bombs and the like, is that they have no coherent arguement. It's like the drive by trolls that pay us a visit here. When they are losing an arguement, they resort to name calling, and when you reply in the same, they claim you started it. You can never win with these morons.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Democrats Speak Vulgarity
July 22, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Lame CherryMr. Sheppard, if I might add a few things you might not have seen or considered.
I have the past week been on Huffington Post playing. I actually was astounded by the hate mail I got in making honest comments. So much so I put HuffPo on my junk mail list and it is filtering it out.
What you probably don't know is Huffington unlike here actually will not post comments until they are cleared. It has nothing to do with vulgarity as those comments are just fine. It has to do with the challenging of the leftist hate filled bloggers who are featured on the site.
Yesterday I challenged a Mr. Abrams who has been advocating like John Kerry that Geoge Bush's twin daughters go serve in Iraq. Mr. Abrams was astounded no one in the DNC would touch this including Charlie Rangel.
For HATE Mr. Sheppard, what is more hateful than a blogger to actually demand that twin girls be sent to be slaughtered? The DNC knows what a political disaster this would be for Democrats so won't touch it (Calls for Chelsea serving would then come up too if Hillary wanted to be president). The DNC understands the volatile nature of the idiotic plans coming from their supporters hate, but the supporters do not even register that people murdered is a bad thing.
These supporters though Mr. Sheppard get egged on by the feature writers like Mr. Abrams to the foul mouthed Bill Maher who can not write a blog without the F word and linking everything to some degrading sexual act. In fact yesterday, his blog was hate speech in naming people rednecks.
This was followed by hundreds of comments on a Mitt Romney sign he was next to which said, No to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's Mama, which had these Democrats calling all southern people stupid and all Republicans.
The vast majority of these bloggers on the leftist sites are vile, ill mannered, rude and foul mouthed. Juan Williams is so far out of touch if he thinks KOS or any of them are what America is.
Now for a compliment to the very good people on this site. Yes I run into the baiters who can not take satire or who are PC lurking about here pretending to be interested in the Truth, but the vast majority of the people here reflect the featured bloggers on this site who are interested in the Truth and that translates into calm posts.
For some reason Ariana Huffington wants a circus of savages as it probably sells in ad counter hits, but the damage she is doing to the Democratic party she says she supports and America is horrendous
I thank you for this oasis on the net of intelligence as it is necessary in the hurricane blowing out there of unreason.
God bless
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC
July 22, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Noel SheppardLC,
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing. ns
The vulgarity is not just at
July 22, 2007 - 14:05 ET by WiggyThe vulgarity is not just at a few of the left wing websites. It is permeating through the democratic party. That hatred they spew is just sickening, and is part of the reason why our nation is so broken politically.
Picking your battles
July 22, 2007 - 14:11 ET by dagdaYou need to pick your battles and this in not one to waste time on. Like an behavior, if you ignore it long enough, it will extingush itself. I would be more concerned about their impact on the electorate, the Democratic Party and the MSM. Those are much worthier battles than vulgarity.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
It's not so much the vulgar
July 22, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Del DolemonteIt's not so much the vulgar language at the leftist websites that bothers me (we've all heard the words before) but how they are "used" to try and make a point. 8 times out of 10 they do not work.
But more troublesome to me is the rampant anti-Semitism exhibited at many of the left sites. Straight out of Germany in the 1930s.
The use of profanity is
July 22, 2007 - 15:52 ET by ckc1227The use of profanity is nothing more than the effort of a weak mind trying to express itself. It's probably safe to say that there are plenty of weak minds contributing to these left-wing blogs, thus explaining the amount of profanity found on them.
The finest example of highly
July 22, 2007 - 19:51 ET by Del DolemonteThe finest example of highly intelligent discourse and flowery language can be found here: www.democraticunderg...
Why go there when you can
July 23, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Challenger GrimWhy go there when you can read the universal thread and save yourself a trip?
Well, without further ado, here is the...
UNIVERSAL DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND THREAD
----
muck4d00
[News Headline]
----
[Index of response titles]
----
8lame8ush
1. Obvious ploy
----
Th!nkH3sFunny
2. Treat for Bush*
----
muck4d00
3. LOL!
----
halfempty
4. Nothing we can do
----
halffull
5. This will sink Bush*
----
M3sn00ty
6. We smart
----
halffull
7. At least we have debate
----
Name removed
8. Deleted message
----
Imune2Irony
9. Repugs are nazis
----
N3wGuy
10. My own 2 cents
----
muck4d00
11, Back to the main point
----
AFewM4rblesL3ft
12. Careful
----
4sylum3scapee
13. Don't be dumb
----
muck4d00
14. Exactly
----
4sylum3scapee
15. Beware
----
Th!nkH3sFunny
16. Wouldn't that be great
----
Moderator
17. Locking
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Noel I find it hard to
July 22, 2007 - 15:58 ET by BlazerNoel I find it hard to be surprised let alone shocked by the lefts vitriol, and vulgarity. It is my belief that half of those that embrace Liberalism, let go of civility, morality, integrity, and intellect, so they can let thier lives be guided by impulse, and emotion. The other half that have embraced Liberalism were never born with those traits anyway.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Intelligence
July 22, 2007 - 16:54 ET by PawpawNI was always told that lack of intelligence led to using profanity. Since Libs are for the poor, unintelligent, unschooled, left behind, etc., it only makes sense that they talk that way. All movies, books, TV, etc., extol these great words, some even in their titles! So what are we to expect. If the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE comes back can we go onto these and place prayers?
PawpawN, I tend to agree
July 22, 2007 - 17:46 ET by hydrodynDMPawpawN,
I tend to agree that it's related to intelligence (or mental laziness).
Words like "f*ck" and "s*it" have the advantage that they can be used as just about any part of speech (adjective, adverb, noun, etc...). That fact relieved the speaker from actually having to use his brain to come up with a word which more accurately gets his point across.
Why suggest that someone you disagree with is myopic or trite or juvenile when it's just easer to call him a "f*cker".
Granted, sometimes vulgarity gets the point across, and I think intelligent people will stoop to using it if they are writing to an audience that uses it on a regular basis, but generally, I think it's exactly what you suggest - a lack of intelligence.
Using the f word
July 22, 2007 - 18:09 ET by dagdaTaking this tack is just elitism. It is only wrong because the Anglo-Saxons lost the Battle of Hastings. Had they won you would be using it instead of sexual intercourse. This has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. And it is amazing the number of people with high IQs that have used the word. Both Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare (true geniuses of the English language) have used the word.
Bill Buckley always said their was the right word for the right occasion and on some occasions, f*** is exactly the right word. Nothing else would convey your meaning.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
dagda, I'll accept you
July 22, 2007 - 18:31 ET by hydrodynDMdagda,
I'll accept you characterizing my stance as elitist - as long as I'm sure you understand it.
I didn't say anything about the historical origins or evolution of vulgarity within our culture.
I also didn't exclude the use of vulgarity by intelligent people (as I said, it sometimes gets the point across). For someone with a brain, it's just one more tool in their linguistic toolbox - to be used when it's appropriate.
My point is, that words like "f*ck" and "s*it" are so vague that they are attractive to people who have a hard time (because their not so smart) clearly and precisely expressing their thoughts or feelings. Rather than using the mental energy to find the right word (assuming they have it stored somewhere in their head), its just easier to fall back on a swear word.
And to be clear, I am equating mental laziness with lack of intelligence.
But I will grant, that some intelligent people (especially teens) might use vulgarity as a way of expressing who they are or out of habit (if that's the way everyone around them speaks). I just don't think these represent the majority of those who use vulgarity on a regular basis.
/agree
July 23, 2007 - 11:14 ET by Challenger GrimQFT man.
And to be clear, I am equating mental laziness with lack of intelligence.
Truer words were never spoken.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Not in the same way!
July 22, 2007 - 21:01 ET by PawpawNThese so called intellects you have quoted, did they use it[the f word] the way people use it now? I don't think so. If you have proof otherwise, let us all know.
Jonson reference
July 23, 2007 - 11:22 ET by dagdaJonson uses it in his play Epicoene; or the Silent Woman. He describes a bird as a "windfucker." Now, in doing many hours of research in a major university library, the best the research librarians (amazing how many volunteered to help in my search) and I could come up with was that "fuck" originally meant to beat. So the phase "I am going to fuck him up" probably is the original meaning of the word.
However, language changes and the English language changes the most. It is the most fluid of all languages. "That's gay" has had at least three different meaning in the last 50 years. 1. That is fun. 2. That is homosexual. 3. That is bad. The same has happened with fuck over the years. New meaning and connotations have been added.
BTW, the OED does not cover the meanings of words like fuck. It is too elitist to do so. You have to go to the Dictionary of Slang.
I do not remember exactly which play Shakespeare uses it in and what the exact reference was. I am more a Jonson scholar than Shakespeare. However, I remember seeing it in one of his plays in the First Folio.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Dag
July 23, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Noel SheppardDag,
http://www.answers.c... . ns
Noel
July 23, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dagdaWe were looking for the source of the word and finally found it by parsing the word. Even then we were not sure. Answers.com is a good source but I would rather depend on an academic library. Still, thanks for the reference, Noel. Appreciate it.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Dagda, I'm perfectly fine
July 23, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Challenger GrimDagda, I'm perfectly fine with using the right word in the right context and meaning.
I'm NOT ok with using a word in the wrong context/meaning. As many of us are trying to point out, with a lot of these people, there are PLENTY of other words which can convey the meaning these posters are aiming for but they don't bother.
It'd be like if I was trying to refer to someone as illerterate (assuming I can spell it) but instead just decided to go with, "Why that moron is so squishy!"
Ummm.... no, use the right word for the right circumstances. (I did love a lot of the wordplay that was in Firefly/Sernity. Especially their use of Chinese for swearing. =)
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
I can only reiterate what
July 22, 2007 - 18:09 ET by AJI can only reiterate what most everyone else is saying: when you start swearing, you've been backed into a corner and you know you have been defeated but can't accept it. It seems to me that people who swear constantly seem to not even heed the meaning of the words that they say. As a matter of fact they don't even care what it means: it just sounds "good" because it apparently furthers their argument. When I listen to people flounder around with swear words, I can't help but laugh because 9 times of out 10, those people are using vulgarities way out of context and I can instantly tell that they are losing their footing in the argument. They just say it because, as many of you have noted, they think it's okay. So much for moral values and a sense of respect to fellow human beings.
I go to liberal blogs from
July 22, 2007 - 18:12 ET by entI go to liberal blogs from time to time and what always strikes me is the low level of English skills in the comments - no capitalization, bad spelling, confused or non-existent punctuation, etc. There's nary a grammatical sentence to be found in most threads.
When I come back here, it's refreshing to be able to read the writings of people who can express themselves coherently. This is true of most conservative blogs.
Aside from the mechanics of writing, the general level of discourse is much higher here, as well. Like night and day, really. And then, there’s the vulgarity.
I think it says something about the intelligence and education of the contributors.
Exactly, all the poor
July 22, 2007 - 18:31 ET by AJExactly, all the poor spelling and other grammatical errors just makes it much worse for them. You know, there's a difference between a few typos and blatant laziness. But again, it's like talking to a wall when you actually offer advice to them where you tell them to spell better and use correct punctuation as it will help their argument. They just shrug their shoulders and say "i doont care,.,"
Potty keyboards...
July 22, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Army BratI just want to ask em', "Do you type e-mails to your mother with that keyboard?" Happy Trails...
Army Brat
July 22, 2007 - 20:17 ET by Noel SheppardAB,
Excellent. Nicely said!!! ns
Foul Language
July 22, 2007 - 20:44 ET by pbthinkerI used to tell my kids that the only reason, for using language like that is, you don't know enough words. William F. Buckley always had a smile on his face as he was, verbally putting someone in their place, and I never heard a foul word from his mouth. You also have to think, to be able to do that and, from some of the comments I read on these sites, it's obvious not a great deal of thought goes into them.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It's about "how far can you push"
July 22, 2007 - 21:28 ET by ThisnThatI think the common use of swearing, vulgarity, anti-semitsm, in part has to do with the general breakdown of society. The left has always wanted to destroy traditional values. This is only one of the many attacks on common decency that is being fought every day. They want to push the envelop everywhere, gain a foothold, then claim victory. The assault on the language; the attacks on religion (in particular, Christianity); abortion; and many other areas are constantly wearing down society.
Note that the left likes to say "swearing is ok" -- but, use words like niggardly, queer, natty ho, and Christmas -- and the left goes ballistic, demanding that the perpetrator lose his job, appologize 1000 times, and gets thrown in jail. Vulgarity, however, is easily accepted with applause and high regard.
Shame on us for accepting this bass-ackwards view of the world.
I Think Mr. Sheppard’s
July 23, 2007 - 00:23 ET by RDWI Think Mr. Sheppard’s essay states it just about right. The coarseness of language on the left has become part of the liberal cant.
This language also includes the counterpoints of debate by creating an illiberal politically correct language. Ironically this seems to include high school vulgarity. It should be noted that Berkeley Linguistics professor George Lakoff has professed to have the answer to counter the conservative movements command of ideas and philosophy, what else? Change the language but not the ideas in the message.
“Professor Lakoff has found the solution to the takeover of America by the "Daddy" party of the Republicans.” He states; “Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that. Look at Schwarzenegger, who says nothing about the issues. The Democrats ask, How could anyone vote for this guy? They did because he put forth an identity. Voters knew who he is.”
Schwarzenegger IMO is no conservative. However on his other points, I agree with the professor. Especially about liberals “They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity.”
Funny though, I really don’t think he is getting much help in the language department from his leftist serfs.
Wow. Reading about this
July 23, 2007 - 10:19 ET by JohnMWow. Reading about this reminded me of something that happened to me, and that I hadn't thought of in many years.
One Saturday when I was 14, my Dad took me to a job site to help him finish installing lights for a small shop that was to open on Monday. Also on the site were three fellows in their 20's who were installing the dropped-ceiling.
Within minutes I must have looked ridiculous - standing there with my eyes wide and mouth hanging open, in total shock! Every other word, and I mean precisely that: every other word was some variation of f*** . "I was at my f-ing house and f-ing Charlie f-ing called and f-ing told me that his f-ing kid had f-ing wrecked his f-ing car..."
We were there for about 5 hours, and the torrent of this stuff was non-stop.
Seeing my shock, my Dad took me aside and instructed me to pay attention to what I heard, and to think carefully before I spoke. He told me that some people choose to speak this way, and that it would never be appropriate in his family. He did not disparage or make any judgment about the people who were talking this way.
On the way home he asked me what I thought.
I told him that I felt numb, that my brain wasn't working. I told him that I knew it was "foul language", but that after hearing so much of it, it had no meaning anymore. It was just filler, and it was like a way of saying "um", or taking a breath the middle of the thought. I wondered if they knew what it sounded like to others. I concluded that they had as little respect for themselves as they were showing to me.
As an adult, I may occasionally use such language (like if I've just drilled a high-speed bit into my finger), but never in ordinary discourse.
However, I realize that such language may be used, whether consciously or not, because of its peculiar power: the power to de-sensitize. This is similar to the kind of language that turns an "adversary" into a "monster".
It has a purpose and a goal: to reduce clear and rational thought to unsortable muddle, and to numb the workings of the thinking mind.
I am not surprised, Noel, that you found what you did. I think it is part of the liberal agenda to de-sensitize thoughtful people, and the use of vulgarity is just one language tool for that purpose.
Using the f word
July 23, 2007 - 10:28 ET by dagdaI was raised in a house where the f word was never used. Some years later I worked in a plant that printed paperback books. The f word was used every third or fourth word. It was used so much that it became meaningless. The women used it just as much as the men. It became a part of my vocabulary as well.
Now I use it sparingly, but on occasion it is exactly the right word to use.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower