And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible. — Frank Apisa

My latin's not so good tbh. I went to a @Hanoverian grammar school where they only taught us how to speak proper Georgian English. :sad:

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible. — Frank Apisa

"Fuck" is vulgar and it is profane because that's what vulgar means right now, regardless of how the ancient Romans spoke.

"Georgian English" suggests the aristocratic langauge of royalty, and I'm not sure I'm deserving of that. I do think George II was a nut job, though, so maybe that's what you meant. I could be wrong though. My English history is a bit weak which should come as no surprise.

George III was crazy, not II. Close. So fucking close.

It was multi-layered. The comedic equivalent of a lasagne. Next time I'll just throw a spud at your head.

Hanover
4.6k

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible. — Frank Apisa


"Fuck" is vulgar and it is profane because that's what vulgar means right now, regardless of how the ancient Romans spoke. — Hanover

It has little to do with the ancient Romans.

Bring profane has a specific meaning. It means making worldly what belongs to a god.

Saying "Fuck you" is not being profane.

It is not swearing...which has a specific meaning. Swearing is the taking of an unnecessary oath...also a religious thing.

It is not cursing...which has a specific meaning. Cursing is wishing someone to eternal damnation.

Using "fuck" IS NOT being profane, cursing, swearing.

It is being vulgar...which is to say being of the common people.

It is like eating chicken only with a fork rather than using one's hands.

Rich people apparently never gnaw on chicken wings.

Hanover
4.6k
George III was crazy, not II. Close. So fucking close. — Hanover

Now that I liked!

Rich people apparently never gnaw on chicken wings. — Frank Apisa

They have servants to do that for them.

Re: George III:

He probably had porphyria, which is a genetic disorder impairing the production of "heme" -- an essential element of red blood cells. One writer, trying to argue that George III wasn't insane said that he was merely "manic". Hypomania can be quite pleasant, but last time I checked, full blown "hypermania" is a red flag for mental illness. Acute porphyria can make one feel and be quite sick, including mental dysfunction.

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?
— Brett

What makes you think I do? — Frank Apisa

I was asking because I was wondering if a person might use ‘fuck’ instead of ‘intercourse’ because the rawness feels more real, more honest.

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable. — Frank Apisa

The words have to be said first before someone can be offended. Who uses these words?

I think you’re right about this language being vulgar, ‘of the people’, as you say, the ones who eat with their hands.

They’re using it to separate themselves from a class they don’t like and they’re using it as a weapon against that class. They know it defines who they are and they know it offends people. It’s through that language that they maintain that difference. Maybe the class that uses knifes and forks are pretentious, materialistic, maybe they feel threatened by ‘the people’, but don’t feign shock when they’re offended by the language.

Brett
478

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?
— Brett

What makes you think I do? — Frank Apisa


I was asking because I was wondering if a person might use ‘fuck’ instead of ‘intercourse’ because the rawness feels more real, more honest. — Brett

I think some words do speak to things with more rawness than others.

But my point here is merely that being offended by certain words seems silly to me.

It is going to happen...as several have pointed out. But it does seem a silly thing. Sorta like a child complaining to mommy, "Billy is saying 'na, na, na, na' to me. Make him stop."

Cuss words are somewhat arbitrary but not without utility. When kids refrain from using them, it signals some degree of effective socialization and reflects well on the parents.

When properly reserved, the verboten words pack more punch if you need them to make an emphasized point. The capacity to strike a reasonable balance is a sign of maturity (hence ‘adult language’).

:up:

That makes perfect sense. People need to be socialised enough to appreciate the ‘correct’ (or better suited) situation for using such speech.

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad."

The idea is an absurdity.

But...we are going to tolerate it...and pretend that some words are "dirty" for some reason.

I sure hope the word "the" never is chosen to be one of those words.

Some words will always be bad and/or offensive to some. If they were removed people would just replace them.

On the Chinese twitter they aren’t allowed to insult the government ... so they don’t use the actual names of their leaders nor do they use obvious words of criticism.

No matter what laws are imposed people will naturally push back against them to some degree.

To say “cunt” in the UK can be friendly. Context and tone matter more than actual specific words for sure.

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Then from today start calling your father 'motherfucker' because he fucked your mother. Start calling every father 'motherfucker' under your pretense and let's see how far you make it.

Shamshir
261

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Then from today start calling your father 'motherfucker' because he fucked your mother. Start calling every father 'motherfucker' under your pretense and let's see how far you make it. — Shamshir

Fuck you, you fucking jerkoff.

Or...Hi, Shamshir.

Your choice.

I like sushi
1k

To say “cunt” in the UK can be friendly. Context and tone matter more than actual specific words for sure. — I like sushi

Yup.

Aretha Franklin used it at an inaugural.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4D9jQpecVo

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped?

"Be good little conformist robots"

Brett
489

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa


Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped? — Brett

My point is that any "language" should be considered acceptable...and polite. We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good."

Just as there are people who are tone deaf there are those who are meaning deaf. It can be insidious, especially when one is unaware of it. One may not believe it, or believe he does not believe it, or believe he does not believe ... and there you have it.

Fooloso4
492
Just as there are people who are tone deaf there are those who are meaning deaf. It can be insidious, especially when one is unaware of it. One may not believe it, or believe he does not believe it, or believe he does not believe ... and there you have it. — Fooloso4

Ummm...there you have...what?

@Frank Apisa

If 'profane' language wasn't treated as profane, but normal, would you take such obvious delight in the use of profane language by yourself and others? If it's all the same, why not just use the other terms? It's exciting to sneak into a forbidden room, but its pretty boring once it's no longer forbidden. Might as well hangout in any fucking room.

Just as there are people who are tone deaf there are those who are meaning deaf. It can be insidious, especially when one is unaware of it. One may not believe it, or believe he does not believe it, or believe he does not believe ... and there you have it.
— Fooloso4

Ummm...there you have...what? — Frank Apisa

Exactly! A fine demonstrate of meaning deafness.

csalisbury
1.8k
@Frank Apisa

If 'profane' language wasn't treated as profane, but normal, would you take such obvious delight in the use of profane language by yourself and others? If it's all the same, why not just use the other terms? It's exciting to sneak into a forbidden room, but its pretty boring once it's no longer forbidden. Might as well hangout in any fucking room. — csalisbury

Perhaps all true...but also besides the point.

My point is that arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" or "whatever else"...is a hell of a lot more stupid and childish than people who use that language.

Society tends to do a lot of that "arbitrary designation" of what is polite, or socially acceptable, or good mannered or acceptable.

Miss Manners say no one should ever eat chicken or anything else with their hands. A knife and fork are a must for "cultured" people.

I like chicken wings. I have no idea of how to eat them with a knife and fork. I'm nuts about baby-back ribs. Cannot figure out a way to eat them with a knife and fork either.

A tie and jacket are considered an essential for a work environment.

Are you kidding me?

Why?

I hate collared shirts, but I wear one each day because I work at a golf course and play golf. Collared shirts are a requirement.

Maybe one way at this is to determine where 'arbitrary' ends and 'non-arbitrary' begin. Cutlery is one thing. What if you went to a daughter or nieces middle school graduation and the principal gave a speech - 'These fucking kids, they've dealt with so much shit, but they still made it through.' Honest reaction, like if it happened irl and not just as an idea in this thread?

csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
Maybe one way at this is to determine where 'arbitrary' ends and 'non-arbitrary' begin. Cutlery is one thing. What if you went to a daughter or nieces middle school graduation and the principal gave a speech - 'These fucking kids, they've dealt with so much shit, but they still made it through.' Honest reaction, like if it happened irl and not just as an idea in this thread? — csalisbury

IF there were no words arbitrarily designated as bad...one would think nothing of it.

If the words "fucking" and "shit" were not arbitrarily designated as crude, vulgar, or bad...there would be nothing wrong with it.

If the word "fucking" and "shit" in that short sentence were not arbitrarily designated the way they are...the sentence would be absolutely as benign as, "'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through."

The notion of arbitrarily designating certain words as crude...is an absurdity. It is closer to disgusting than using those words can possibly be.

But I'm asking, how you'd react to the principal saying that. I know that you see the demarcation between vulgar and acceptable as arbitrary. I'm wondering if, knowing all that, you'd still be at least slightly discomfited by the principal's speech.

If it's equivalent to 'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through' then of course not, right? There's no meaningful difference between the two speeches.