I recently happened across a blogger out of Kansas named Bud Norman. I think he's very good.
A sample:
Drop in on any left-leaning web site or “alternative” newspaper and you’ll notice a proliferation of profanity, of course the movies and television shows that the vast west wing of Hollywood produces are full of foul language, a similar vulgarity seems to pervade the conversations of most of our liberal friends, even the Vice President of the United States felt compelled drop an “F-bomb” to commemorate the passage of Obamacare, and this isn’t the first time that children have been dragged into it. The left regards cussing as authentically proletarian, even though the authentic proletariat is still saying grace before a meal and washing its kids’ mouths out with soap for such outbursts, and it fancies itself bravely defying the stultifying conventions of bourgeois society, even though it’s been a long time since the martyrdom of Lenny Bruce and by now what’s left of bourgeois society is no longer capable of stultifying even the most obnoxious behaviors.
A good observation. Here's even a better one:
Our newly-won freedom to spew curse words might be considered a small and insignificant expansion of liberty, but it’s hardly ample compensation for all the restrictions that the left wants to impose. Everything from %&*# to *+$@ is now allowed in the public square, but all sorts of formerly useful and respectable terms are now forbidden in polite company. “He” is an offensive word if used in reference to men who consider themselves women, “merit” and “hard work” are considered racist code in the more refined quarters of academia, of course “illegal immigrant” is not allowed to describe an immigrant who has entered the country illegally, and in the Democratic presidential race presumptive candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing pesky challenger and self-described socialist — which was formerly a dirty word — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders of being racist for using the word “urban” in their ongoing gun control debate. Try injecting any honest acknowledgment of the higher rate of criminal activity in certain communities into that debate or the related arguments over the “Black Lives Matter” movement and the police, and you’ll find that the certain points of view are now out of bounds no matter how profanely phrased. Anything having to do with sex, of course, is similarly constrained by the new rules of polite discourse.
I've been known to curse. I'm glad my comments aren't generally recorded for posterity when someone cuts me off on 35W, pretty much an everyday occurrence. I don't feel good about it, though. Norman's larger point about control of the language isn't new, but he states it well. I recommend his work. You can find the link to his blog,
Central Standard Times, on the sidebar of this feature.
8 comments:
its not just the VP. the president himself has taken liberties on many occasions to incorporate the 'middle finger' at the podium when speaking of his opposition.
he's so cool like that.
its not just the VP. the president himself has taken liberties on many occasions to incorporate the 'middle finger' at the podium when speaking of his opposition.
Yep -- the evidence of that sort of thing is everywhere.
What a load of...malarkey, I guess.
i remember, waaay back in the 80s, reagan was speaking on some topic pertaining to some claims from the soviet leader. taking exception to these claims, reagan said that we have a word for such talk that is 'rooted in our agricultural tradition'... and left it like that. i remember approvingly LMAO at the time, as well as the rest of the room.
I'm not that worried about Anglo-Saxon verbiage, since some of it is simply using one language in place of another, really. What's interesting to me is what appears to be a greater willingness to use personal attacks in lieu of an actual argument--profanity is just the tip of the iceberg, really. See Gino's comment about the President's "discreet" use of avius digitus in public events.
And if you want to cut profanity, good luck. I learned mine in the school bus, and five will get you ten that--or daycare?--is the case for about 90% of Americans. We almost got it with our mother's milk, really.
What a load of...malarkey, I guess.
Based on what I see on my social network feed and what I've encountered online, I think he's largely correct, but perhaps things are more, well, polite in your arena. I'm not particularly interested in the choice of words a person chooses, but I'm very interested in how individuals use language to control the range of potential thought.
And on that subject, Brian, lemme ask you — are you okay with what happened at Mizzou today?
are you okay with what happened at Mizzou today?
Haven't followed that closely enough to have an informed opinion.
I'm not without sympathy for the notion that some people attempt to police thought via language. But I also note that the people who claim to be being "silenced" by the current wave of PC seem to have an awful lot of time and venues in which to bemoan that.
My issue with Bud is more with his premise that profanity is "proliferating". That's nonsense. The goalposts of what constitutes "profanity" (as opposed to mere crudity) are moving, as they have moved in every generation for which we have a written record. Just to point out one well-documented and obvious example: Shakespeare is shot through with what at the time was considered pretty salty language.
That may seem like I'm just nit-picking his argument, but he actually uses this (incorrect) premise as a jumping off point to (yet another!) screed about "...all the restrictions that the left wants to impose." He wants to frame "the left" as hypocrites for being profane on one hand, but for chastising him for the language (I have to presume) he wants to use without consequence.
It strikes me that Brian's note about the goalposts of what constitutes profanity constantly changing is entirely consistent with the article's hypothesis. Think about it a minute; one person says that we don't care if a person says X anymore, and the other says....it is as if certain portions of society don't care if a person says X anymore.
And as far as I'm concerned, I do see a lot of profanity when I look at journalism from the far left, and for that matter quite a bit on the far right, too. I think I see more of it on the port side, but I've not tested that statistically by any means.
Post a Comment