Well, RightWinged, I might suggest that if one wishes to initiate a discussion pertaining to linguistics and the history of cuss words, it might be wise to learn that ad hominem attacks, especially those that are completely off-the-wall, are probably not the best way to get one what one desires.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Connie, where did I attack you? I repeatedly asked you a VERY simple question which you refused to answer. You finally at least made an attempt, but also went off on so many tangents the answer was tough to follow, but at least you attempted finally.

If it comes down to what society has dictated, then we’re in trouble. Society has dictated a lot of things I think most of us here don’t agree with.

I would answer one thing regarding your mention of saying things like “argh” when being shot, etc. Let’s stick with stubbing toe, because bullets vary quite a bit from eachother.

If you were a home schooled person who hadn’t heard “swears” hardly at all for your entire life, you might say “argh” or something (though I still think you’d likely say “shoot”, which according to you is somehow much better than saying “sh**”). But if you grew up in school where kids say these things out of rebellion, you heard them regularly to the point where they can easily become normal to you, even though you can completely control usage around teachers, parents and grandparents, etc.

I just find it dumb that anyone would be offended at me saying “sh**” but wouldn’t even notice if I said “shoot”… You may think this is perfectly fine because of “society”, but you can’t honestly tell me that makes any sense.

As for “Yo, b****”, that’s entirely different. “B****” is a term used to refer to female dogs in addition to being a derogatory term referring to women. I know at first glance this sounds like I’m then conceding your point, but it’s not and it’s tough to put this in to words. This word has a definition, which is why it was taken to be used to be derogatory towards women. It doesn’t mean “women”. But “sh**” means “crap” or “poop”, and “ass” means “butt” or “rear end” or…. This is where I totally lost interest in explaining this

Nearly fell off my chair about that one…

Nice arse whuppin’ MM.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Good analysis. People who can consistently communicate without using vulgar or crude language demonstrate a high level of intelligence, class, and dignity.

Yet people still can’t appreciate the glory of conservatism.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

cache |ka sh |

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I understand that you care, as do others… but can you tell me exactly why? Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why do you have to say anything about that in public?

Closest I come is an IM to one of my daughters with “brb…bathroom.”

Crass is crass.

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

It was an example Connie, you avoided the point… Though there are plenty of instances where that would be used in public.

I’ll give you an example more to your liking then. I stub my toe and shout “sh**!” or “fu**!”… Why is that any worse than saying “darn!” or “dang!”?

I’m not denying that society has gotten worse in the past couple generations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the acceptance of swears… though the reason they’ve been accepted may be part of the fact that anything taboo is now celebrated, and swears were once considered much more taboo. It’s been a free-for-all for acceptance of anything considered nontraditional and cutting edge, but I think “swearing” has been improperly tied in to it.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with. Just because someone somewhere along the line decided they would make a list of half a dozen or so words that were “swears”, despite having the same meanings as plenty of other words, we’re supposed to think those words are any different. They’re a series of letters put together and people don’t even know why it’s offensive, other than “that’s just the way it is”.

So again, I point you to my examples… and ask you why the ones with “swears” are worse than the others?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I think the use of some words, especially those that have to do with bodily functions, are very much a part of society’s current problems. Coarseness in speech implies a selfish lack of respect for others and leads to the type of behavior we see at Huffington Post, DK, and DU.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM

You’re still not even attempting to explain why certain words are worse than others, and you’re being dishonest by attempting to bring it back in to the realm of bodily functions, when as I said that was simply an example, so I provided you with a non-bodily function one instead.

How many times do I have to ask for a simple answer?

Clearly the cockroaches are starting to run now that people are shining a light on them. It was nice of O’Reilly to name some of the companies that advertise on DKos–I wonder how they felt about getting mentioned in the context of the horrible comments about Tony Snow. Heh. Based on Sekoff’s defensiveness and the way that comments have been disabled on some HuffPoo topics recently, I suspect that HuffPoo will be making a few changes in an effort to protect themselves from association with the most vile of their commenters. If that happens it should be fun to watch, because the moonbats will scream “Censorship!” and bloody murder at not being able to post any filth they want. And then the worst of them will go off and infect some other site, making it not just evil but concentrated evil. Which will in turn give our side even more ammunition to show normal Americans how hate-filled and vile left-wing lunatics are.

A guy now runs a pedophile site, with pictures of young girls (he takes at public parties/gatherings), and tips on how not to be caught by the police as a pedophile…the police and no one else can’t do anything about him because he has never been caught with anything illegal. It’s all freedom of speech.

Yes, the blogosphere needs standards if it wishes to be taken seriously. However, the MSM has lost all its standards.

Not a good night for the HuffPuffer, imho.

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Too nice. It’s the HuffPoo. Stench and rats. AP put it like it is, at the top. It comes over because it’s there, because it exists. They can’t have it both ways.

A message to Bill O’Reilly:

“Bill, the internet is here to stay. It has great value–in fact it’s value is exponentially larger than your world of old school media. And it’s growing. Bill. Do you really think that television is still the giant in the room? Bill, it’s time to wake up. Or hush up.”

What Bill refuses to understand is that Internet sites are not trying to mimic Old School Media like his. Instead–they offer something different, something that changes instantly or expands without huge cash outlays and staff increases. I believe Bill is upset because in order for us to express our opinions, we don’t have to genuflect to his rules, his show and his interruptions.

Bill’s claim to fame on his web site (which according to him he can’t waste time on) is that he has an army of people monitoring it. Well, Bill….that is great! It’s also a barrier to entry to the rest of the world. What you’re saying is: You can’t have a worthwhile information system unless you’re a large corporate entity with vast resources–and all the bureacracy, bickering, backstabbing and waste that goes with it. Nice vision Bill.

By the way, I link to Bill’s site perhaps 5 times a year. I link here EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Bill…the very fact that I posted this should teach you something. Regrettably, I suspect you’re deaf to it. That saddens me because you were once a great advocate of the “little guy”. Or at least posed as such.

I used to really like and respect Bill. When I had a TV I watched his show every night. But his growing arrogance towards those of us who either operate web sites or use them as our main source of information has become “The Most Ridiculous” item of the day.

Perhaps I’ll link on over to FOX NEWS (I no longer own a TV so I can’t surf over) where I can undoubtely read the 1,000,000th news story on Anna Nicole Smith (RIP). FOX NEWS is at least 50% tabloid.

I can’t waste my time on that. I can spend my time here.

I came away from that clip not angry at Liberal hate for Tony Snow (in former posts I said that the Unholy Trinity to Liberals is comprised of: Truth, Logic, and Reason–hence their hatred towards Tony), but instead, I came away angry at Bill for his arrogance.

Why? Because the former is expected and incurable, the latter is not.

Name and town…name and town…if you wish to opine!

Jason, Bozeman, MT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/comments/2007/03/30/44592

I notice that today they’re not allowing comments on the latest devlopments in the Iran story. Nor are they allowing comments on the Rosie O’Donnell story.

Hopefully, they’re starting to get embarrassed by all their resident conspiracy nuts and useful idiots.

From the still shot, I really can’t tell.

Is it Pink Xerxes out of costume?

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with.

In a polite, respectful society there are certain words and phrases that are deemed by common consensus as inappropriate to speak publicly, just as there are other modes of behavior that are inappropriate. These inappropriate behaviors can be, and in most cases are, regulated. This is done in the best interest of the society.

We regulate inappropriate behavior, like violence against another, as this type of behavior can be harmful to others if allowed. There is no difference between regulating public speech behaviors and other human behaviors. If swearing is harmful to sensibilities of others and/or leads to confrontation, it should not be allowed to occur in a public setting. There are some things you just don’t say in public.

You should not use foul or demeaning words or phrases in a public as as society has deemed this as inappropriate behavior and this behavior should be limited. Your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to use words and phrases that society has deemed inappropriate. You need to respect the sensibilities of others and that includes respecting the taboos on public speech. Failure to respect others is a good way to ensure that others will not respect you in return. Just how can any society hold together if respect is not a part of that society’s interactions? It can’t.

A blog like HotAir is really a modern, limited version of a BBS and should be treated as such. There are people, called administrators, that can monitor the main thread posts and delete the threads that are inappropriate. There are people, called moderators, that can monitor the comments and delete the inappropriate ones. Users that continually violate the posting guidelines can be banned. DU has this format, as does the FR and other forums and they all use administrators and moderators. I see no problem with sites like HA or DK doing the same.

I agree with this poster:

I know O’Reilly can be a little much at times, but give him points for bringing the liberal hate sites into the light. No one else with his kind of audience is doing it.

While he is extremely annoying most of the time, the above is a good point.

I should add, that’s why I’m not an O’R fan. It’s hard to conduct an interview when the voice you find most interesting is your own.

Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Common ground :)

By the way, JWF, you’re doing good with your blog. Averaging over 300 hits a day after less than five months is a pretty good accomplishment for an anonymous blogger. But you’d do even better if you had an e-mail link so that people could send you tips. Trust me.

Click on the profile and you can find it.

Did you know that the Al Qaeda handbook says that any captured members are to claim torture? Yes, that is correct. It is in Chapter 18. And now we have another example
WASHINGTON —  A suspected Saudi terrorist told a military hearing that he…

It looked like she was Puffing Up to take on HuffPo.