4 ms·

I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it.

by andybak 10y ago

I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k

user982 10y ago
Hitchens was inexhaustibly eloquent and grandiloquent; his skill at using expletives for emphasis in service to his message reflected his mastery of the language. Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.
secfirstmd 10y ago
I'm Irish and I agree. Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.
cat199 10y ago
So.. article title - good or not? I agree with your point, and still also with OP.
jerf 10y ago
"I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously." It does. But "My political opponents are [swear word]" is not judicious. (Or profanity if you prefer; most Americans would not call "turd" a swear word but it is obviously merely a more genteel way of calling someone a shit, it is a low-grade profanity.) It's very common and hardly new. It may even be tactically or strategically sound for some desired goals. But it's not judicious, having the same root as judge, being similar to magisterial. Dignified, mature magistrates do not say "People who disagree with me are poo poo heads." If they are inclined to fling insults, they usually use a much higher grade. See, for instance: http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.htm http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...
peteretep 10y ago
Cunts would work much better than turds, which just seems juvenile.

by andybak 10y ago

user982 10y ago

Hitchens was inexhaustibly eloquent and grandiloquent; his skill at using expletives for emphasis in service to his message reflected his mastery of the language. Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.

secfirstmd 10y ago

I'm Irish and I agree. Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.

cat199 10y ago

So.. article title - good or not? I agree with your point, and still also with OP.

jerf 10y ago

"I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously." It does. But "My political opponents are [swear word]" is not judicious. (Or profanity if you prefer; most Americans would not call "turd" a swear word but it is obviously merely a more genteel way of calling someone a shit, it is a low-grade profanity.) It's very common and hardly new. It may even be tactically or strategically sound for some desired goals. But it's not judicious, having the same root as judge, being similar to magisterial. Dignified, mature magistrates do not say "People who disagree with me are poo poo heads." If they are inclined to fling insults, they usually use a much higher grade. See, for instance: http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.htm http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...

peteretep 10y ago

Cunts would work much better than turds, which just seems juvenile.