4 ms·
I agree wholeheartedly. As any good writing or speaking course will mention, swears are a literary crutch. English especially is a wonderful langauge for word
by simonsarris 15y ago
I agree wholeheartedly.
As any good writing or speaking course will mention, swears are a literary crutch.
English especially is a wonderful langauge for wordplay. Like most langauges we have entire genres of humor based on how and which words are used.
Most of the swearing I see on the internet is simply a lazy stab at adding adjectives or getting a reaction. I feel the same way about the (over)use as John Hodgeman does about the word "meh."[1]
I think you gain an even greater disdain for swearing with the more critical literature you read. Reading Ebert's movie reviews or perhaps Gordon Ramsey's words, you realize they have a kind of eloquence that you don't often see in everyday speech. It is because they work at it, and refined writing is beautiful, but also because they take the time to avoid lazy crutches like swearing.
[1]: http://waxy.org/2009/02/john_hodgman_on_meh/ http://waxy.org/2009/02/john_hodgman_on_meh/
- epo 15y agoWhich Gordon Ramsey? The chef? He swears incessantly.
- robconery 15y agoI think he's referring to "eloquent swearing" - meaning that Ramsey doesn't just drop an F-bomb, he does it with style :). I've heard some great ones from him - once he described a burnt omelet (I think that's what it was) as "something that dropped out of my dog's fing a*hole". You can't help but laugh at that visual.
- roc 15y agoThe exact argument against the use of profanity is that the omelet would be better described as "something that dropped out of my dog's dirty backside" or something similar. That is, there is no "eloquent swearing" exception. At all. Full Stop. Holding that profanity can be used to positive effect in conveying passion and attitude is the precise argument against the "profanity is a crutch" crowd.
- robconery 15y agoCompletely agree here. Ramsey is about shock value - something that's incredibly cliche. You have to be damn good to be able to pull it off. 99% of the wannabe-dhh's out there aren't.
- simonsarris 15y agoIt was a poor choice, I really should have come up with a better second example - I've never seen any of his shows, only read his books. I was trying to think of a respected critic with mass-appeal. Christopher Hitchens would be a better example.
- ZeroGravitas 15y agoGordon Ramsey? The angry chef that has been timed as swearing on average every 20 seconds in some of his shows?
- baddox 15y agoI've never quite understood this argument. Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that using a larger vocabulary is a good thing (and I agree), and yet you're suggesting banning words will somehow help you achieve a "larger" vocabulary.
- JamesBlair 15y agoIf one word substitutes for many, the net result of banning that word would be to raise the vocabulary. Not saying anything about the validity of the argument, just that objection to it.
- sixbrx 15y agoYeah I think this gets at a core problem of some curse words - the problem with words like "fuck" is that in the mind of the speaker, when agitated or lazy or both, the word often seems like a useful substitute almost anyplace in a sentence, and the word-search algorithm ends happily at that node very easily out of habit. To the listener, it's just noise and usually makes the speaker seem like an idiot.
- eropple 15y agoThis is certainly true. Fuck is not a bad word, and is a word I use with abandon. But it can't be the go-to largely because of its versatility. Overuse makes it less flavorful. (I have had the privilege of working with some artists whose medium was profanity, and have been accused of it on occasion.)
- overgard 15y agoThe thing is, sometimes, instead of impressing people with their wit, some people just want to get to the point quickly. SAT words are great to know, and they have their place, but to use them in all contexts isn't always appropriate and is occasionally pretentious.