5 ms·

The legal history of "fuck" (2007) [pdf]

49 points by jjguy 15y ago

JonnieCache 15y ago
My, what an enormous quantity of footnotes. There is more footnote than paper. It seems to be largely an excuse to not bother planning and structuring your essay properly. Very interesting though. My fuck related question: why do some people on the internet self censor with asterisks in their postings? F*ck and so on. I have tried many times to imagine a logical thought process that could lead to this behaviour, but I cannot. Perhaps someone here who does this can enlighten me?
- corin_ 15y ago
  Usually it's used entirely pointlessly, but the original logic behind it is that those who know the word (in simple terms: adults) will realise what is meant, and those who don't know the word (children) won't be badly influenced.
  - aprescott 15y ago
    Until they graduate into adulthood when suddenly this knowledge is bestowed upon them!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tmhedberg 15y ago
  Though I agree that it doesn't make logical sense, there is a perception that self-censoring in that manner makes the word more socially palatable. The reality, of course, is that everyone who reads it knows what word you mean and thinks it to themselves as they read it, defeating the point of the censorship to begin with. It's not as if the 'u' is the letter that carries the bulk of the offensiveness, and by omitting it one can make the word less taboo. The only legitimate reason I can think of to do that is when writing in a forum which imposes automatic censorship, i.e. your post will be rejected if it contains that particular sequence of characters. If you're writing for that kind of audience, though, you're probably better off just avoiding the word entirely.
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > It's not as if the 'u' is the letter that carries the bulk of the offensiveness, and by omitting it one can make the word less taboo. I believe the letter 'u' is particularly selected for omission, because, as the only vowel of the word 'fuck,' it is considered to be its "core" sound.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      This is indeed related to the bizzarre practices of bleeping swearwords on TV, which as you say implies that vowels are the things which are really dirty. Back when he was a radio DJ, Ricky Gervais used to get a lot of milage out of discussing the art of Kunst, the philosophy of Kant, and fellow DJs Sarah and Carl Cox at 2 in the afternoon.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  I think of it as the same sort of drive that gets people to add "(NSFW)" to links and such. A common courtesy to the minority of people for whom the word itself is jarring, as well as those who are behind filters that actually scan page content for keywords and then block.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    >those who are behind filters that actually scan page content for keywords and then block. That actually makes sense. >the minority of people for whom the word itself is jarring Are these people so upset by the word that their brains fail to parse it when one vowel is obscured? Everyone else seems to know immediately what it means without any extra cognitive effort. If they actually can't parse it, what happens then? Do they just internally shout "LALALALALALA I'M NOT READING!" and quickly carry on with the sentence before they second-guess their own sense of shame? As I said, I really get twisted up trying to imagine it. We've all seen that thing where you can still read sentences with jumbled words as long as the first and last letters remain the same. Plus, the set of words taboo enough to censor in this way is so small that you could blank out all of the letters and I'd still be able to immediately know what was said just by the context. EDIT: I've just realised, there is a precedent that long predates the internet: the jewish(?) practice of writing g-d instead of god. This is obviously associated with the general abrahamic thing about the name of god being forbidden which is present in islam as well.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      > Are these people so upset by the word that their brains fail to parse it when one vowel is obscured? You're at your mom's house, eating dinner. Suddenly, you realize that a call to nature must be answered, urgently. Which phrase do you use? "Mom, hold that thought, I gotta take a shit" "Excuse me for a moment, I need to use the bathroom"
      - JonnieCache 15y ago
        That's utterly different. When someone says "use the bathroom," my unconscious brain doesn't automatically substitute it with "take a shit" in the parsing process, which is what happens with bleeped swearwords on TV and with f*ck style censorship on the page. "Go to the bathroom" and "take a shit" are completely separate phrases, they don't even necessarily refer to the same activity. It's not even really a euphemism.
- goblin89 15y ago
  You probably should read the paper ;) I guess if one writes f*ck, one does not technically break the taboo, while feeling ‘the thrill of doing something that is forbidden’—observing that taboo. That's how the taboo word is perpetuated through its use (see p. 1724).
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    I have read the paper. That section of the paper dealt with using euphemisms such as the f-word and so on, which is a different thing. While it may be similar to f%ck in that we all know what is meant, it is different in that f§ck is literally the same word as fuck. His other discussions about self-censorship relate to people choosing to not say fuck at all, in any form. This again is a very different question. At no point does he address the seeming cognitive dissonance inherent in typing f*ck in written dialog.
    - goblin89 15y ago
      Sorry. You're correct, he doesn't address that issue directly. Although I think it's still related to self-censorship in some way. Probably it's a way one can draw attention to the very fact of self-censorship. Writing f%ck is also somewhat similar to saying, e.g., hot damn. One makes clear their intention to say ‘God’ while staying in safe zone.
- sambeau 15y ago
  I doesn't surprise me. I once typeset a book on the etymology of the word 'fiddle' which had footnotes that, in places, not only took up 80%+ of the page but some that contained diagrams. I had to draw a line at the footnotes that contained footnotes though.
  - jackowayed 15y ago
    As much as I'm usually opposed, that sounds like a time when you should switch to end notes. If your footnotes are extremely detailed and one can read your paper without them, put them at the end for those who care about all those details so that more casual readers can ignore them. And if you have that high of a footnote:content ratio and don't believe that one can read the paper without the footnotes, then I think it is time to revisit what belongs in the footnotes vs. in the main content.
- anatoly 15y ago
  Do you feel similarly unenlightened about using the term "the f-word", or is that easier to understand than using f*ck?
  - X-Istence 15y ago
    What f word? Are we talking about? Foul? Folly? Full? Fickle? Fat? (btw, some people have started censoring this with f-word when talking about someone that is fat, kids camps are particularly bad in this regard, fat is considered a swear word!) What makes fuck so different from any other word that society has demanded that we replace it with beeps and or "f-word" when in reality they are both the same thing? Instead of teaching kids that it is a really bad word and that it should never be said how about we start teaching them what it means, when it is appropriate and when it is not?
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    The f-word, although it still sounds slightly silly to my ears, actually makes sense because it's a euphemism. It's a contraction of "the word beginning with F" and when you say "the f-word" you are not saying "fuck" but simply referring to it, even though in practice everyone still knows what you mean. My confusion with f&ck is that you're still saying fuck. There's absolutely no difference between fuck and f!ck except for the 25% difference in the symbols committed to the page. This implies that it is the particular combination of geometric forms that is offensive or shocking, rather than the sentiment they represent, and I don't believe that this is what people actually think. However there is no other conclusion that I can see, other than widespread cognitive dissonance. I don't mean to and sound superior or arrogant, although I accept that I probably do. I only bring it up because I sincerely want to understand better. The other thing I have noticed about this phenomenon is that it is not restricted to conservative or particularly public arenas, or even to ones with a general expectation of professionalism like this one. I have recently seen it in discussions between activist types about recent episodes of police brutality: "The UC Davis police are utter c*nts." This was in a context where people routinely discuss civil disobedience and disregard for authority, certainly not somewhere anybody would be offended by such language, and not somewhere you would expect people to be reinforcing taboos around speech and self-expression.
- Mz 15y ago
  "My fuck related question: why do some people on the internet self censor with asterisks in their postings? F*ck and so on. I have tried many times to imagine a logical thought process that could lead to this behaviour, but I cannot. Perhaps someone here who does this can enlighten me?" In addition to what other people here have said: Some online forums will asterisk out swear words (at least some of them, based on how bad they think various words are, and on such a forum you can bet money that fuck will be censored). So substituting an asterisk for one letter is a way to get past the filters and say what you want. Then it becomes habit.
skeltoac 15y ago
"Fuck’s continued vitality is even more amazing when compared to the fate of its sixteenth century synonyms: jape and sarde are virtually unknown; Chaucer’s swive is archaic; and occupy returns to English with a nonsexual meaning." Apparently "occupy" was during 16c.-17c. a euphemism for "have sexual intercourse with," which caused it to fall from polite usage. This gives new meaning to the contemporary Occupy Wall Street movement.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  A new meaning that probably isn't far from what they mean now--I could imagine them being called "Fuck Wall Street" pretty easily.
- pamelafox 15y ago
  I have to admit that I have made "occupy my pants" jokes numerous times in the past few weeks, and reading this bit of trivia just gives me more reason to continue with my immaturity. :)
pamelafox 15y ago
When I took linguistics, we studied "expletive infixation" in two of our courses -- and in American English, the main example of that is the word "fuck", as in "abso-fucking-lutely". My first professor had no problems leading the class with that example, whilst my second professor became very timid during that lesson and had us use "bloody" from British English instead. It's amusing to me that even linguistic professors can become shy at the sound of an obscene word -- the taboo-ness is that ingrained into us. More on expletive infixation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive_infixation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive_infixation
garethsprice 15y ago
Disappointed that the author missed out the notable case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), frequently referenced in England's Private Eye magazine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation)

49 points by jjguy 15y ago

My, what an enormous quantity of footnotes. There is more footnote than paper. It seems to be largely an excuse to not bother planning and structuring your essay properly. Very interesting though. My fuck related question: why do some people on the internet self censor with asterisks in their postings? F*ck and so on. I have tried many times to imagine a logical thought process that could lead to this behaviour, but I cannot. Perhaps someone here who does this can enlighten me?

corin_ 15y ago
Usually it's used entirely pointlessly, but the original logic behind it is that those who know the word (in simple terms: adults) will realise what is meant, and those who don't know the word (children) won't be badly influenced.
- aprescott 15y ago
  Until they graduate into adulthood when suddenly this knowledge is bestowed upon them!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tmhedberg 15y ago
Though I agree that it doesn't make logical sense, there is a perception that self-censoring in that manner makes the word more socially palatable. The reality, of course, is that everyone who reads it knows what word you mean and thinks it to themselves as they read it, defeating the point of the censorship to begin with. It's not as if the 'u' is the letter that carries the bulk of the offensiveness, and by omitting it one can make the word less taboo. The only legitimate reason I can think of to do that is when writing in a forum which imposes automatic censorship, i.e. your post will be rejected if it contains that particular sequence of characters. If you're writing for that kind of audience, though, you're probably better off just avoiding the word entirely.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > It's not as if the 'u' is the letter that carries the bulk of the offensiveness, and by omitting it one can make the word less taboo. I believe the letter 'u' is particularly selected for omission, because, as the only vowel of the word 'fuck,' it is considered to be its "core" sound.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    This is indeed related to the bizzarre practices of bleeping swearwords on TV, which as you say implies that vowels are the things which are really dirty. Back when he was a radio DJ, Ricky Gervais used to get a lot of milage out of discussing the art of Kunst, the philosophy of Kant, and fellow DJs Sarah and Carl Cox at 2 in the afternoon.
pavel_lishin 15y ago
I think of it as the same sort of drive that gets people to add "(NSFW)" to links and such. A common courtesy to the minority of people for whom the word itself is jarring, as well as those who are behind filters that actually scan page content for keywords and then block.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  >those who are behind filters that actually scan page content for keywords and then block. That actually makes sense. >the minority of people for whom the word itself is jarring Are these people so upset by the word that their brains fail to parse it when one vowel is obscured? Everyone else seems to know immediately what it means without any extra cognitive effort. If they actually can't parse it, what happens then? Do they just internally shout "LALALALALALA I'M NOT READING!" and quickly carry on with the sentence before they second-guess their own sense of shame? As I said, I really get twisted up trying to imagine it. We've all seen that thing where you can still read sentences with jumbled words as long as the first and last letters remain the same. Plus, the set of words taboo enough to censor in this way is so small that you could blank out all of the letters and I'd still be able to immediately know what was said just by the context. EDIT: I've just realised, there is a precedent that long predates the internet: the jewish(?) practice of writing g-d instead of god. This is obviously associated with the general abrahamic thing about the name of god being forbidden which is present in islam as well.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    > Are these people so upset by the word that their brains fail to parse it when one vowel is obscured? You're at your mom's house, eating dinner. Suddenly, you realize that a call to nature must be answered, urgently. Which phrase do you use? "Mom, hold that thought, I gotta take a shit" "Excuse me for a moment, I need to use the bathroom"
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      That's utterly different. When someone says "use the bathroom," my unconscious brain doesn't automatically substitute it with "take a shit" in the parsing process, which is what happens with bleeped swearwords on TV and with f*ck style censorship on the page. "Go to the bathroom" and "take a shit" are completely separate phrases, they don't even necessarily refer to the same activity. It's not even really a euphemism.
goblin89 15y ago
You probably should read the paper ;) I guess if one writes f*ck, one does not technically break the taboo, while feeling ‘the thrill of doing something that is forbidden’—observing that taboo. That's how the taboo word is perpetuated through its use (see p. 1724).
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  I have read the paper. That section of the paper dealt with using euphemisms such as the f-word and so on, which is a different thing. While it may be similar to f%ck in that we all know what is meant, it is different in that f§ck is literally the same word as fuck. His other discussions about self-censorship relate to people choosing to not say fuck at all, in any form. This again is a very different question. At no point does he address the seeming cognitive dissonance inherent in typing f*ck in written dialog.
  - goblin89 15y ago
    Sorry. You're correct, he doesn't address that issue directly. Although I think it's still related to self-censorship in some way. Probably it's a way one can draw attention to the very fact of self-censorship. Writing f%ck is also somewhat similar to saying, e.g., hot damn. One makes clear their intention to say ‘God’ while staying in safe zone.
sambeau 15y ago
I doesn't surprise me. I once typeset a book on the etymology of the word 'fiddle' which had footnotes that, in places, not only took up 80%+ of the page but some that contained diagrams. I had to draw a line at the footnotes that contained footnotes though.
- jackowayed 15y ago
  As much as I'm usually opposed, that sounds like a time when you should switch to end notes. If your footnotes are extremely detailed and one can read your paper without them, put them at the end for those who care about all those details so that more casual readers can ignore them. And if you have that high of a footnote:content ratio and don't believe that one can read the paper without the footnotes, then I think it is time to revisit what belongs in the footnotes vs. in the main content.
anatoly 15y ago
Do you feel similarly unenlightened about using the term "the f-word", or is that easier to understand than using f*ck?
- X-Istence 15y ago
  What f word? Are we talking about? Foul? Folly? Full? Fickle? Fat? (btw, some people have started censoring this with f-word when talking about someone that is fat, kids camps are particularly bad in this regard, fat is considered a swear word!) What makes fuck so different from any other word that society has demanded that we replace it with beeps and or "f-word" when in reality they are both the same thing? Instead of teaching kids that it is a really bad word and that it should never be said how about we start teaching them what it means, when it is appropriate and when it is not?
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  The f-word, although it still sounds slightly silly to my ears, actually makes sense because it's a euphemism. It's a contraction of "the word beginning with F" and when you say "the f-word" you are not saying "fuck" but simply referring to it, even though in practice everyone still knows what you mean. My confusion with f&ck is that you're still saying fuck. There's absolutely no difference between fuck and f!ck except for the 25% difference in the symbols committed to the page. This implies that it is the particular combination of geometric forms that is offensive or shocking, rather than the sentiment they represent, and I don't believe that this is what people actually think. However there is no other conclusion that I can see, other than widespread cognitive dissonance. I don't mean to and sound superior or arrogant, although I accept that I probably do. I only bring it up because I sincerely want to understand better. The other thing I have noticed about this phenomenon is that it is not restricted to conservative or particularly public arenas, or even to ones with a general expectation of professionalism like this one. I have recently seen it in discussions between activist types about recent episodes of police brutality: "The UC Davis police are utter c*nts." This was in a context where people routinely discuss civil disobedience and disregard for authority, certainly not somewhere anybody would be offended by such language, and not somewhere you would expect people to be reinforcing taboos around speech and self-expression.
Mz 15y ago
"My fuck related question: why do some people on the internet self censor with asterisks in their postings? F*ck and so on. I have tried many times to imagine a logical thought process that could lead to this behaviour, but I cannot. Perhaps someone here who does this can enlighten me?" In addition to what other people here have said: Some online forums will asterisk out swear words (at least some of them, based on how bad they think various words are, and on such a forum you can bet money that fuck will be censored). So substituting an asterisk for one letter is a way to get past the filters and say what you want. Then it becomes habit.

skeltoac 15y ago

"Fuck’s continued vitality is even more amazing when compared to the fate of its sixteenth century synonyms: jape and sarde are virtually unknown; Chaucer’s swive is archaic; and occupy returns to English with a nonsexual meaning." Apparently "occupy" was during 16c.-17c. a euphemism for "have sexual intercourse with," which caused it to fall from polite usage. This gives new meaning to the contemporary Occupy Wall Street movement.

tikhonj 15y ago
A new meaning that probably isn't far from what they mean now--I could imagine them being called "Fuck Wall Street" pretty easily.
pamelafox 15y ago
I have to admit that I have made "occupy my pants" jokes numerous times in the past few weeks, and reading this bit of trivia just gives me more reason to continue with my immaturity. :)

pamelafox 15y ago

When I took linguistics, we studied "expletive infixation" in two of our courses -- and in American English, the main example of that is the word "fuck", as in "abso-fucking-lutely". My first professor had no problems leading the class with that example, whilst my second professor became very timid during that lesson and had us use "bloody" from British English instead. It's amusing to me that even linguistic professors can become shy at the sound of an obscene word -- the taboo-ness is that ingrained into us. More on expletive infixation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive_infixation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive_infixation

garethsprice 15y ago

Disappointed that the author missed out the notable case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), frequently referenced in England's Private Eye magazine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation)