5 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThis 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.