Interesting piece, Ken, thanks for writing about it. For what it's worth, the two things that came to my mind are the current rules about "safe speech" being implemented by places like TikTok which is resulting, predictably, in a bunch of new slang and ways of talking around the prohibited words. The second thing is something that happens a lot in the States (where I'm from) about who's allowed to use which words, which is gatekeeping at best and disenfranchising at worst. The reason both come to mind is that they are so often deliberately performative, people getting outraged over others' language because it gives them an excuse to ignore what the person actually said and to generate enough static that the possibly necessary use of the taboo word gets drowned out, which, as you said, is what seems to have happened here. And I guess the flip side of this is that when we use shocking language to make a point, we run the risk of having bad actors throw it back in our face as a way of diminishing us. Again, as you said may have happened here. It creates this vicious cycle where we have to be better than the antagonizers or risk being overwhelmed by them. In this moment of cultural and political upheaval, the deliberate focusing on others' language to police them instead of address their grievances seems to be one of the most potent weapons certain groups have available and that makes them very...well, we have to police ourselves, don't we? And that just sucks.
Thanks Joel. As always, you add light to the conversation. I'm not sure everyone who expresses outrage at certain words is a bad actor. Some are genuinely offended. I'm inclined to think that if you choose inflammatory language to make a point - which is a legitimate approach - you should be prepared to have some people get pretty f****** angry with you. Cut and thrust and all that.
I think for me, personally, it comes down to professional or personal contexts. There's a world of difference between my parents wishing I wouldn't swear in public and a politician becoming outraged because I'm breaking decorum. Somewhere in the middle is "professional" behavior where swearing might be part of fitting in or be part of standing out depending entirely on context. All that said, politicians getting outraged is performative theater. If you're that thin-skinned, you don't belong in politics or, more accurately, if you're that thin-skinned that you get legitimately, non-performatively offended by someone's choice of language, you'll never succeed in politics.
I still remember when I first heard it on tv & it wasn't even late...slipped by the censor perhaps, about 12 yrs ago.
As a subscriber I emailed Stuff asking for 1 good reason I shouldn't cancel...Tracey Watkins replied some time later with a long-winded reply that I haven't read. The word doesn't offend but the target did, the vehicle did, the hypocrisy did. I emailed for the bluff/mischief.
I also recall when the NYT's legacy science reporter got cancelled for 'nigger' on a field trip, having been asked about its use-in-context by a student who then complained.
Your political bias shines through bright & clear here. Vance’s use of ‘cunt’ towards Nicola Willis (your silly semantic sophistry aside) was shameful. A new low in gutter journalism. Being, or not being (in one person’s opinion) a ‘cunt’ is not a particularly strong argument. Your defence of Vance here highlights the double standards, utter hypocrisy & selective morality of the left.
This is very interesting, I’d thought Australia and New Zealand were more like the UK in regard to the word.
I find the fixation with it being “gendered” and “misogynistic” very strange. Most swearing is gendered, with a him and her version. Exactly like you say regarding dick etc. As a woman, I don’t see how “it’s the worse thing you can say to a woman”. It’s just another anatomical swear word. Also a very accurate assessment of behavior. Brits use it for both sexes. Maybe also because the languages I speak, French and Russian, have genders. Even the most common shared interjection is “whore” (blyat/putain). No one has a fit over it being gendered.
Maybe it’s the Puritan/overly religious roots of some people in the New World?
I see how it’s vulgar in a mass media space, like TV or radio, but in an article and elided like you write, it doesn’t seem worthy of drama. I don’t know if the publication allows looser, more colloquial language - perhaps it’s reflective of the style. In any case, in this context it looks like missing the forest for the trees.
Interesting piece, Ken, thanks for writing about it. For what it's worth, the two things that came to my mind are the current rules about "safe speech" being implemented by places like TikTok which is resulting, predictably, in a bunch of new slang and ways of talking around the prohibited words. The second thing is something that happens a lot in the States (where I'm from) about who's allowed to use which words, which is gatekeeping at best and disenfranchising at worst. The reason both come to mind is that they are so often deliberately performative, people getting outraged over others' language because it gives them an excuse to ignore what the person actually said and to generate enough static that the possibly necessary use of the taboo word gets drowned out, which, as you said, is what seems to have happened here. And I guess the flip side of this is that when we use shocking language to make a point, we run the risk of having bad actors throw it back in our face as a way of diminishing us. Again, as you said may have happened here. It creates this vicious cycle where we have to be better than the antagonizers or risk being overwhelmed by them. In this moment of cultural and political upheaval, the deliberate focusing on others' language to police them instead of address their grievances seems to be one of the most potent weapons certain groups have available and that makes them very...well, we have to police ourselves, don't we? And that just sucks.
Thanks Joel. As always, you add light to the conversation. I'm not sure everyone who expresses outrage at certain words is a bad actor. Some are genuinely offended. I'm inclined to think that if you choose inflammatory language to make a point - which is a legitimate approach - you should be prepared to have some people get pretty f****** angry with you. Cut and thrust and all that.
I think for me, personally, it comes down to professional or personal contexts. There's a world of difference between my parents wishing I wouldn't swear in public and a politician becoming outraged because I'm breaking decorum. Somewhere in the middle is "professional" behavior where swearing might be part of fitting in or be part of standing out depending entirely on context. All that said, politicians getting outraged is performative theater. If you're that thin-skinned, you don't belong in politics or, more accurately, if you're that thin-skinned that you get legitimately, non-performatively offended by someone's choice of language, you'll never succeed in politics.
I still remember when I first heard it on tv & it wasn't even late...slipped by the censor perhaps, about 12 yrs ago.
As a subscriber I emailed Stuff asking for 1 good reason I shouldn't cancel...Tracey Watkins replied some time later with a long-winded reply that I haven't read. The word doesn't offend but the target did, the vehicle did, the hypocrisy did. I emailed for the bluff/mischief.
I also recall when the NYT's legacy science reporter got cancelled for 'nigger' on a field trip, having been asked about its use-in-context by a student who then complained.
Sex is binary...
Your political bias shines through bright & clear here. Vance’s use of ‘cunt’ towards Nicola Willis (your silly semantic sophistry aside) was shameful. A new low in gutter journalism. Being, or not being (in one person’s opinion) a ‘cunt’ is not a particularly strong argument. Your defence of Vance here highlights the double standards, utter hypocrisy & selective morality of the left.
I have heard that Vance's article was originally entitled 'the motherfucker of all budgets'. On balance perhaps they should have let that stand.
Well said Ken. Here's a quintessentially English perspective on the word: https://youtu.be/LwlOuF5cVpY
This is very interesting, I’d thought Australia and New Zealand were more like the UK in regard to the word.
I find the fixation with it being “gendered” and “misogynistic” very strange. Most swearing is gendered, with a him and her version. Exactly like you say regarding dick etc. As a woman, I don’t see how “it’s the worse thing you can say to a woman”. It’s just another anatomical swear word. Also a very accurate assessment of behavior. Brits use it for both sexes. Maybe also because the languages I speak, French and Russian, have genders. Even the most common shared interjection is “whore” (blyat/putain). No one has a fit over it being gendered.
Maybe it’s the Puritan/overly religious roots of some people in the New World?
I see how it’s vulgar in a mass media space, like TV or radio, but in an article and elided like you write, it doesn’t seem worthy of drama. I don’t know if the publication allows looser, more colloquial language - perhaps it’s reflective of the style. In any case, in this context it looks like missing the forest for the trees.