On (Foul) Language
"Fuck fuck fuckety fuck." --Eric Cartman
This post argues against the use of foul language in most settings. I feel a juvenile need to rip it apart. I will try to make a more reasoned discussion of its major points.
One of the most important rules that every writer must observe is this: Know your audience! That includes assessing who will be reading your words, the medium in which they will do so, and what their reaction will be if you opt to use, for lack of a better term, “colorful” prose.
-->Well, sure. Don't include swear words in your cover letter for a job. But hey, you probably shouldn't include slang terms, either. It's not about the words; it's about the tone. You're striving for a professional tone. Swear words aren't included in that, but not because the recruiter's or hiring manager's delicate sensibilities will be offended. They're just not part of the "professional" subset of English.
Further, what constitutes knowing one's audience? I'm writing a blog, a public document. It's entirely possible that a potential employer could stumble across it. That's a risk I'm willing to take. If they can't handle a woman who occasionally says fuck or shit, then it's probably best if they don't hire me. There isn't the same expectation of professionalism in this environment.
First, I believe that a skilled writer should be capable of communicating without such language. An ability to do so connotes limitations that should be addressed via writing courses or seminars. In the vast majority of circumstances, vulgarity and profanity simply aren’t required in order for even a marginally competent writer to convey thoughts, ideas, opinions, or feelings to a broad audience.
-->First, a skilled writer understands the meaning and nuances of every word in common parlance. A reluctance to use a simple "shit" and instead embark on a lengthy description of something offensive or foul is a violation of the Strunk/White/Twain rule: be concise.
"Be concise" must perforce be balanced against "what tone am I striving for?" but to cavalierly dismiss a class of words as unrequired or a sign of minimal competence strikes me as highly ironic. Just because the writer of this post doesn't know how to competently use the word asshole doesn't mean no one does.
You cannot predict who will happen upon a blog or website, nor can you be assured that visitors to your site will not find questionable language offensive or repulsive. It is far better to err on the side of caution than risk giving your readers the type of experience I had yesterday morning.
-->I cannot be responsible for the delicate sensibilities of potential readers. That is their own lookout. If they don't know what blogs are, they're about to learn. And if they do know what blogs are, then they should know they're reading at their own risk. Or, to put it in language that really conveys the depth of my feeling on this subject: Fuck them. I'm not their nanny or their mother.
If you're afraid of clowns, don't go to the circus.
Which brings me to the next consideration: ... a few other folks argued that the particular term is used quite commonly in some parts of Europe and, apparently, Australia. Thus, the author seemed genuinely shocked by the reaction from American readers in general and, more particularly, women. Just as feigned ignorance of the speed limit is no excuse when a police officer cites you for speeding, a smart writer will consider regional and national variances in language usage and impact.
-->I wonder if this writer would argue so ardently if the word in question had been referring to a British cigarette and some gay folks had been offended by it.
One might as easily argue that readers should consider regional and national variances in language usage. Maybe they should consider the source when they read. "Oh, hey, this is a British paper."
Although the author apparently does not reside in the United States, he should have familiarized himself with his site’s traffic patterns and considered cultural variances. When in doubt, the conservative choice, as this example proves, is always the correct one.
-->Ah, yes, people should track all the visitors to their site and cater to the majority. Uh huh. So when China or India finally catches up and a billion Chinese or Indians are online and surfing, are we supposed to learn about and follow their cultural mores for our sites and blogs? Or does this only apply as long as the USA has the majority of netizens?
malkatsheva, I believe the above suggestion qualifies as "fuckwittery": It is a solution that requires other people be put to trouble to make up for the OP's stupidity or ignorance.
Gender-specific monikers and profanity are powerful and evoke a strong emotional, even visceral, response from readers.
-->That, again, is the readers' problem.
The stuff between your ears is programmable. You are offended by those words because you have agreed to be. You are absolutely capable of getting over it if you choose to. I do not imagine that I am the only special snowflake on the planet with this ability. It's standard on-board human software.
Restraint is required to ensure that such terms are only used under limited, appropriate circumstances. When used indiscriminately, carelessly or with an unappreciative audience, a writer runs the risk of losing credibility and the respect of his/her readers.
-->Alas, we do not all agree what are appropriate circumstances. I, too, would like everyone to agree with me and conform to my personal standards, but unfortunately I do not have this power.
Certainly a writer runs the risk of losing credibility and respect with some readers. But what readers are we talking about? On the basis of a headline containing a word that is inoffensive in the homeland of the headline-writer, but offensive in the USA (I can only assume the word in question is cunt but it might merely be bitch), the writer of this post has "...posted a comment advising the blog owner that [they have] unsubscribed and will not be visiting that site in the future."
One might imagine a wiped brow and sigh of relief from the Australian author of the offensive headline. "At least I won't have to listen to that prig whine at me anymore."