Editor opposes decency standards

By Connor de Bruler

Opinion Editor

Connor de BrulerI love vulgarity. 

For the sake of clarity, I’m not going to censor myself in this column. If any readers still want to pretend they’re not a free-thinking adult capable of reading “bad words,” now would be a good time to turn the page.  

I said the word "fuck” for the first time when I was in fourth grade. It was a wonderful guilty pleasure similar to lighting a stolen cigarette behind a Waffle House dumpster. 

The latest vulgar phrase I’ve added to the annals of my filthy mind isn’t even in English. It’s an Afrikaans sentence: “Gaan kak op jou ma se poes!” I dare any reader to plug that into a translator. 

I think vulgarity enhances language. What’s the harm of using words? Cutting words in half and mixing them severely diminishes a language and individuals’ ability to articulate. “Brb” and idk” are not words. I’m aware “fuck” is an acronym by most accounts, but my issue is not only with acronyms. I hate it when people substitute numbers for words too. 

Vulgarity, as defined by my built-in computer dictionary, can be a crude and/or tasteless remark, joke, idea or act. I’ve always thought crudeness and, especially, tastelessness were subjective. Who’s to say if a joke is in bad taste? It depends on your perspective. 

The late George Carlin, a legendary comic infamous for his use of vulgarity, once said, “You can appreciate a joke that incorporates the word ‘nigger’ if Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor tell it. The same joke becomes offensive if someone of non-African heritage tells it. It’s not really the word; it’s the asshole saying it.” 

Wikipedia defines vulgarity as being common, coarse or unrefined. Indeed, the word’s etymology can be traced to the Latin word “vulgaris” meaning “of the common people.” 

We have stigmatized our roots as people. Culturally speaking, we could easily remove the momentum from these words. It’s never the words that actually offend anyway; it’s the manner in which they’re used. I’d still be mad if my future kid told me to “fuck off” because of his disrespectful implication, not his usage of a forbidden corner of English vocabulary. 

I’d rather my kid cuss after falling off a bike than say something like “lol” in a conversation. 

I still stand behind a traditional approach to the English language, emancipated from the scourge of acronyms and numbers. College and high school students are inducing a kind of linguistic inertia with textisms. 

I don’t think it’s OK to insert profanities into every nook and cranny of your daily speech, nor should we have an over-reliance on any single word. 

Allowing kids to cuss more often and read books they might find more stimulating could be a great way to fight illiteracy. I’ll admit, this idea is pretty typical of a token liberal such as myself. When it comes to language, however, I’m a pretty hard-line conservative, despite my lackluster writing. 

Here’s my conclusion (before I lose track); when society is not only censoring ideas but the very words we are using, we are creating rampant ignorance. 

There was a kid named Charlie from the Bronx in my third grade class who could already swear fluently. He was a hero for all of us Southern Puritan children. I first met him in time-out. I asked him what he did, to which he replied, “Sayin’ bad woyds.” I got a real English education that day.