Definition Is Only The Beginning

"Bad Words"

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel on this subject. Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Showtime covered the issue thoroughly, and I think others have as well (though not South Park, I think their episode on 'curse words' was contradictory).

I will summarize; words have meaning because they are given meaning. A word is “bad” through intent. Ultimately it is the ideas of the people, and their ability to transfer them to other humans that is the gauge. And if a word can become “bad”, it is not necessarily a bad thing, or at least in usage.

If I say “Well fuckity shit.” I have used the two “worst” words in the English language. I do actually say this sometimes. Although I’m using the two worst words, the transliteration could be “Gee golly”, or simply “oh” (with particular inflection to designate disappointment in the surprise).

Half of our spoken language is inflection. The same words, or sentences can have multiple meanings based on how the words are pronounced.

This complexity leads to some interesting truths about the society. Some words become “bad”, not by their definition, not by their intent, but by what the word is describing. That is, if people hold “bad” or degrading ideas about the actual concept or idea, or whatever the word applies to, the word itself becomes “bad”.

Best example:

Hostess/Stewardess/Flight Attendant – (safety instructor and service attendant on a plane)

It is the odd nature of trying to regain prestige through verbiage that causes words to be tossed and new ones put in. Hostess (in common understanding, and original intention) is a term for a woman who is the package deal of friendliness and accommodation welcoming guests to her place. The male version ‘host’ has the same implication. So I can see it was with great honor to give the title hostess to women who gave people pillows on airplanes. But the word became sour, and eventually offensive to the women, so it was changed to Stewardess.

Steward/stewardess is an ancient word applying to the highest level of service the surname ‘Stewart’ came from Scottish Stewards. Stewards worked for royalty, often lords, they were the keepers of the land, conceptually the same as a lieutenant to a military, one who is capable and called upon to act in full authority but is only doing so while the superior ranked person is incapable. Basically the steward is the person who does all the work, has all the knowledge, and controls all the assets, but gets very little credit. Like a modern day Assistant Manager, or Vice Principal. Suffice it to say, hostess to stewardess is a step up. It’s going from welcoming someone to a home, to welcoming someone to a lordship. But even this word too fell into “profanity”.

Thus came “flight attendant”. The child of modern political correctness and corporate efficiency, it no longer seeks to inflate the implication, but rather take it to its lowest common denominator (how much higher could you go from Stewardess anyway? Lord? Queen?). Flight Attendant denotes no sex (hence pc) and defines the job, not the person (business minded). But even this word is becoming “bad”, or perhaps I should say, derogatory.

The reason is because the job sucks. It involves bitching at people, and listening to people bitch. It involves telling idiots how to put on a seat belt, and giving people pillows and soda. It is the lowest level of work possible that still serves people, and is legal in all 50 states (I’m looking at you Nevada). The shitty job will always have shitty connotations. No matter how much you polish it with uniforms and sweet titles, you’re still resolving issues of fat people taking up two seats, and inconsiderate people with crying babies (DRUG THE BABY) or sleeping on other people. No matter what word you give that job, it will become “insulting”. The job is bad, so the word that applies to it will become “bad”.

Another much more controversial example:

Nigger/Negro/Black/African American – (I don’t know what it means actually. Maybe people who are from certain loosely defined areas of Africa, or are descended from such people, maybe, or simply have dark skin, but know for certain they aren’t Indian but possibly Australian)?

Nigger/Negro/Black all meant black or was implying the color ‘black’ originally. Like Flight Attendants, but on a much worse scale. Men held captive indefinitely, not as humans, but as objects. The worst treatment of an individual possible, thus the word itself has become the worst thing you can directly call someone. Each time the word was changed to try to drop all the baggage of the previous treatment. The first word applied to slaves. The second word applied to victims of segregation. The third word applied to people subjected to continued racism.

African-American is the most recent, and most PC of them, but it doesn’t possess the “corporate-minded technical accuracy” of ‘Flight Attendant”. First it has some built-in issues. If someone is called ‘African-American’ to replace the word ‘black’, then it can’t apply to 1/100th the number of people. Someone born in Africa isn’t ‘African-American’ for example, but they probably would have fallen under the previous word ‘black’. I say probably because there’s so much more to this knot. Someone who is Egyptian is most definitely African, but probably not black, yet if an Egyptian descendant is born in America, they are “African-American” (though they would probably be labeled ‘Middle-Eastern’. Australian Aborigines are black, but not African, and they are descended from Indians who are still black but once again not African.

The real problem is that people who aren’t rich white Christian men get the ‘bad’ end of the language stick, and the descendants of their slaves are in a bad position culturally. As long as there are rifts in culture, practice or thought, the words applied will express that.

Something Penn mentioned I found out on my own in writing this, there are more words to describe “bad” words, then there are “bad” words. But when I went to look up the definitions, I found something more interesting.

I argued that many “bad” words weren’t themselves intended to be bad; they became bad as a result of the culture around their usage. That is, they weren’t meant to belittle or degrade, and they were neutral. By the definition of ‘derogatory’ these words do not apply. A derogatory word is one that belittles, or “lessens the merits or reputation”. There are other words that I thought meant “bad” but have a completely different definition.

Profane- Dictionary.com gives 5 definitions:

1.
characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2.
not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred ).
3.
unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4.
not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5.
common or vulgar.

Of these 5 definitions only the 5th shows any promise of something other than me! But let’s pick that apart next. Definitions 1-4 basically reveal that the intent of the word “profane” is to describe that which goes against Christianity (I know it doesn’t specifically mention Christianity, but come on, this is English).

By definitions 1-4 I am profane. Not just by words, but by breath. Being Atheist means 100% of everything I say and do will be profane. Just thought I’d like to put that into perspective. If I help an old lady cross the street, I’m being profane. So the word means absolutely nothing to me, and in fact is just an insult to my existence. So profane is even more of a “bad” word to me than what people would define as ‘profanity’.

Definition 5 gave some hope that there was a deeper meaning to ‘profane’ than simply “not doing what the lord tells you.’ “common or vulgar”. Common is common, it means being average is profane. Literally. And we’ll see more of that when I get into vulgar, which sadly means the same thing, but with more hatred of the poor.

Vulgar- Dictionary.com gives 7 definitions for vulgar, hopefully that will be enough to break free from Christ and commonality (one might hope).

1.
characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2.
indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3.
crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
4.
of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5.
current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
6.
spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
7.
lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.

There we go, ignorance, indecent, obscene, lewd, crude, popular, current, spoken by the people generally, wait what? Vulgar is both ignorance and popularity? They’re the same thing? Obscene and common? Unrefined and ordinary? WHAT THE HELL? Vulgar is basically anything not a part of rich people’s lives? Vulgarity is synonymous with common speech?

This is amazingly offensive in itself. The word vulgar presupposes that the “common” man is inherently ignorant, obscene, unrefined, without charm or distinction. This is straight out of aristocratic Europe! I thought we killed the English for less than this! I am completely offended by both the words ‘vulgar’ and ‘profane’! These words define me as lacking anything of value and possessing so many negative traits BECAUSE I am a poor Atheist. By these word's definitions everything I say or do is evil and ignorant and corrupt and without value. And they both say ‘common’. Essentially they apply to the majority of all humans. How can we hope to heal old wounds when our very language defines the “truth eternal” the rich white Christian man is in control, and he will always be in control.

Obviously that is an amalgam, giving that Obama is only rich, half white, Christian, male, and it was HISTORIC that ANYONE got elected while missing a PORTION of the criteria. The same would have been said if Clinton had won, being rich, white, Christian, Female. HISTORIC!

That’s where we’re at. Language is honest, people are not. Look at the words. They tell you what’s really going on. They reflect perfectly the underlying truths of this society.

Some words will always have a negative connotation as long as the word describes something perceived as negative. And other words will continue to be oppressive as they represent a fundamental ignorance in their usage. forget about worrying what to call the man or woman getting you a pillow, just appreciate that the job is necessary, and that a person can take pride in anything they do, if what they do is beneficial. I think flight crew (most recent term that has already started replacing 'flight attendant') workers are doing a necessary job. It is ignorant to try to "look down" on them personally, but if you don't know why, that would take me pages to explain logically. And stop looking to find an "acceptable word for "black" or African-American" people. They are simply people. As long as people are categorized by arbitrary means, the ignorance will not cease. As long as a concept of "black" and "white" exist, racism will exist. This is why "celebrating diversity" and other liberal fucktardery are the most racist ideals of them all. WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. NO PERSON SHOULD OR CAN BE DEFINED BY ARBITRARY METHODS THAT GROUP UNNATURALLY. There is no such thing as black. There is no such thing as African American. Any words that come to replace those words will be just as inherently wrong.
There really is so much more that could be written about this, I didn’t even get into fundamental sexism (male - feMALE, man - woMAN and especially Mr. - MRs.) but even there might lie a fundamental truth about humans (XY - XX!). I didn't cover allegory, and I’ve left all the issues Penn and Teller covered completely out of this. But I’ve definitely written enough for now. Communication has a rule of diminishing returns. Twitter really is for the people. Vulgar and Profane alike.

Capitalism and Evolution

Stephen Jay Gould argued that Darwin choose a "middle road" in his development of the theory of natural selection and evolution. He contended that Darwin neither blindly gathered facts, nor had a perfect "Eureka!" moment, rather he worked for two years on developing a picture. One of the books Darwin credited to helping him develop the idea of Natural Selection was written by Dugald Stewart, who was praising and explaining the ramifications of Adam Smith's idea of Capitalism. I want to quote the quote because I find the prospect fascinating: "The most effective plan for advancing people... is by allowing every man, as long as he observes the rule of justice, to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and his capital into the freest competition with those of his fellow citizens. Every system of policy which endeavors... to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than would naturally go to it... is, in reality, subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote." In development, Capitalism was a parent of the theory of Natural Selection. Darwin wasn't the first person to come up with the idea of evolution, the word was already commonly understood, he realized the how. Competition. All of nature, humanity, and the universe operates as a system of individual entities in conflict, bringing about a greater stability. It is elements formed, planets formed, solar systems formed, cycles formed from the chaos, the order brought more order, life being order's highest level, order able to reorder. And from life came humans, life's highest level, not only capable of intentionally maintaining order, but able to create new order that had never existed.

The Tea Parties

So there has been a lot of reporting on the tea parties. Fox had been hyping it non-stop, and MSNBC had been deriding it just as much. I spent most April 15 getting ready for the Fleet Foxes concert Joel and I worked at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, but the brief chance I had I tried to watch anything about it on tv, funny thing, Fox wasn't reporting anything on it, and MSNBC was.

As usual there's two sides to an issue reported by the media, and they are usually both wrong. The detractors (namely all of MSNBC) argued two points 1. It isn't grass roots because some rich people got involved, thus invalidating it. 2. "Where were they during the Bush years?"

Sparing you the explanation as to how these are both childish and ignorant arguments, I'll just leave it at that.

The other side (Fox, and for God's sake, Sean Hannity)is promoting it as a great rebellion and some sort of reawakening.

Here's the truth, the people doing these tea parties, regardless of their wealth, are Bush lovers who probably voted for Bush 2.0, aka McCain. They're all butthurt about losing, but they're dumb, so they couldn't come up with anything better.

Simultaneously, all the nay saying about the events, declaring them hypocritical, that no "conservatives" did during the Bush administration is just another slap in the face.

Here's what both sides are missing.

Ron Paul was doing this shit back when it mattered.

For the love of God watch this video. Not only does it show true conservatives rejecting the Bush way, it has Ron Paul predicting the economic collapse that would occur a year later.

Ron Paul was called an extremist. He was called insane. He was called every insult under the sun by the likes of Fox News and ESPECIALLY Sean Hannity. I don't want to put up all the videos, just search them if you want.

Few listened to Ron Paul. Most outright insulted him on air for almost 2 years. Who disagrees with him now? His economic policies are all anyone (but the Bush/Obama fail team)is promoting now. His foreign policies mirrored Obama's.

I tried to tell you people back in 2007. Ron Paul was the only shot Republicans had to win the election, but they chose to fucking crucify him.

Please just watch this video, and think about what you were doing in 2007. Think about who the leading candidates were back then (Giuliani and Clinton). You know who you were supporting. As they spat in Ron Paul's face. You had your chance America. There's no turning back. You elected fail for another 4 years. But you won't realize it. You have no idea what's happening, or why it's entirely your fault. You will not learn. The Democrats and Republicans will continue to control you. You don't deserve any better than a Democrat elected on "Change" doing exactly what Bush did, and Republicans who piss on Ron Paul, pretending to care about taxes with their silly tea parties only after ruining their chances at actually changing things. Remember this, everyone who said Ron Paul was "unelectable" also said Giuliani and Clinton were impossible to beat. Things could have been different.



Ron Paul's Tea Party included events across America, including a full re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party at Boston Harbor. It raised over $6 million by pure grassroots efforts. And was relatively ignored by the media.