The F-Word

paul wheaton wrote:If we were to suppose, for a moment, that the shamers were able to pass a law that nobody could say "fuck", I propose that all of the humor from Robin Williams would be 30% less funny. And that would make our world have a little less joy and glory.

At the same time, if the shamers stopped their wicked ways and the word "fuck" would be reduced to what little it is, then I think that that, too, would make the humor from Robin Williams 30% less funny.

If there were a law passed that prohibited human voices beyond a certain decibel, Sam Kinison would have had to take a whole new career path.

Micky Ewing wrote:One other thing. It's a mistake to characterise the distaste for "colorful metaphores" (to quote James T. Kirk) as fear. It's more like the reaction to someone who farts. Many find it disgusting. Some will find it funny. Nobody thinks it'll kill them (though they may claim otherwise). How a person reacts tells you a lot about them, but it won't tell how much insight they might bring to a conversation about raising hogs or building soil fertility. It might be a mistake to be too cavalier about their feelings.

I like this analogy. Some may enjoy farting, but if I'm in a crowded elevator, I tend to hold it in, as a courtesy to others. Namaste. (A reference to Paul's Keynote. It's hard to bow to the divine in someone while subjecting them to all of my earthiness.)

Furthermore, I agree that it's a mischaracterization to label someone as having a "fear" of something they don't like. Some don't like homosexuality, but to voice this is to wear the label "homophobe" or be accused of hate speech. Can't someone simply dislike something? I dislike eating squash, but am not afraid of it, nor do I campaign against it. I simply do not partake, which I think is Paul's point. Go start your own empire. I'm sure he'd even be willing to send you traffic if the content was good. I don't think he'd see it as competition, i.e. something to "fear" or campaign against.

paul wheaton wrote:I think that my two groups could use subgroups like:

1.1) people who do not fear the word, but the word just doesn't pop out

I think I fall into this faction. I don't like such language, but I'm not going to tell someone not to use it. And I'm not afraid of it either.

Paul would have to agree to it, and I'm not sure that he would, on principle, but perhaps someone could take on the task of sanitizing the podcast and making each episode more family friendly, and figure out a way to monetize it or find a sponsor willing to pay for the hosting. If the market is that hungry for a clean podcast full of permaculture information, find a way to support the empire with it. But then again, Paul may reject that idea outright just to make a point: "F*@% off, and stop trying to change me."

paul wheaton wrote:Yesterday I heard Jocelyn say "Oh fudge" and I thought: Jocelyn is living a smaller life. Because of the shamers she is saying "fudge" instead of "fuck." The shamers have suppressed Jocelyn from living a full and glorious life. To what end? Some perverted sense of decency?

I'd be curious to know what Jocelyn has to say about her word-choice, and your extrapolation.

rowan james wrote:for the best part of a decade (and I mean best in all the ways possible), I lived in Western Scotland, and the use of "fuck" as a descriptive was ubiquitous..

Don't tell my kids this, Rowan, or they will be shipping my f'ing arse across the pond pronto! On a totally serious note, I never knew why I wanted to visit Scotland (and I have, for years and years)..but I think I just figured out why.

paul wheaton wrote:Judith,

I think that my two groups could use subgroups like:

1.1) people who do not fear the word, but the word just doesn't pop out

2.1) people who do fear the word, but just don't openly shame anybody about it

And, I suspect many more subgroups.

Paul, I'm glad you recognize that those who don't use the word, and even those who don't appreciate it or want to hear it, don't necessarily fear it. I'm in the camp that doesn't appreciate it, and would like to hear a lot less of it in podcasts. The word isn't necessary for any sort of full and glorious life, IMHO.

Vaughn, I couldn't have said it better. Thank you for taking the time and care to voice a nuanced stand.

The word isn't necessary for any sort of full and glorious life, IMHO.

I suppose some folks would say the same about:

camping
permaculture
gardening
art
books
movies
music
cars

The value of this word, and nearly every other word, is relative and subjective.

Zack, I really enjoyed your post and here's why:

Zach Sears wrote:We assign words meaning, which means we take some arbitrary sound and seed it with a definitive purpose so the word in and of itself isn't in any way bad. We decided to make some words bad or off limits which is a little irrational.

When I read this, it had me thinking of my childhood and a specific word that was 'bad' if used in my household. Ironically, it was not any of the common 4 letter words thought of as 'bad' today. It was 'Lesbian'. Yes, lesbian. I was raised by 2 mothers and that word was absolutely NOT allowed to be used in our house at all. Not, because my mothers weren't Gay, but because when they were growing up in the 40's & 50's, lesbian was a horrible word - akin to being of/from Satan. That it was actually worse to be a lesbian than a prostitute. So, my brother and I grew up in the Castro community of San Francisco with 2 Dykes as our mothers...and woe be it to the foolish man (straight, or otherwise) who asked if they were Lez's.

What's funny (to me, anyway) is that I still, to this day, have a really hard time using the word lesbian - but can drop an f-bomb with hardly any thought what-so-ever in the proper setting. Go figure, right? Now, fast forward to last summer when my daughters and I went to visit their grandmas. Did I not just hear the word 'lesbian' being used in conjunction with my moms, by one of my moms...and not one person died from an immediate and horrible death? Will wonders never cease.

Zach Sears wrote:However, with kids using swear words it's the same as with a power tool, I don't let them use it because they're not yet capable of understanding the full repercussions of the use of such things.

My oldest daughter was enrolled in a private 'Free School" (or Unschool, as some people call them) that allowed swearing - but you had to be certified for it. Now, when I say, "allowed", I mean ALL the kids, K-12, had the opportunity to be certified to swear at school (not allowed off school grounds or at home - that was a different venue with different rules and kids had to figure that one out with their parents). Since I was raised in a household that apparently would have fit right in with Western Scotland's choice of vocabulary (per someone else's post in this F-Word thread), I didn't really have an issue with swearing to begin with. However, as with anything we choose to do in life, we need to know that there are consequences to our choices. So, even before she went to this school, I was instructing her on the finer points of not imitating mommy's (at home) words, without forethought, in permies. The irony of all of this is that it hasn't been until recently (since she went into High School) that her vocabulary has taken a dive in public places. Prior to this, she didn't care to swear other than in the first week that she was 'certified' at the private school (and hardly ever at home even though it wasn't disallowed). Which, if I recall correctly, pretty much happened with each kid - once they realized that swearing wasn't going to get them any 'attention', most of the kids hardly swore at all. Now though, I get the feeling that swearing is getting her positive 'attention' from fellow students/friends and that's why it's the 'new' thing to do.

Zach Sears wrote:The words we choose to use should be chosen with care and thought, with audience and the true intent of our communication in mind.

I don't recall where I read it, but someone, somewhere, said (basically) that if, "you want to really communicate with someone you need to be able to speak their language." Now, they weren't just referring to a language in and of itself - but the words of a language that people populate their daily lives/conversations with. I found this to be especially helpful in my 10+ year public relations career. Whereas some people might think that it's never a good idea to swear within your job with the/a client, there were times that it was actually good. It not only created a connection, to be talking with them in their 'language', but in doing so it made the other person(s) feel more comfortable with their surroundings (and, indirectly, with me).

Zach Sears wrote:I always just tell kids that there are grown up words that should be used judicially and if they don't understand what the words mean or how to use them they should refrain from using them just like I tell kids the chainsaw is a tool that you should not us until you have the strength and have been shown how to properly use them.

This is nice, because words CAN hurt things that are unseen - and like with anything else (even a garden) a little forethought and education before sowing can greatly impact what you later reap.

Sometimes people need to be "offended" to snap them out of a false reality. I spent 15+ years in a fundamentalist cult, where even sanitized substitute execrations were deemed evidence of turpitude. Orwellian language restrictions, even if only enforced by social pressure, are evidence of a control mentality. No one was doing me any favors by "respecting" the ridiculous manmade rules by which I was bound. Once escaped, I did my best to accommodate the verbal disabilities of others, but eventually came to realize that I was just functioning as an enabler of their condition. So now, while I don't use certain words expressly to cause offence to others, neither do I walk around on eggshells while they're around by refraining from words I might ordinarily use outside their presence.

A brainwashed person can be positively influenced by seeing normal, sane behavior in action, and the occasional (or even regular) use of "profanity" is and has always been normal human behavior. It is utterly incongruent to believe that a compassionate and decent human being will incur divine wrath or eternal punishment because he says 'fuck' or 'shit,' and that self-evident dissonance can cause people to seriously examine their false premises. In my opinion, the taboos surrounding words like 'fuck' indicate a far worse social disease than the use of the words themselves (which should be regarded as normal).

Parents, your kids are already saying 'fuck' behind your back. Just like you and I did. It won't kill them to hear Paul say it too. My kids (who resulted from fucking) had a fucked up ubringing that would have been a lot better if I wouldn't have been so fucking uptight.

Non-judgment day is coming. I saw this on a bumper sticker once. I think it was supposed to be an atheists reason for being an atheist. Just a thought; if we didn't judge others this would be a much nicer place to live.
I think Paul's use of language adds to his material he puts out. When someone speaks freely you know you can trust them.
To those who don't share Paul's greatness because of a few words here and there, only share his works that do not have words you find offensive.

I one time had a co-worker that used the phrase "Oh for the love of corn!"

This tickled my funny bone and to this day I use that phrase.

And....it doesn't mean anything. It's just a silly language thing.

I remember the summer my cousin came to stay. He tortured me by using the word "stick". Yes, "stick". He used it in place of a variety of expletives. "Stick off!" "Go stick yourself" and on and on. Why "stick" I asked him? He didn't know. It was just a word. By the end of summer he had driven me insane and I was grateful I had no actual brothers.

That was 35 years ago. I occasionally still get an email containing a "stick" reference. He is evil.

I challenge anyone who is offended by cursing in the podcasts or other media to simply just change the words in the sentence. Would you be less offended if instead of fuck, the word copulate or coitus was used? It's funny to me that because of an obvious taboo generated by our culture we have off limits words. Since permaculture is about changing our culture, we should consider that this is not only changing our relation to the world from monoculture environments to diverse permaculture environments, but changing our language to include more diversity as well and not ruling out the use of language. I feel like those who are saying you should only speak within the respectable barriers we've created for good and bad language are very similar to the people that have told me you can only garden in the traditional manner. The garden must be neatly planted in rows with like crops by like crops and tilled regularly. You must not utter certain four letter words or our neatly sculpted victorian morals will erode and the children will suffer pollution of their brains. We have to be willing to accept that our culture should be defined by others alone, but by our own personal choice. Accepting that these words exist and that no matter how many times you say them they will not hurt you is the first step to ridding the power these words have over you.

In my opinion three things could happen in regards to using the word "Fuck" :

1. Prohibtion and taboo - We have only halfway extricated ourselves from this mode . Prohibition serves only to make the taboo even tastier and meatier . We just have to go to speakeasys to have fun . Funny how they were called speakeasy . Must have been more than taboo beverages served in those places.

2. Desensitization - What a pity if that occured . We so freely use the word fuck that it loses its guttural power and it dies a meek and whiny death . We would just have to invent another word like it .

3. Glorification - We so freely use the word that the strong emotions it is used to accentuate become incorporated into our daily lives . We become a more expressive and passionate people . In the realm of human communication we remove one more cultural impediment to yield . We get to hold on to our cake and eat it too .

The desire to repress this word is the desire to repress the emotion associated with it . "No , no , no ! Not here . Not in front of everybody." In other words , do not act fully human in front of other humans .

I hope Judith does not mind if I post this :



Country Joe and the Fish . Actual video documentation to prove the word fuck is a tool for peace and helped to end a war !

A moment to contemplate how for we have come in the last 45 years . Say it loud and proud !

Thanks, Wayne...don't mind at all.......I put on the record and listened to that song and all the rest yesterday and then forgot about finding the youtube video to post here......good morning music cranked up loud!

I lean more towards music references than stand up comedy......I don't know of a more meaningful use of the word.....

Although I like the analogy of swearing to farting, I think it is also like bad grammar, saying rumors, and saying mild threats.
Bad grammar suggests that the speaker has problems finding his or her own meaning and it leads to problems in understanding the meaning of the sentence. It is unnecessary work that we have to do to understand the sentence.

It's also like saying rumors. Although it may give the speaker a fun charge to try to say bad things that might be true about others, we know it leads to feelings getting hurt and is almost always a bad idea.

Saying mild threats like "I could punch you" are not as bad as punching someone, but they give a mild shock to the audience and generally lead to more harm than good.

In all of these situations, people might say that they like the diversity of these expressions. I'm glad that we're all free to say rumors, make mild threats, and use grammar. Like swearing, they almost always make social situations worse, and if they comfort people, it's often people who are doing things that don't really need support in the social long run of the situation. They lead to more anger, conflicts, and social problems.
John S
PDX OR

Here is a poem I found :

Fuck

There are people who will tell you
that using the word fuck in a poem
indicates a serious lapse
of taste, or imagination,

or both. It's vulgar,
indecorous, an obscenity
that crashes down like an anvil
falling through a skylight

to land on a restaurant table,
on the white linen, the cut-glass vase of lilacs.
But if you were sitting
over coffee when the metal

hit your saucer like a missile,
wouldn't that be the first thing
you'd say? Wouldn't you leap back
shouting, or at least thinking it,

over and over, bell-note riotously clanging
in the church of your brain
while the solicitous waiter
led you away, wouldn't you prop

your shaking elbows on the bar
and order your first drink in months,
telling yourself you were lucky
to be alive? And if you wouldn't

say anything but Mercy or Oh my
or Land sakes, well then
I don't want to know you anyway
and I don't give a fuck what you think

of my poem. The world is divided
into those whose opinions matter
and those who will never have
a clue, and if you knew

which one you were I could talk
to you, and tell you that sometimes
there's only one word that means
what you need it to mean, the way

there's only one person
when you first fall in love,
or one infant's cry that calls forth
the burning milk, one name

that you pray to when prayer
is what's left to you. I'm saying
in the beginning was the word
and it was good, it meant one human

entering another and it's still
what I love, the word made
flesh. Fuck me, I say to the one
whose lovely body I want close,

and as we fuck I know it's holy,
a psalm, a hymn, a hammer
ringing down on an anvil,
forging a whole new world.

~ Kim Addonizio
from WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LOVE, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Paul, I thought you might be interested to know that your more famous namesake, from about 2000 years ago, is believed to have used some pretty salty language himself. In particular, one passage that is usually translated, "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves" would've been interpreted in that culture exactly as we would hear "I wish they would go f*** themselves."

Maybe it is quite telling that the original Paul could not only get away with it, but then have his words canonized. Oh yes, and be beatified as a saint. Maybe his culture knew something we have forgotten.

The desire to repress this word is the desire to repress the emotion associated with it . "No , no , no ! Not here . Not in front of everybody." In other words , do not act fully human in front of other humans .

Like Wayne Stephen said, if the reason we hesitate to use the f word is that we are afraid of what people will think, afraid to show them our true selves, then isn't that pride and fear a deeper, graver fault than using the word itself? Isn't using a "cleaned up version" instead almost a lie?

I would much rather listen to Paul (Wheaton) drop a few f-bombs while explaining how to care for the earth and care for people than listen to somebody with pristine language tell me how to get rich at the expense of others, or how to succeed in our commercial, people-screwing, messed up world. The language on the surface may not be my preference, but the message underneath is pure gold.

So I guess as far as Paul is concerned, the real question is does he really want to infect "as many minds as possible" with permaculture, or does he want to infect those who will care enough about the core issues of permaculture that they will overlook a superficial personal preference?

The Apostle Paul also used the Greek word for shit in Philippians 3:8, though English translations choose other wording. A modern day equivalent to the verse might be "I don't give a shit about all that" or "That's a bunch of bullshit." Or horse shit if you prefer.

Modern puritanical "Christianity" has little resemblance to the early church as described in the bible, or even to its more recent historical manifestations. Martin Luther, regarded as the founder of the reformation, was notoriously vulgar in his use of language, and also had interesting views on sex and marriage that would horrify contemporary Lutherans if they were familiar with them. Hopefully they also reject his virulent antisemitism. The modern "holiness" movement was started by Methodist founder John Wesley, a confirmed wine drinker, but now we have buffoons who make absurd statements like "if it takes six beers to get you drunk, drinking a beer makes you one beer drunk" and expect to be taken seriously (nevermind that Jesus himself is recorded miraculously changing more than a hundred gallons of water into wine). These legalistic attitudes are far more of a problem than the alleged infractions they are supposed to curtail.

The church was hijacked by powermongers centuries ago, and has been transformed from an agency of liberation to a mechanism of control. Establishment religious leaders are analogous to the Pharisees and hypocrites of ancient times, and would certainly reject Jesus himself today were he to manifest himself in person. Fear and guilt are the primary stock in trade. I think people are far better off obeying their own consciences than buying into the false morality peddled by the controllers (Fuck them!). It's interesting the Jesus himself stated that all of God's expectations are rolled up in two commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. If that's all it takes, why do theologians continually multiply the complexity of this simple task by insisting on endless commentaries and interpretations? Because you can't control people without a bunch of silly rules.

Chad Sentman wrote:

paul wheaton wrote:Yesterday I heard Jocelyn say "Oh fudge" and I thought: Jocelyn is living a smaller life. Because of the shamers she is saying "fudge" instead of "fuck." The shamers have suppressed Jocelyn from living a full and glorious life. To what end? Some perverted sense of decency?

I'd be curious to know what Jocelyn has to say about her word-choice, and your extrapolation.

When I was raising my kids, for their first ten years or so, I tried not to swear around them. I didn't even want them to use the word "butt" for their bottoms, or to tell each other to 'shut up.' My thinking was to foster/model/require respectful language that would keep them in and help them do better school, help them learn how to talk in a job interview or with their supervisor, keep their grandparents happy, etc., etc.

Then, at about age 10, I thought they would have enough maturity and impulse control to understand when and where swearing could be okay (or to their benefit). So I would loosen up and swear around them at that age. And we talked about these language choices. A lot. Especially when my son was a teenager and thought the public schools should allow the word fuck in his assignments...free speech ala Allen Ginsberg and all that. Though he doesn't swear around his grandparents. In his case, I think the difference is that he respects his grandparents and unfortunately didn't have much respect for the public schools. (Ah well!)

Paul knows this about me, and my general desire to be pleasing to others, so I think this is why he thought of me using "fudge" as living a smaller life. Meh.

I often swear like a truck driver. I'm soft-spoken, introverted and have a somewhat ingratiating personality, so it takes people by surprise. I'm not a larger-than-life character (as I like to call Paul). So I tend to alternate between "fudge" "fudgeruckers" "fuck" "shit" "Lord love a duck!" and whatever else feels like a fun expletive at the moment. It's fairly random, sometimes tempered or chosen because of who is around, some times not.

In my corporate career, we had one professional situation that was best described by the term "clusterfuck." It's a professional term. (Heh.) Though those of us who used that term were admittedly careful when, where and with whom we used it.

Paul creates his own content and runs his own empire. In my corporate career, I was working for others who I think would have fired me if I used "clusterfuck" in front of certain people. This is a notable difference. One could argue, I suppose, that if you are a valuable enough employee, your language should - there's that word! - not matter, or that there are jobs that DO allow this kind of language, though that can be risky or tricky for many.

Paul is not going to fire himself, nor would he choose a job where he would be required to be less than the full, larger-than-life character that he is. I support that. In addition, I'm comfortable with myself being more sensitive to others' sensibilities, even if it means living what Paul thinks is a smaller life. I yam who I yam.

We're different and that's okay and often a good thing.

Here's a FB meme that must be true since it was on the Internet

Something else from FB:


I think it's important also to consider the historical and cultural reasons why some words are more offensive than others.

English is more closely related to German than to any other language, the way Spanish is similar to Italian or Portuguese, Finnish to Estonian or Danish, etc.

If you are fluent in modern English and modern German, there's a good chance that if you were to open the original-language version of Beowulf, you'd be able to figure out what some of the words mean without any training in Old English. This is because the two languages share a common ancestry. Anglo-Saxon, anyone? Go back 1000 years and it was the same language.

Enter William the Conqueror, a Frenchman who defeated the English at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and suddenly England has a new king, who speaks French, and appoints his French-speaking friends to positions of power in and around the English court.

After a few years, the French words are en vogue (see what I did there?) amongst the upper class.

In the meantime, however, the commoners were still speaking German. So when the German-speaking farmers were raising cows, sheep and swine, they called them by their German words, kuh, schaf and schwein (and please note the simliarity to English). But when those animals were slaughtered, and their meat was brought before the king or lord, they were called by their French names, bœuf, mutton, and porc, respectively, which correspond to our words, beef, mutton, and pork.

The same holds true for our "profane" words.
Shit is similar to scheisse, the German word, but nobody gets upset over feces or excrement, both of which came to English through French, from Latin.
Fuck is similar to ficken, the German word, but nobody gets upset over the French word rapports, and in English, it's a positive thing to have good rapport with someone.

It's not always offensive because it's an "unmentionable" bodily function, sometimes the offense comes purely from the language of origin.

Moving from historical to cultural, why are we Americans not offended by British English words like wanker, tosser, bloody, twat, bugger, fanny, bullocks, slag, or uphill gardener? To our ears, these might sound a bit endearing. Similarly, why isn't nigger as offensive outside the USA as it is inside?
I don't really have answers for either of these questions, but it certainly calls for more cultural sensitivity on one hand, and less uptightness on the other.

If I'm aware of how revolting some words are to people around me (my grandmother, for example) I will exercise restraint and not use those words, and it doesn't make me less of a person, or imply that I'm leading a smaller life. Similarly, if someone told me they had a bruised rib, I'm not going to go poke my finger in it just because I don't find their bruised rib offensive or painful to me.

Paul argues the other side, that everyone who complains should lighten up, but at the same time, when he's not talking to large groups of unknown people, his "public persona" takes a backseat to engage in a more civil dialogue. When he's talking to people he highly respects, like Geoff Lawton or Jacqueline Freeman, his profanity is greatly diminished, basically nonexistent.

To refer once again to his Keynote, some people get into permaculture only to be driven away by permaculture leaders who ridicule them. "I had no idea I was getting into anything so hostile," he quotes. But he doesn't accept that some people view his language as a form of hostility.

At the end of the day, people who are easily offended might consider becoming less sensitive about the things that offend them, which is really difficult to do. At the same time, people who cause offense in others might consider becoming more sensitive about not offending others, which is perhaps equally difficult. Both choices feel like a compromise of their values, compromise in the bad sense. But it we can find a way to be who we are without sacrificing someone else's choice to be who they are, isn't that some form of People Care?

One thing I want to say about those of you that use toned down substitutes for the word fuck . You are not getting off the hook so easily . It is one thing to avoid sin yourself , but it is far worse to lead others astray . That's correct . You are leading others astray ! All these soft , fluffy terms are a form of encryption . They enter my ears and are quickly decrypted into the full and glorious words you are trying to hide . You are not hurting me . I think in F-bombs . It is your youngsters and Baptist Auntie you are leading down the Road to Ruin . You are making other people say it for you .

So, when you say :

"Get the fudge out of here!" - You make me think "Get the fuck out of here !"

"Oh , Frickin hell" - I hear "Oh , Fucking Hell"

Even something as cottony as Farmer (You Melon Farmer!) - I took the walk down the path for you : "You Mother Fucker".

Now , for example , your sweet little Auntie has never uttered the word Fuck {or even words like "poopy"} in her entire life . She has carefully chosen every word and thought , every one she has associated with , and all the places she has gone in order to maintain a level of inner verbal purity . She obviously knows the word "fuck" because she has so stategically avoided it . But now you just made her think it by saying "frick" . It's like telling someone "Don't think of an elephant !" . You just made someone think of an elephant . It's like you grabbed her steering wheel and made her take a sharp right .

What happens to your kids is far worse . You see , they don't make the associations when they are young . You were very careful all their lives to shelter them from the full power of the word fuck and all its affiliates . They only heard "frick , fudge , feck , flock" etc. , etc . Then they go to kindergarden . One day they are at recess . Some Child of Adult Desecrationists will hear your child say "Oh , fudge" and they will tell your child the truth . "That means "Oh ,Fuck" . "What !!!" your child will think . A massive , profound , and world shattering decryption will occur . To the witness it will appear your child is frozen in time for about 10 seconds . That's how long this usually takes . The decryption is now rewiring your little ones brain . It's like his entire life is flashing before his eyes and every frick , flick , and fleck is translating into fuck all at once . Imagine your child is hearing you say fuck one hundred times a second . The word fuck is now so deeply implanted into his memories it now becomes a reflex . That's what happened to me .

Say it loud and proud . Is it not better that your child hear it from you than from Rick Santorums kids ?

Hi Paul and all ya'all Permies,

I love that this thread is categorized under "meaningless drivel." The utility of every word requires contextual awareness.

What happens in conversation is people supply their own contexts: sometimes these overlap and mutual, shared comprehension is harmonious. Other times they don't overlap and discord arises, as has occurred here - then discourse takes over. Discourses are patterned and relatively predictable, which makes them amenable to analysis but not necessarily to intervention!

Paul's hint that diversity might be one of the stakes implicated by the discourse, clued me in to read the rest of his (and other's) comments as seeds for a potential dialogue. Dialogue, in contrast with discourse, allows the possibility of growth and change. Where discourse insists that positions are fixed and immutable (e.g., Paul will ALWAYS retain the right to use the F-word; Vaughn and Matu will NEVER use the F-word), dialogue suggests that these apparently opposed positions could be tempered or - more radically - actually used as the basis for connection rather than a reason for disconnection.

For instance, Paul's example of Jocelyn saying "fudge" instead of "fuck" gave me the idea that the heart of this matter is one of range and scope more than use or non-use. Judith's third category of people who don't say it often but are comfortable with those who do is an example. During the week that I was so lucky to hang out with Paul and Jocelyn and other permies during the Permaculture Voices conference, I got the sense that Jocelyn can quite comfortably say "fuck" when/if she felt it suitable, but not as many things would rise (or sink, hehe) to the level of fuckability warranting the actual utterance.

Paul has a big, deep and wide multidimensional space that allows just about anything to be 'fuckable' (that is, to warrant being associated with one or another of the dimensions of the word 'fuck"). This is what good comedians do -- the clips are fantastic! -- and probably is a reason for the popularity of Permies. Paul packages his permaculture knowledge and mission for world domination with plenty of spice. If we're willing to allow the application of lessons from mass media to ourselves, people stay tuned for the entertainment as well as the controversy.

Can you imagine Paul on Jon Stewart? Or the Tonight Show with Steve Colbert? I can!

It's probably a good thing Permies is such a fantastic resource for permaculture. On any other forum, my conscience would not allow me to support a place where such indecent principles of speech are maintained. That said, I don't listen to the podcasts, so it doesn't really bother me. Although I am grateful that such offensive language is not commonplace all over the forum. I do agree 100% with Lynn Jacobs. It isn't a matter of fear of the word, as it is the usage of a completely unnecessary adjective with foul connotations in an immature fashion. What it's harmless origins are, whether in french or sowing seed, do not matter as much as the modern definition of the word.

I think "indecent" is very much a subjective term and doesn't particularly fit in this dialogue. Feels a bit like name-calling.

Some people might find discussions of peeing outdoors and poop beasts more indecent than the language used here.

Chad Sentman wrote:
Some people might find discussions of peeing outdoors and poop beasts more indecent than the language used here.

And then there are people like me who feel that peeing and pooping into perfectly good drinking water and then flushing it out into the sea to pollute it rather than return it to the land is not only indecent but positively abhorrent.

Well played, Burra, well played. Agree completely.

I am very free myself in using the current F-word. However, with reflection and desire to not have my kids sent to the principal's office, I have discovered what I consider to be a better and much more appropriate alternative. Because F*** isn't really a bad thing, most people would like it and actively search it out, right?
I found a word that is really that bad, that captures the essence of the exclamation. And best of all, it sounds the same. Thank you, Battlestar Galactica.
FRACK! FRACK FRACK FRACK! I do not want this thing! This SUCKS! FRAAAAAAACK!!!

Frack is such a nasty word! All those fracking frackers that fracks the earth for the fracking oil.

Fracking bindweed! Fracking Monsanto! Fracking small minded frackers. Such a succinct curse word.

I like your use of the word 'fracking', Suzanner ....now that is a nasty thing....

My college friend from more than forty years ago recently sent me this video....back then she and I rode everywhere day or night on old funky bikes into many adventures....I love this song although adding the word 'mother' to 'fucking' in some other instances does bother me...oh, well ...here it is...

Burra Maluca wrote:I guess fuck is a weed in the world of words.

Maybe something like a nettle. It announces it presence with a vengeance when we brush against it unexpectedly, making sure we all take notice of it. And yet who of us who really know it would ever want to do without it?

Beautifully articulated!

As a high school teacher, I see teens quick to correct each other when someone curses. As in, “Fuck, this is a lot of reading.” I almost never see teens quick to correct someone for being mean to a peer. Somehow they learned it is worse to say fuck than it is to degrade those they perceive as weaker than them. There is a bit of that shaming here now and it makes me far more uncomfortable than Paul saying that he is fucking awesome.

When people act offended by certain words, but not the intent of those words it is because they were taught that it is right to be offended by those words, not because of their inherent badness. Most of the ‘bad words’ are not inherently bad. We decided as a culture that these words were bad; some want to challenge that norm. The versatility of the implied meaning of fuck is evidence enough. [A common argument here; just adding mass.]

Given the appropriate audience and context I tend to overuse certain words, i.e. awesome, amazing, fuck, and shit, and will choose more carefully as a result of this thread.

I like Paul and the podcasts, just the way they are. His standard for evidence and niceness means far more to me than his standards for eloquence or podcast quality.

To each their own.

Chad Sentman wrote:I think "indecent" is very much a subjective term and doesn't particularly fit in this dialogue. Feels a bit like name-calling.

Some people might find discussions of peeing outdoors and poop beasts more indecent than the language used here.

I would think that being called immature would be worst than that. But in any case, in the 22nd post for this thread, Paul brought up the subject of decency, and I thought it to be the perfect wording for this case. And at the same time, you would not find me saying frack, fudge, or anything of the sort in this context. As the saying goes, "Vulgarity is no substitute for wit."

If fuck is not a dangerous word - why can't you use it in front of kids?

I don't use it a lot personally - but that is because I am not a native English speaker and I know that swearing in other languages than your own is often a bad idea: The culture and meaning behind the word is less obvious to a foreign speaker, and I might come across as someone who tries to be something I'm not... or simply as uneducated. I have told my kids that some people are offended by some words, and I haven't heard them use it (where as their friends who can't use swear word say poop and pee-pee all the time). It is like by simply just not disallowing it I'm taking the force out of the word. I have no problem listening to Pauls Podcasts around my kids, I would have no problem listening to Eddie Murphy stand-up or George Carlin with my kids. And they don't swear... Actually I swear more than they do.

Just to buttress some of the points I made earlier: