Fixing the Culture, Part 5 – Remove The “F-Bombs” From Vernacular

When I was growing up, the use of any profanity on television or in the movies was extremely limited, and most certainly never included the word widely known as the “f-word.” However, when the censorship rules were removed from movie productions in the late 1960s, a whole new world of profanity-laced dialogue was unleashed, no doubt in the name of “being real.” It’s no coincidence that the language used today by a high percentage of the younger generations in particular has coarsened as they’ve emulated their “heroes” on the silver screen.

It’s rather ironic, then, that the Google-AI description of the f-word is as follows: 

“It is a highly taboo word in American English, often used as a swear word, and its usage is generally frowned upon in formal or polite situations. While it can be used in informal contexts to express emotions or strengthen social bonds, its original meaning and association with taboo topics make it a common example of profanity.”

The last part of that description is instructive in understanding why the f-bomb is such a go-to word in today’s conversational English. Regarding the expression of emotions, it’s a particularly “hip” way of expressing not just anger, but a heightened sense of rage. How the word is used to “strengthen social bonds” is less certain, unless that simply means that its use ensures acceptance in groups or cliques, to be “in.”

Lately, the f-word has become so common that the Democrats are not afraid to trot it out whenever they’re on one of their frequent anti-Trump rants. There’s a purpose or two, I believe, in both politicians and everyday people using the word, in addition to expressing maximum anger. First, they wish to emphasize the point they’re trying to make, and use the word as a sort of exclamation point. Second, they believe the word may intimidate anyone who would dare to question the validity of their claims, by its sheer power alone. A classic example of this is the hapless Joe Scarborough insisting that the 2024 version of Joe Biden was the best ever, and using the word to imply that anyone who disagreed was, well, an f-ing idiot. 

The trouble for them is, like the boy who cried “wolf” too often, overuse lessens the f-word’s effectiveness in accomplishing these goals. This doesn’t stop those who love using it from trying. I’ll give you a rock-star example. When Jann Wenner interviewed a post-Beatles John Lennon back in 1970, who at the time was admittedly “paranoid” and very upset about how the Beatles' breakup was handled, almost every response out of Lennon’s mouth contained at least one f-bomb, several in some instances when he was really enraged. However, I found myself laughing and actually counting them as I read through it, since there were so many that they diminished the points Lennon was trying so hard to make.

You may recall that during President Trump’s first term, the taboo against using the f-word in public by politicians was notably violated by Rep. Rashida Talib, D-Michigan, who screeched “Let’s impeach the m-er-f-er!” to her supporters, which she knew was red meat for Trump haters everywhere. This rant set the table for what’s going on with the Dems now. It also demonstrated the yawning gap in media coverage, as Talib’s cry received scant if any attention in the “mainstream” press. Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, a conservative Republican Congressman uttered a similar epithet toward President Obama as he engaged in impeachment-worthy shenanigans?

The f-word even made it into a dignified movie, namely The King’s Speech, where King George VI, as enacted by Colin Firth, uttered a string of f-bombs at one point while trying to overcome his stuttering. Plausible? Maybe it really happened, but that doesn’t mean it had to be included in the movie. Filmmakers who sprinkle their actors’ dialogue with f-bombs seem to take perverse pleasure in figuratively sticking a finger in the eyes of viewers who would prefer that the f-bombs were excluded. Honestly, what movie’s plot would suffer if the f-bombs were removed? If one could make that argument, it would be on a flimsy premise, since it would imply a most flimsy plot that had to be “propped up” by a high dosage of profane language.

Why does “road rage” happen? I have to believe, based on what I’ve observed, that a lot of these instances happen because one driver flipped the other one “the bird,” the infamous middle-finger salute that is generally interpreted as “f*** you.” I remember how shocking it was when a sitting Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, “flipped off” some hecklers attending his speech back in the mid-1970s. Rockefeller was dropped from President Ford’s ticket in 1976, and I believe this incident played into that decision.

So once again, we who oppose the usage of such coarse everyday language are faced with the dilemma of what to do about it. And again, all I can offer is that each of us try to impact our little corner of the world, both with our own language and gentle disapproval of others’ language when f-bombs are dropped in our direction. A good instruction to others might be, “Before you flip them off, count to ten and think about whether expressing that level of anger toward another is really worth it.”