NeutralizingThe 'F' Word@ ForkUniversity

[KaiduOrkhon]

Neutralizing the 'F' word: at 'Fork University'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The two combined words - 'F U!'; as they are expressed in anger or derision, are in fact the most used insult projected in the American idiomatic language.

 

On the other hand, the 'term' is rarely addressed in an objective, unemotional, academic manner, where and when clear heads and emotions prevail.

 

Instead, the (often exclamatory) 'expression' generally succeeds in clearing an abruptly silent passage for itself, that conspicuously cuts through any discussion of it's intrusive motivation, import, or the fact that it is a principal instrument of the 'rape mentality' (As one thinks, so one may speak, so one may act out: 'F U' - the imposition of sex, where it is not welcome or does not belong).

 

This note is to remind the reader that it is the academic objective of Fork University to accumulate as many staffers and faculty members as possible, to subdue - and expose - the 'shock:eek: value' of the issued - woman hating - (male castrating) epithet, by a method of communication, approximating or surpassing the one that is imparted herein.

Contributions to this objective are requested and greatly appreciated.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Having posted the preceding message at another forum, a (female) moderator inserted the following commentary:

 

"Important even obvious questions: What is this thread about? And what contributions are being requested?" (the fact that she asks, demonstrates how far removed she is from the glaring - nationally epidemic - problem at issue...)

 

I responded:

 

This thread hopefully alludes to be the beginning of a series of communication trends for reducing or nullifying altogether the most practiced method of projecting or otherwise imposing 'shock' (often from considerable distance, and anonymously) into conventional communications; especially among people in public places like a coffee shop, or restaurant, or waiting in line for a movie, etceteras.

 

Hearing the issued epithet (and what it really means) hurled from the open window of a passing car, for example, is an everyday American experience. The perpetrator is rewarded by the loathing he induces in everyone within earshot. The subjected verbal explosion - upon it's typically abrupt interruption - often paralyzes people in mid sentence (When women exhibit this kind of behavior they are emulating amok male values).

 

Upon recovering from the stupefying verbal attack, effected people characteristically ask, 'Why do people do things like that?'

 

Whereas, the demystification of the motive - 'to stun people, often in the company of children' - is not generally understood for what it is. It isn't usually talked about, except on the occasions when the anti-social bomb is hurled. The flagrant perpetrator is perceived as an inscrutable 'magician' of some kind, rather than the desperately impotent wielder of the cheapest shot in the idiomatic English language.

 

The request for 'contributions' to this thread is a petition for others to express - to calmly talk about - their perceptions of this national phenomen, with the hope that a better public understanding of the disparaging epithet will contribute toward a dilution of its toxicity, and thereby reduce the exposed practitioner's motive for that kind of behavior.

 

The most fundamental and powerful language of the rape mentality is in high profile here: the most used verbal insult being directly related to the fastest growing violent domestic and street crime in the nation, namely the physical abuse of women and children - including rape - by male assailants.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, whenever my six year-old daughter asks, "Why is **** a bad word?" or something like that, I tell her, "Because someone, somewhere wants to be offended by it."

 

The reality is that even if you manage to strike all the profane words from the language, people will invent new ones. And that doesn't just include the potty-mouths. Rather, the people who most need profane words in the language are those who are offended by them. That is, they will find something to be offended by.

 

To paraphrase the great Ozzy Osbourne, one of the wonderful things about America is that you have the right to get pissed off. And people have certainly seized that right.

 

Although he might have said that after people got upset that he urinated on the Alamo.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is not an exemplary case of the random selection of a profane word by which an argument such as yours may be tractably presented.

 

The word '****', bereft of a negative context, might even have a positive and/or loving inflection - as you exemplify in your reflection of it's innocent usage by your six year old daughter.

 

On the other hand, when that positive and loving intonation and usage is transposited into a destructive intent and denigrating context, it no longer compliments the act which it alludes to, but, rather, insolently insults and contemptuously defiles it.

To project the innocent option inherent to the word, in a context of anger and insult, is to turn the word and its meaning upside down and backwards; to very deliberately and insidiously make the word 'bad'...

 

Take note that your exemplified six year old daughter had already, somehow, been educated to the fact that the word was 'bad', and asked why. She didn't learn that from listening to loving talk and gesture, which is indeed, where the word - philologically speaking - originated.

 

Constructing a defensive argument against the herein qualified 'misusage' of the word and its - rape mentality supporting - connotations, is a distinctive form of 'blaming the victim (an American recreation)'.

 

'People will always find something to be offended by' , is an irrelavant pretext, finding 'people' responsible for the responsibility of others (refer, 'blaming the victim').