Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
7 words you can’t say on TV more likely on lefty blogs than those on right
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 01, 2007

In fact, according to Patrick Ishmael of "The News Bucket", 18 times more likely on a lefty blog.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
South Park Conservatism, we hardly knew ye.
 
Written By: scarshapedstar
URL: http://
I guess I don’t get this one. One could run a study and probably determine that the words "Constitution", "Liberty", "honor", "respect", etc. are many times more likely to appear on righty blogs. If you haven’t heard, soldiers and sailors talk dirty. So do lefties, and for much the same reasons.


Speaking of language, the Liberal Narrative is bolstered again by the AP:
”Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, grilled nominee Sam Fox about why he donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential race. The group of Vietnam veterans made unsubstantiated allegations against Kerry ...”
Surely they should have fixed the computer glitch that attaches “unsubstantiated” to “allegations” in any story about Kerry by now. I keep looking for an MSM use of the phrase “unsubstantiated allegations” in any other story. It seems to be a phrase that is limited to Senator Kerry stories only. For other stories “allegations” seems to be sufficient.
Somewhere there is a Democratic think tank hero who first suggested this phrase during the Presidential campaign. Helluva job. Someday, in a saner world, he or she may get the long overdue respect they deserve.
That word threw the MSM just the life-ring they so-desperately needed to cover their lethargic response to the SwiftVets charges. No need for investigative reporting since the charges were “unsubstantiated”. Yeah! Move along, nothing to see here.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again? Who’s the biggest potty-mouth? I’m sorry if evaluating the substance of blog posts is harder to fit into an excel spreadsheet than the number of f-bombs dropped making those posts, but this is pointless. This is just another shortcut, eschewing the hard work of debating issues for pointless aesthetic criticisms.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
"This is just another shortcut, eschewing the hard work of debating issues...pointless"
Oh no. Not another Professor Erb. One liberal trying to set the agenda and frame the issues is bad enough.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again?
Nothing.

It’s an observation.

Make of it what you will.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Surely they should have fixed the computer glitch that attaches “unsubstantiated” to “allegations” in any story about Kerry by now."

That reminds me of Dan Rather who, during the Clinton years, could never say the words "special prosecutor" without prefacing it with "Republican".

*********************

"eschewing"

Gesundheit.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again? Who’s the biggest potty-mouth? I’m sorry if evaluating the substance of blog posts is harder to fit into an excel spreadsheet than the number of f-bombs dropped making those posts, but this is pointless.
Have you ever talked with someone where every other word he utters is "f***" or "sh**"? He might be making good sense in everything else, but he sounds completely uneducated and it’s difficult to understand why you should listen to someone who can’t make his point cogently.

If a blogger has a point to make, he should be able to make it without foul language. Otherwise, he just comes off as some idiot who can’t express himself without rolling around in the gutter. I’d much rather read a blog that doesn’t resort to trash, and I won’t waste my time with those that do.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again?
maturity level?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again? Who’s the biggest potty-mouth? I’m sorry if evaluating the substance of blog posts is harder to fit into an excel spreadsheet than the number of f-bombs dropped making those posts, but this is pointless. This is just another shortcut, eschewing the hard work of debating issues for pointless aesthetic criticisms.
1) Like most things in blogs (or in the MSM), it doesn’t prove anything. It uis suggestive, however.

2) People who use bad language tend to be immature.

3) People who resort to bad language in debates tend to lack in either intelligence, argumentative skills, or they are simply wrong and refuse to admit it.

4) Debating leftists isn’t so much difficult or hard work as it is frustrating. It’s like discussing calculus with a 6 year old.

There is, in fact, a place for bad language. Patton knew how to properly employ it. However, in intellectual debate, particularly in print, bad language should almost always be avoided.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Badger says:
I’m sorry, but what is this supposed to prove again? Who’s the biggest potty-mouth? I’m sorry if evaluating the substance of blog posts is harder to fit into an excel spreadsheet than the number of f-bombs dropped making those posts, but this is pointless. This is just another shortcut, eschewing the hard work of debating issues for pointless aesthetic criticisms.
Gosh, what to say?
You know, the wingnutosphere was always populated by lunatic morons, but back in the old days we actually felt obliged to engage them. Now we just mock them.

Much better.

Atrios, February 25, 2007
Go ahead, Badger. You were saying something?

... and while we’re at it, his response to the foul language thing?
While Glenn Reynolds’ faux-libertarian schtick was always a transparent joke, he at least used to explicitly reject (if not loudly) the prudish social conservatism found in other parts of his conservative movement. His evolution from rebel libertarian to language police has been hilarious to watch.

Atrios, earlier today
That’s the sound of the point of libertarianism flying over his head (or in one ear and out the other) at the speed of sound.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Don,

Just because you want those things to be true doesn’t mean they are. I know plenty of brilliant people who cussed casually and more than a fair share of dim bulbs who didn’t. And there’s a difference between cussing in a blog post and doing it in an face-to-face argument, which you and steverino would like to conflate.

Again, this is just a shortcut. A way to discredit those you disagree with so you don’t have to do any heavy lifting, like actual discussion. And calling those who you don’t agree with "6 year old[s]", that’s suppposed to be the conservative difference? You’ll insult them broadly and baselessly but you don’t swear while doing it? F*ck that.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Bryan Pick,

What? So I have to agree with everything Atrios says now? That’s supposed to be your amazing refutation of my point that substance matters more than style? Did I say in my post anywhere that only conservative bloggers/commenters get lazy with this?
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
A way to discredit those you disagree with so you don’t have to do any heavy lifting, like actual discussion.
No, it’s a way to avoid wasting my time. I’ll discuss things with someone who’s got the intellect to express himself politely. I won’t waste my energies on someone who’ll intersperse rude invective among his points, no matter how smart he thinks he is.
I know plenty of brilliant people who cussed casually and more than a fair share of dim bulbs who didn’t.
Here’s a question for you: is there a difference between cussing in casual speech and cussing in written arguments? If not, why not?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
No, Badger, you don’t have to agree with Atrios (and I didn’t say you did), but considering that we’re discussing the "substance of blog posts" among the top blogs on either side of the blogosphere, you’d do well to check what material you’re working with. They’re not even taking "shortcuts;" they’ve stopped even trying for substance in many cases. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that they’re reverting to cussing more often.

Even if you could somehow "fit [the substance of blog posts] into an excel spreadsheet," you’d still have to contend with this inconvenient fact of the attitude among the "left" blogs in question.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
The second Atrios quote you posted strikes me as substantive. He’s criticizing an inconsistency on the part of someone he disagrees with. Maybe he’s misunderstanding libertarianism or whatever you’re trying to accuse him of, but at least he’s not trying to say that Reynolds is wrong because he swears too much or doesn’t use enough SAT list words.
Here’s a question for you: is there a difference between cussing in casual speech and cussing in written arguments?
Here’s the thing: blogging isn’t really either one of those. Cussing bloggers aren’t writing for Ladies Home Journal, they’re writing on a personal website and trying to express their thoughts as directly as they see fit. The ideas still matter more than their style. Reynolds might as well get someone to correct blogs for spelling and grammatical mistakes and try to make hay out of that as well.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Here’s the thing: blogging isn’t really either one of those. Cussing bloggers aren’t writing for Ladies Home Journal, they’re writing on a personal website and trying to express their thoughts as directly as they see fit.
You are sidestepping the question. You chided us for "eschewing the hard work of debating issues for pointless aesthetic criticisms." and now you say that blogging isn’t really putting forth written arguments.

Something tells me that you know you’ve lost this argument, and now are just kicking up sand to be a nuisance.

But I’ll repeat the question: is there a difference between cussing in casual conversation and cussing while trying to make a written discussion of an issue?

If not, why not?


As far as cussing bloggers go, I won’t waste my time with them. They are not capable of intellectual debate. I’ll spend my time hammering out a point with someone who can express himself in higher language.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steverino, don’t bother with Badger. It’s a simple observation that either means something to you, or it doesn’t.

And that is instructive in and of itself.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
As far as cussing bloggers go, I won’t waste my time with them. They are not capable of intellectual debate. I’ll spend my time hammering out a point with someone who can express himself in higher language.
In case you didn’t notice, all of the conservative bloggers surveyed swore too, they just didn’t do it as often. I guess you’re going to stop reading blogs altogether then. Congratulations on you decision to use your time productively!
Something tells me that you know you’ve lost this argument, and now are just kicking up sand to be a nuisance.
You’re this one who’s turning this whole thing into an issue of semantics. Blogging isn’t exactly a personal conversation, isn’t exactly a written discussion (like something you’d write for an op-ed page), or pretty much anything. If you look at a typical McQ post, does that look like something that you’d see in an academic journal or letter to the editor? Sometimes it’s just a picture and a sentence. Sometimes Mr. Blogfather just puts up a single word.

If you don’t want to go to liberal blogs anymore, even though Mr. Reynold’s survey should give you the names of some where swearing almost never occurs, nobody’s going to put a gun to your head. But don’t pretend it’s because of the shocking language they use and not because you just disagree with what they’re saying.
is there a difference between cussing in casual conversation and cussing while trying to make a written discussion of an issue?
Arguably, but it’s very dependant on the context and exactly what you mean by "written discussion". Swearing in e-mail correspondence with a friend where I refer to the argument of a mutual aquaintance as "bullsh*t" is pretty much appropriate. Whereas if I start dropping c-bombs while talking with someone on the bus, that’s not so great. And in neither hypothetical does my propensity for swearing have anything to do with the validity of what I am saying.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
And in neither hypothetical does my propensity for swearing have anything to do with the validity of what I am saying.
You could also use YouTube clips expressing your arguments via interpretive dance. At some point, the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments are so low that extracting the few nuggets of goodness from all the sheep dung is more effort than it is worth.

Excessive profanity is noise. At best, it expresses your emotional state and I really could not care less about that while you are making an argument. Unless my true goal is to goad you into anger.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
In case you didn’t notice, all of the conservative bloggers surveyed swore too, they just didn’t do it as often. I guess you’re going to stop reading blogs altogether then. Congratulations on you decision to use your time productively!
I don’t read any blogger who uses curse words excessively. Doesn’t mattter what their politics are, it’s a waste of my time...just as you are becoming.
You’re this one who’s turning this whole thing into an issue of semantics. Blogging isn’t exactly a personal conversation, isn’t exactly a written discussion (like something you’d write for an op-ed page), or pretty much anything
Completely beside the point, and you’re making me wonder whether you even understood my point. If a blogger has something intelligent to say and a sensible argument to make, then he should make it without foul language. Anything less is an insult to the readers. If someone doesn’t respect my intelligence enough to keep the debate polite, he’s not a worthy opponent.

It’s not an issue of semantics, it’s an issue of being able to argue a point intelligently.
Arguably, but it’s very dependant on the context and exactly what you mean by "written discussion". Swearing in e-mail correspondence with a friend where I refer to the argument of a mutual aquaintance as "bullsh*t" is pretty much appropriate. Whereas if I start dropping c-bombs while talking with someone on the bus, that’s not so great. And in neither hypothetical does my propensity for swearing have anything to do with the validity of what I am saying.
Yep, my suspicions are confirmed: you don’t understand my point. Swearing, misspellings, and poor grammar are all like food stains on your shirt. By including them in what otherwise would be intelligent discussions, you’re sending a message that you really don’t respect yourself or the people who see what you write. Sure, you are free to walk around in public with a badly stained shirt...just as you are free to include any number of curse words in your written arguments. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if you do.

We’re done here. Kick up all the sand you want, you cannot win this point.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/

Don,

Just because you want those things to be true doesn’t mean they are. I know plenty of brilliant people who cussed casually and more than a fair share of dim bulbs who didn’t. And there’s a difference between cussing in a blog post and doing it in an face-to-face argument, which you and steverino would like to conflate.
Lack of reading comprehension?
Again, this is just a shortcut. A way to discredit those you disagree with so you don’t have to do any heavy lifting, like actual discussion. And calling those who you don’t agree with "6 year old[s]", that’s suppposed to be the conservative difference? You’ll insult them broadly and baselessly but you don’t swear while doing it? F*ck that.
Swearing is also a shortcut. Perhaps you didn’t grasp that.

My point is not that there is no place for swearing, my point is that the place for swearing is limited.

And the "6 year old" comment was an exaggeration, but it wasn’t basless. There are clear differences between right and left besides opinion, as the initial "swearing" post indicates. Sorry if it doesn’t fit in well with your meme.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And in neither hypothetical does my propensity for swearing have anything to do with the validity of what I am saying.
But it does say something about you, your ability to communicate, your ability to think, and your ability to argue. And it likely does imply something about the validy of your argument.

You are correct that it is context dependent; sometimes swearing is appropriate. For example, is used to work well for DIs motivating recruits. Swearing is a poor way to present an intellectual argument, but a good way to present strong negative feelings.

And, like it or not, a tendency to swear on blogs says something about the bloggers in question . . .

When confronted by "f**k you" in an online argument, that generally means you, and not the swearer, are winning the argument. Although I have to say, I think I’ve used swear words with particularly dense debators who continued to raise arguments that had been repeadly demolished—but that’s a very rare occurance.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"In case you didn’t notice, all of the conservative bloggers surveyed swore too, they just didn’t do it as often."
While Ace of Spades does so quite regularly, I’m hard pressed to recall Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt or Volokh using the ’7 words’, except when quoting others (I however don’t read them all that regularly).
 
Written By: ABC
URL: http://
Badger,

Why are you here arguing? Let me guess...this is forum conducive to debate rather than just cursing.

The high level of cursing on lefty blogs seems to me to reflect:

a. age group and parental status - older people and those who are parents tend to curse less.

b. level of partisanship and passion. Note that Ace of Spades is a pretty "partisan" website and so you do see more cursing there. It’s also more casual.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
When confronted by "f**k you" in an online argument, that generally means you, and not the swearer, are winning the argument
That’s because "F*ck you" is personal abuse, and not a substantive argument, not because of the vulgarity involved. Can you cite me any examples of a swear being used on a liberal blog directly using vulgarity for the purpose of personal abuse and not as a stylistic flourish related to a substantive claim?

Harun:
I’d roughly agree with the point you’re making. Liberal bloggers certainly tend to come from different backgrounds than conservative bloggers and so have different writing styles and attitudes towards vulgarities. Whether or not this is related to parental status or age or anything like that is anyone’s guess. I also think it’s important to note that the writing style of most bloggers is probably strongly influenced by other bloggers. So, regardless of their background, a new blogger who reads blogs where swears are sometimes used, is more likely mimic that style. Again, that has nothing to do with the validity of any arguments they make or their level of "maturity" otherwise.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider