In a recent post an issue arose in the combox over whether a particular term has a crass origin and what the implications should be for Christians who use this term.
I won’t link to this post for reasons which will promptly become obvious.
In fact, I won’t even use the term in question, though at least partly for a different reason than you might think.
There is a well-known phenomenon in languages of using euphemisms for tabooed words. Every language has tabooed words. When people of conscience feel the impulse to use these tabooed words, they often substitute a euphemism in their place.
Over time these euphemisms can become so established that they are viewed as independent words in their own right and they do not call to mind the original tabooed words on which they are based.
I’d give you examples, except to make the point effectively I’d have to enlighten (or try to enlighten) you about a word origin that you didn’t already know.
You’d then be burdened with the knowledge of where a particular word came from, and you’d have unpleasant, tabooed associations pop into your head when you heard or were tempted to use the word whose origin I had "outed."
To avoid this problem, let’s make up a new pair of words.
Suppose that schmelf used to be a taboo word. It doesn’t matter what the meaning of schmelf was. It could have been any of the usual suspects: something connected with the bedroom, something connected with the bathroom, something connected with religion. All that matters is that schmelf was a really, really tabooed word.
Let’s say it had the same kilotonnage as the F-bomb.
Naturally, polite people wouldn’t want to use it. But, being human, they’d be tempted to at least on occasion. And so a euphemism–smurf–comes into existence.
At first, the fact that smurf is being substituted for schmelf (pardon my language!) is painfully obvious to everyone. But with time, smurf takes on a life of its own, and people no longer realize how the word originated. It has its own, distinct meaning (let’s suppose that it refers to a tiny, blue imaginary creature), and it no longer calls to mind any of the unpleasant associations of the tabooed word from which it was derived.
In fact, let’s suppose that smurf becomes a very popular word, and people use it all the time, saying things like "Oh, Papa Smurf! He’s just the smurfiest smurfing smurf that ever smurfed!"
And one day a Catholic blogger who does not know the origin of the word smurf (a blogger who happens not to be me, though easily could have been since I had never heard its claimed origin either) is writing a blog post in which he uses it, and someone in the combox says:
I am SICK TO DEATH at seeing the vulgar slang words, "smurf" and "trolling," beginning to appear even on Catholic blogs. How in the world could people not be aware of the following:
(1) "trolling" is so obviously a euphemism for "troll king" (which word comes to mind every time the milder version is spoken/written).
(2) "smurf" (as I well recall from my childhood) was coined as a variant of "schmelf" (slang term that sounds as bad as the F-bomb), and then took on an extended meaning of "small blue imaginary creature."
Anyway, folks, DON’T USE THESE BAD WORDS, please.
What would happen next?
Probably, a lot of people would point out that it doesn’t matter where smurf came from. Regardless of whether this word was originally a euphemism for schmelf, it simply doesn’t mean that anymore and does not call up that association in the minds of most people. Now–for the great majority of people–it refers to a small blue imaginary creature, and that’s all.
Not meeting with the success he wanted, the commenter might then reply:
I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic, but will
do/say anything to justify their use of euphemisms (that call to mind
the vile words behind them), rather than resolve to amend their lives
and pursue the universal vocation to sanctity. I guess that’s one of
the reasons for Purgatory, to burn away the love for the vulgar that is
found in so many people who responded to me.The lack of humility among almost all commenters here — and the
penchant for kneejerk self-justification and rationalization –are
mind-boggling. It breaks my heart to see NOT EVEN ONE person write a
message saying, "Thanks, dude. I was not aware of what you told us. I
will avoid saying ‘smurf’ and ‘trolling’ in the future."As always, we can ask the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" You can
be sure that he would not use foul language or even any euphemisms
derived from it it. He would also not use His Father’s name improperly.
Ditto for His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI. Let’s follow these
role models, instead of making bad role models of ourselves.PS to another commenter: It doesn’t matter what "Jimmy" says on this, because I
have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’)
improper behavior. Although "Jimmy" knows lots of facts, he is
definitely no guru for Catholics’ behavior.
Setting aside the attempt at poisoning the well there at the end (and the strange quotation marks around my name, and noting that I’m a sinner in need of Christ’s mercy and do not aspire to be a guru for others’ behavior), I would raise the following concern.
To the great majority of people today, the word "smurf" is not associated with its alleged term of origin. (And word origins for slang terms are really tricky matters. Slang terms–especially tabooed ones–don’t get well documented in dictionaries, meaning that it’s hard for etymologists to trace their pedigree, so a lot of what you read is just conjecture. As someone who spends a lot of time looking up word etymologies, I know what I’m talking about. Sources regularly disagree and admit ignorance over where terms came from, and there are popular myths about word origins that simply aren’t true. Most of the origins that you hear for the F-bomb are false.)
Since most people today are not burdened by the knowledge of where the term smurf (may have) originated, they do not have to wince when they hear it or wonder whether they should correct others who use it or feel bad when they are tempted to use it themselves, because for them it has no crass associations.
If for you it does have crass associations, that is a cross you must bear (either that or decide that at some point it’s not worth fretting over what the origin of a word was and just go with the way it’s being used now).
It is one thing to shoulder this cross yourself, but it is another thing entirely to impose it on others by forcing upon them knowledge that will now be the occasion for scrupulosity on their part.
Now, many people will not scruple over this–or scruple much–but some will. (Particularly the scrupulous ones.)
The meritorious thing to do in such a situation would be not to disturb the consciences of others and to shoulder one’s own cross, without causing others to suffer as well.
Incidentally, I’ve been restrained in discussing this subject in the past because I didn’t want to burden people by revealing the origins of words they didn’t know. Now that I’ve come up with smurf and schmelf, I’ll be able to talk about it more freely.
I’d also recommend that people not "out" euphemisms in the combox. (That was kind of the point of this post.)
Anyone who does so is a smurfitty smurf who’s just out trolling!
(NOTE FOR LINGUISTS KEEPING SCORE: The use of smurf as a way of avoiding using an actual euphemism makes it a meta-euphemism. Schmelf, as a replacement for a non-specific taboo word, would be a generic euphemism.)
Great post. Words are slippery. Regarding the etymology in the combox, I had never heard of that one before. I think alot depends on context, intent, and culture. That said, the etymological revelation in the combox discussion seemed more about a pretentious showing of one’s *special* knowledge.
Disclaimer: I mean no disrepect to the person who referred to the etymology of the word in question. I am simply describing how it appeared from my perspective. I very well could be wrong. Interpretations are fallible.
I understand. Personally, I didn’t take it that way. I took it to be the cry of a person who is carrying a cross and didn’t stop to think that he was imposing his cross on others by what he was saying.
“joe” is a euphemism for coffee. “sloppy joe” is a loose meat sandwich in tomato sauce.
“Jimmy” can be a euphemism to pry something open.
God help me with this cross.
“‘Jimmy’ can be a euphemism to pry something open.”
Yes. Jimmy tries to pry open minds.
Jimmy, you smock! Smocking great post.
(“I just like to say smock. Smock smock smock!” – Calvin & Hobbes)
The point is well taken. Words mean what people think of them as meaning, not what they once meant. Etymology is a partial factor but not a decisive one.
Jimmy: What about when people use *actual* taboo words, such as the aforementioned f-bomb? Sometimes I try to explain to people that I don’t think it is a good witness to curse this way, but I always get brushed off. I have even seen curse words (either f-bomb or s, I don’t remember) used at the “Cafeteria is Closed” blog (in the entries, not the comments).
Is there anything in the Catechism about vulgar language? Could it be considered an occasion of sin or scandalous? I have good Catholic friends who curse a lot, and they say I’m being oversensitive. I’m a college student, btw.
I can get disconcerted with that particular blog. The zest for truth that they have there, I think, does not quite come out in the right way sometimes. :-/
I’m a bit torn. I read some of the early comments on that particular post you reference and I recall that there were two words singled out by the offended one. The one “Smurf” had quite obviously taken on a new meaning in its own right and was so far from its respective “Schmelf” as to be obscure. However, the OTHER “Smurf” is still rather seen as ONLY a euphemism for “Schmelf”.
So my questions are these:
1) How long DOES a term have to be in general use before it is no longer perceived as merely a euphemism? And…
2) How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?
Vulgarities, in my view, are not breaking any particular commandment, but may simply be in bad taste, which may be stupid, but not always sinful.
I do hate to hear people saying that swear words are against the commandment that tells us not to us the Lord’s name in vain. The Lord’s name is not “F-bomb”, or any euphemism thereof. It seems that if bad words being used without their original context are sinful, it would be due to the potential scandal they may give, or the possible reinforcement of such scandal in someone already desensitized. The first is definitely a real possilibity, but I’m not sure about the second.
Sifu: The sort of thing I’m thinking about is when a group of friends are studying together, and one of the group puts down his pencil and says “F that s, let’s go get ice cream.”
As a college student of course that happens a lot.
Also people using the f-word as a superlative adjective. “That movie is effing stupid.” Etc.
To me, the f-word is the most problematic, for the following reasons:
1) [non-religious] It’s just an ugly sounding word and it reflects badly on the speaker, because it makes him or her sound uneducated and uncreative.
2) [religious] The f-word is a vulgar and violent description of sex. As Christians, we do not view sex like this, I hope? “In the world and not of it!”
3) [religious] We are supposed to be visibly, tangibly different from non-Christians. We are supposed to be full of charity, love and kindness. People are supposed to wonder what we’ve got that makes us different. As a former non-Christian, I can definitely say that when I wasn’t Christian I saw Christian swearing as proof of hypocrisy.
Of course we can never be perfect but we must keep trying to be perfect right? It just upsets me that so many people don’t try.
I have posed the “is using foul language sinful” question to several priests. The response I usually get includes much hemming and hawing, and ultimately a “well…no, not exactly.”
That being said, I’m not a big “bowling word” advocate myself. I dislike hearing them from others, and get annoyed with myself when they (occasionally) come tumbling out of my own mouth. At the very least they are distasteful and coarse. But every now and again certain words suit certain situations so very well…
it’s generational. my generation thinks certain words distatesful. the next doesn’t (or not asymptically less so). and so on.
Thanks Jimmy. I had read that comment and started wondering what other words I knew that had derived from swear words, which of course led to thinking of swear words.
Joye:
I’m also a college student. The most powerful technique for cleaning up your friends’ language is don’t EVER swear. People will subconciously pick up the signal that swearing is not appropriate in the conversation. More drastic measures include subtle wincing or uncomfortable looks when swear words are used. To make it very obvious that you are NOT swearing, you can use a turn-of-the-century euphamism like piffles.
“1) How long DOES a term have to be in general use before it is no longer perceived as merely a euphemism?”
Seems as if it would depend on the portion of the population using the euphemism. If kids, for example, having never heard schmelf, started to use smurf shortly after it’s inception, it would never be a euphemism to them. So it could happen fairly rapidly. They might not know until after the fact, if at all, where the word came from. This is from experience; I recall a few words we used in grade school that we had no idea were euphemism at all. Well, maybe some kids did but most of us did not.
“2) How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?”
“One . . . Two-hoo-hoo-hoo . . . Three.”
“Three!”
In regards to the using of fowl words in certain situations, I think it can be OK if tastefully done in very rare instances…but as an example, my mom never used the smurf word (or Schmelf.) I just learned from her example not to do that.
When I worked at places like fast food chains and whatnot where the language is not necessarily intended for polite company, the fact that I never used certain words caused other people to not do the same. Not because they thought I’d be offended, but it just didn’t happen.
After the first time I cussed around people who had never heard me cuss before, the environment went immediately downhill morally and never quite recovered. I’m sure others have experienced this as well (my sister says it happens to her at times.)
I never used certain words caused other people to not do the same
err..you get the idea..I need to git back to schul know and learned my gramar
Although I am no advocate of swearing, it maddens me that the F-bomb is taboo on prime time TV and radio; yet people routinely take the Lord’s Name in vain, which I find far more offensive. I suppose it is just another example of the media’s total contempt for Christianity and religious sensibilities in general.
If “smurf” is a meta-euphemism, and “schmelf” is a generic euphamism, would that make BG’s “frak” a para-euphamism?
See, if I were to use the phrase, “I’m flippin’ awesome,” my intent would be to use a socially acceptable word as a general intensifier to stress just how awesome I indeed am.
However, if I were a character on BG, and I said, “I’m frakkin’ awesome,” my intent would be to intimate to the audience that my character swears a lot, but as an actor I cannot use real swear words because I’m on T.V.
Or does the intent of BG’s writers for “fr*k” to be a swear word make it a swear word in actuality? And if so, should I start censoring it with the requisite asterisk?
The question to me is purely academic, as I only swear in Chinese.
I still don’t want my kids to use the word smurf as a description of relative merit.
Good post, Jimmy. Thanks. I don’t have enough patience with this sort of thing, I know.
What conversations! What vulgarity and what dirt! And you have to associate with them, in the office, in the university, in the operating-theatre…, in the world.
Ask them if they wouldn’t mind stopping, and they laugh at you. Look annoyed, and they get worse. Leave them, and they continue.
This is the solution: first pray for them, and offer up some sacrifice; then face them like a man and make use of the ‘strong language apostolate’. — The next time we meet I’ll tell you — in a whisper — a few useful words.
Josemaria Escriva – The Way
Pseu,
Right on, my brother (or is it my sister?)!
There is always the lovely custom for when someone takes the Lord’s name in vain. Under my breath, I pray, “blessed be the name of the Lord, blessed be the name of the Lord” to console Him.
When I hear foul words spoken by a friend, I, like John the Apostle, think, ‘Lord, let us call down fire upon them.’ 😉
I prefer “blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Lord, judge me as I judge others…
So what’s the call on the use of the words “schmuck” and “putz”? A lot of non-Yiddish speakers throw those words around as general term meaning “despicable person,” Yiddish speakers (and readers of Leo Rosten’s “The Joy of Yiddish”) know they they have a much stronger meaning, and not one you’d like to express in front of your Jewish friend’s grandmother from Kiev.
(I understand that in the late 70s, the NBC censors wouldn’t allow the word “schmuck” to be used in a “Saturday Night Live” skit. A book written by one of the SNL people complained that the censors were being ridiculous, that no speaker of English thought the word had *that* meaning. I remember at the time thinking that I was on the side of the censors. Now, of course, NBC probably won’t even stop you from saying the literal English translation of “schmuck” on SNL.)
Now, of course, NBC probably won’t even stop you from saying the literal English translation of “schmuck” on SNL.
That’s ‘cos the show’s been horrible for years & NBC knows it needs the ratings, Seamus! 😉
I’ve tried the wince method to get friends to stop saying the Lord’s name in vain & it kinda worked. The still say it, but now they appologize to me. And I think, “I’m not the One you should be apologizing to!” I also pray for them under my breath as has been suggested.
In Quebec, all the French swear words (and their euphemisms) are based on sacred objects used during Mass, or sacrements or the Saints and the Lord’s name. They are now commonly used in the general population as verbs, adjectives and adverbs. If their original meaning still resonates with the ‘older’ French Canadians, it has been totally lost for the younger generations.
This year, French-language posters for the Archdiocese of Montreal’s annual fund-raising campaign are highlighting the sacred meaning of some the religious words that have evolved into swear words over the last 50 years.
Sometimes, it might be right to disturb some consciences.
The Far Side cartoon was banned from using the word “dork” because the word is apparently slang for a male body part.
There is always the lovely custom for when someone takes the Lord’s name in vain.
My response is to look around and say, “Where?….I don’t see Him.” It usually goes over most people’s heads, but every once in a while, somebody gets it.
The use of actual words — let’s see.
To use it because you just picked it up from the general atmosphere and have no self-control is an offense against temperance. You should control what comes out of your mouth.
To use those words to offend, or because you don’t care if you offend, is an offense against charity. (Unless, of course, you have serious reasons to offend someone.)
Any other possible motives we can analyze?
Though I seriously doubt John is monitoring this discussion, I might summarize Jimmy’s point, which is similar to the one I made originally: there is a difference between the *origin* of a word and whether the word is a current *euphemism*. There are terms in common use today which were viewed as quite vulgar 100 or 200 years ago. “Smurf” may have been commonly viewed as vulgar 50 years ago, but when neither I nor anyone of my acquaintance has ever heard it used to refer to anything other than a small blue elflike creature, and dictionaries consistently define it as such, railing against its use because one’s father or grandfather saw things differently 50 years ago is a bit… scrupulous.
To offer some advice to my fellow college students out in Jimmy’s posting land, I’ll say this. I second the post on trying your best to not swear at all. It’s hard I know, my priest says that cursing thoughtlessly is a venial sin cause well, the act was not thought out. So, Im content with that when I do slip up and I do. Anyway, I really hate the F-word. I agree, it makes one sound uneducated, especially when they use it for every other word or they use it as filler. There are so many other fun words out there that one can use! So, getting back to my advice. Try REALLY hrd not to swear in front of other people, it takes concious effort and lots of practice, but keep at it. For a note of confiedence I remember hearing a story on Relevant Radio I think it was about a man who worked in a factory, he was an elderly gentleman who hated cursing. He himself never did it, but he would ask fellow workers to stop if they did, he got laughed at a few times and people blew him off but as weeks and months went by people started to watch their tounges around this man and eventually everyone stopped swearing altogether. So it can work. Good luck in your endevors to change the culture that way. I applaud your efforts. I’ll pray for you, please pray for me.
+J.M.J+
Is “Shazzbot!” okay?
No? Well, how about “Sit on it!”?
No to that too, huh? Well, can we say, “Up your nose with a rubber hose!”?
In Jesu et Maria,
This is a wee bit off topic, but somewhat related. I was just thinking about how the word ‘aint’ used to be a valid word to use but is now considered bad grammar.
+J.M.J+
I remember reading somewhere that the word “leg” was once considered rude, which led to the common use of euphemisms such as “limb” (for the anatomical appendage) and “dark meat” (to refer to chicken legs). Is this true?
Back during my Evangelical daze when I was a teenager, the leader of my youth group passed out something written by a certain Fundamentalist preacher. This minister was of the opinion that Christians should not only avoid taking the Lord’s Name in vain, but that it is even a sin to use euphemistic terms like “gosh”, “golly”, “jeepers creepers” or “criminy” because they were derived from God’s Name!
This remained as a question in my head for many years, until a few years back when I asked one of the experts at the EWTN experts forum whether it was a sin to use the above euphemisms. He replied that it was not a sin to use those euphemisms and that the fundamentalist preacher who claimed it was did not have the benefit of the Catholic Faith and therefore was making things up from his own head (something to that effect).
So I really don’t think the Church opposes euphemisms as such. After all, they are attempts at stamping out profanity; shouldn’t that be encouraged?
In Jesu et Maria,
Most recent anon, you broke Jimmy’s rule, you schmelf.
J. R.: go and wash out your mouth with soap. surely that should be ‘you smurf’.
I agree with everyone who said that euphemisms should be encouraged, rather than condemned.
The two euphemisms that started the whole thing (namely, “Dork” and “Freaking”) are much more favorable than the alternatives.
Secondly, is there even a dictionary term for the idea expressed when using the word “dork” as it is commonly used in the English language today? I am talking about to describe someone who is not stylish or trendy, and likes comic books, computers, and Star Trek? What is the proper word one would use to describe such a person?
I mean, “Nerd” was invented by Dr. Seuss. Geek, dweeb, and twerp have a similarly made-up sound to them. “Loser” and “loner” are not accurate descriptions of such a person, nor is “genius.” “Bookworm” may describe some of these people, but that is a euphemism just the same. A real “bookworm” is a bug that eats books.
Considering the type of person described here is a largely 20th-century development, what “proper” word could be used instead?
Well, I didn’t know if I’d even respond to this, since I felt pretty bad for bringing up the topic in the first place. But then I read Mike Koenecke’s comment that “railing against its use because one’s father or grandfather saw things differently 50 years ago is a bit… scrupulous.”
I disagree with this on a couple of levels. One reason is that the way they saw things 50 years isn’t much different now. My father is still in good health and still thinks “dork” is a vulgar word. So do my brothers and cousins who are in their 30s. I would still become angry if someone called me that. Using it as a synonym for “doofus” or “fool” didn’t show up in our community until the ’80s – via the TV, not really some gradual change in our community. We still don’t use it around our parents or each other because WE know what it means. I don’t think it’s scrupulous to avoid using it when we know it pains our relatives to hear us. Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought that part of Christian charity is to speak not just truthfully but in love toward the person who hears us. (Then again, I grew up near the community that prosecuted and fined a young canoist a few years ago for breaking a local ordinance against swearing in front of women and children. So maybe we’re just a bunch of reactionaries.)
I also understand what you mean about euphemisms taking on a life of their own. I don’t holler at innocent children who go around saying “That sucks!” and “That’s gay!” and “What the %*&$!” every time they get annoyed – which seems to be about every 63 minutes or so. It would be uncharitable on my part to react as if they really knew what they were saying. I do, however, try to get them to break the habit – especially with something so goofy that they just stop saying anything. (Although my former students admit they enjoy saying, “That sucks rocks through straws!” So maybe I’m making things worse, eh?) But just because words like “bitch” and “%*&$” have become run-of-the-mill doesn’t mean I have to accept it, does it? Or maybe I’m just a scrupulous prude.
And I guess this brings me to what I think has bothered me most about the idea of allowing contemporary definitions to set the tone of what’s no longer offensive. Unfortunately, it’s not just vulgarity that’s becoming acceptable. As Mary noted, the profane is mundane, at least where I live now. I know several otherwise well-spoken adults who routinely use “Jesus H. Christ” or “God *%&%$ it” in place of the f-word or other vulgarities. The ones I’ve talked to about it have assured me that they, not being Christian, don’t mean anything by it. I had one teenaged girl who routinely told me that I shouldn’t be offended when she said “Jesus!” because she’s a Jewish atheist. Strangely enough, she finally stopped after I intoned “amen” each time she said it. But first she told me that I, as a public school teacher, shouldn’t be allowed to say a religious word like “amen” in school. (I guess I was offending her!)
At any rate, I know this is drifting far afield. But I do agree with what Julia and DJ had to say about cleaning up our own language. My father and uncles have told me that, although they worked in rough places like shipyards, mines and trainyards, they never heard their co-workers swear or use the Lord’s name in vain. (This was in the ’50s). They used to tell us kids that, “Those men weren’t educated, but they were gentlemen.” My father and uncles were greatly affected by the example they set. (There’s a Finnish word “sisu” that applies to these men, but it’s hard to translate it exactly.)
The guy should get a friggin’ life.
Thanks, “Jimmy,” for proving me as having been right when I said the following on the other thread:
“It doesn’t matter what “Jimmy” says on this, because I have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’) improper behavior.”
I’m in favor of “outing” any euphemism that calls to anyone’s mind the vile original from which it was derived — so that both words can be purged from our vocabularies. Why? Because I believe that this is what Jesus would like us to do. He would neither use the original nor the euphemism. You worry about the “scrupulous,” but you ought to worry about yourself for not being sufficiently scrupulous.
Miss Jean –
I agree that we should strive not to give unnecessary offense, but we should also strive to interpret words and actions in the spirit in which they are used.
I long ago made up my mind not to be offended at latrine language, simply because the alternative is to go around constantly offended. Not to mention, most people don’t mean to use these words in a genuinely derogatory or offensive way.
I, myself, do not swear.
As I said before, I never knew for the longest time that “dork” meant anything other than “a doofus”. That’s how it was used, and the sensitivity on the matter seems to me just a bit much.
There are kids who wear things to Mass that I wish they wouldn’t, but by-and-large I just blow it off, unless it is truly offensive (which happens only rarely).
I could be offended at every Mass, if I let myself be. There are other men in my parish who never wear anything but a suit to Mass and who probably could be offended at MY dress.
Overall, we should be more concerned about our own behavior than about anyone else. A Christian should not give too much thought to their own sense of personal injury or offended dignity.
Please, don’t use the phrase “outing.” We all know it refers primarily to someone proudly coming to terms with and embracing their homosexuality.
PS: In the analogy, the following is false in two ways: “To the great majority of people today, the word ‘smurf’ is not associated with its alleged term of origin.”
The fact is that the word for which “smurf” was being used above as a substitute IS ASSOCIATED with its ACTUAL obscene word of origin by HALF of all speakers of American English. I saw this fact in a poll on the Internet (a poll that you can find yourself, if you doubt me).
Finally, the following words too are false: “Anyone who [outs euphemisms] is a smurfitty smurf who’s just out trolling!” Anyone can see that I’m not “trolling,” because I truthfully revealed earlier that I am seeking to help everyone live out the universal vocation of holiness.
And “the guy…” above proves my point.
I find it hilarious that someone has the chutzpah to so readily tell other people that THEY need to be more scrupulous!
Eye, meet plank!
I used to design t-shirts for a living, and once my company put out a small catalog of Christian t-shirts.
One day we received a letter from a Christian man absolutely EXCORIATING us. I mean, foaming at the mouth… extremely angry.
Why? One of the girl models in the catalog was wearing shorts. We were called to repentence several times by the letter writer.
Never mind that it was A HUNDRED DEGREES on the day of the photo shoot. Never mind that we didn’t ask the models to wear anything specific, except our shirts.
This guy was not just concerned about our behavior, he seemed obsessed. I’m sure we were not the only ones on his list, either.
That is the kind of overweening concern for one’s own personal dignity that I find really unhelpful. It does not help our witness AT ALL. I get a whiff of the same thing in this instance.
First off the record needs to be set straight. I am not sure what euphamism was covered up by smurf, but trolling has nothing at all to do with any Troll King.
It was originally a fishing term. Where you drift along or are propelled very slowly dragging a hook on a lone (with lure or bait) across the surface of the water with the intent of inciting certain fish to bite. In fact Wal-Mart sells trolling motors. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=55732
Now this use of the word trolling has come to be used on the internet to mean generally the same thing, you drift through the blogs and forums posting a line behind you hoping some fish will bite.
Usually it is an inflmmatory line, or one that goes against the general opinion of the forum members, and invariably some “fish” will rise up, and take the bait and a huge amount of drama ensues.
So what I see is happened is that someone was trolling by complaining about the use of the word with some off the wall etymology, and a big fish rose up and grabbed the bait, hook line and sinker.
Sorry you got caught Jimmy but perhaps a look of where terms used on the internet will help in the future.
Oh and as for smurf:
smurf /smerf/ n. 1. [from the soc.motss newsgroup on Usenet, after some
obnoxiously gooey cartoon characters] A newsgroup regular with a
habitual style that is irreverent, silly, and cute. Like many other
hackish terms for people, this one may be praise or insult depending on
who uses it. In general, being referred to as a smurf is probably not
going to make your day unless you’ve previously adopted the label
yourself in a spirit of irony. Compare old fart. 2. [techspeak] A ping
packet with a forged source address sent to some other network’s
broadcast address. All the machines on the destination network will send
a ping response to the forged source address (the victim). This both
overloads the victim’s network and hides the location of the attacker.
First off the record needs to be set straight. I am not sure what euphamism was covered up by smurf, but trolling has nothing at all to do with any Troll King.
It was originally a fishing term. Where you drift along or are propelled very slowly dragging a hook on a lone (with lure or bait) across the surface of the water with the intent of inciting certain fish to bite. In fact Wal-Mart sells trolling motors. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=55732
Now this use of the word trolling has come to be used on the internet to mean generally the same thing, you drift through the blogs and forums posting a line behind you hoping some fish will bite.
Usually it is an inflmmatory line, or one that goes against the general opinion of the forum members, and invariably some “fish” will rise up, and take the bait and a huge amount of drama ensues.
So what I see is happened is that someone was trolling by complaining about the use of the word with some off the wall etymology of the word, and a big fish rose up and grabbed the bait, hook line and sinker.
Sorry you got caught Jimmy but perhaps a look of where terms used on the internet will help in the future.
Oh and as for smurf:
smurf /smerf/ n. 1. [from the soc.motss newsgroup on Usenet, after some obnoxiously gooey cartoon characters] A newsgroup regular with a habitual style that is irreverent, silly, and cute. Like many other hackish terms for people, this one may be praise or insult depending on who uses it. In general, being referred to as a smurf is probably not
going to make your day unless you’ve previously adopted the label yourself in a spirit of irony. Compare old fart. 2. [techspeak] A ping packet with a forged source address sent to some other network’s broadcast address. All the machines on he destination network will send a ping response to the forged source address (the victim). This both overloads the victim’s network and hides the location of the attacker.
*claps*
Jimmy, thank you for the add-on at the end of the post! I love stuff like that. (meta-euphemism? *grin*)
re: “The guy ‘Jimmy’ tried to mock”
What Jimmy’s worried about is the practical pastoral fact (which I forgot, too) that he has a number of folks with bad scrupulosity problems among his regular readership. (This means that they agonize endlessly about any potentially sinful act they may or may not have committed, even if they did so in total ignorance or unconsciousness.) What you meant as advice and rebuke, and what I meant as a reductio ad absurdum, may well have caused them to despair of salvation. It’s not a fun condition to have, and I hope the Lord protected them from both of our well-intentioned remarks.
Furthermore, Jimmy didn’t mock you; he took your argument quite seriously. He just used silly made-up words to lighten the discussion and prevent flamewars from erupting. So there’s no reason to feel hurt about that.
I’m willing to accept that you are being sincerely concerned and not holy-go-pious, if you’re willing to accept that the rest of us are also sincere in believing our use of language to be clean enough to use in front of little old ladies and children. (Not to mention my mom, who knew all about the off-label oral cleansing applications of Ivory Soap.) This is a matter best decided by each individual person’s prudence and Christian freedom on a case-by-case basis, constantly adjusting for local language conditions.
momof6 wrote: “There is always the lovely custom for when someone takes the Lord’s name in vain. Under my breath, I pray, “blessed be the name of the Lord, blessed be the name of the Lord” to console Him.”
There’s even a partial indulgence for doing that, if I recall correctly.
Seamus: Weird. I don’t know what the bad “schmuck” means. But “Schmuck” is German for jewelry if you really want to get down to its origin. Whatever the bad word is, it’s not the last stop on the list of the word’s etymological roots.
Rosemarie: It wouldn’t surprise me if “leg” were once considered rather vulgar. They used to cover tables with long cloths, even, to prevent the table legs from being visible!
Miss Jean, the word “doof” in German simply means “stupid” and I always assumed that must be the root of “doofus”.
I see the fellow showed up again, and insists upon enclosing the word “Jimmy” in quotes. Since “Jimmy” is the name on Mr. Akin’s birth certificate and is the one given him by his parents, it is hardly a nom de plume or a fanciful nickname he has assumed. So you are either ignorant or gratuitously insulting him. In either case there is no point in engaging you in discussion.
Oh, well, then. If it was on the Internet. I’m sorry I ever doubted “you.”
However, if I were a character on BG, and I said, “I’m frakkin’ awesome,” my intent would be to intimate to the audience that my character swears a lot, but as an actor I cannot use real swear words because I’m on T.V.
IIRC, in C.S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength,” he has a scene in which workmen are working right outside the hall in which the Bracton College faculty is meeting. Lewis includes some dialogue between the workmen, in which he includes a made-up word (I forget which one) that is obviously meant to be the f-word. I recall that I got a lot more aesthetic pleasure in admiring Lewis’s creativity in coming up with an original euphemism that unmistakably carried the meaning of the original, but which could be said on TV of his era, than I would have from hearing the actual word on today’s cable TV. (In that, he was taking a leaf from Norman Mailer’s “The Naked and the Dead,” where the dialogue includes the terms “fug,” “fuggin’,” and multiple variants thereon. Dorothy Parker is alleged to have met Mailer at a cocktail party and said, “So aren’t you the young man who doesn’t know how to spell ****?”
Tim J., I wasn’t sure if you directed the comment “the sensitivity on the matter seems to me just a bit much” at people in general or at me in particular. I assume the former. But I do understand people’s sensitivity to vulgarity and name-calling. I deal with a lot of teenagers who grew up being verbally assaulted by relatives. One of my big tough juniors had to take a little walk after a classmate jokingly called him a “moron”. Turns out the guy’s father and grandfather called him every name in the book whenever he messed up, even when was a little kid. So maybe I’m just hyperaware.
On a funny note, I was de-sensitized early to bad language. Every school day for about five years, an old man in town used to hurl “papist bastards!” at my older brother and me whenever he saw us walking to school. My brother evidently was used to this behaviour, because the only time he ever reacted was when the man called us Polish in derogatory fashion. Then my brother replied, “We aren’t Polish, you %&*$%&*!” I had never heard my brother use that kind of language before, but he apologized to me and said he’d confess it. 🙂
“Tim J., I wasn’t sure if you directed the comment “the sensitivity on the matter seems to me just a bit much” at people in general or at me in particular…”
Just people in general.
But I do think that sometimes these little conflicts arise as a way for us to get outside our own perspective and look at the whole subject through the experiences of others. I’m always grateful for that. A lot depends on how criticism is framed, how its expressed.
I never in a million years figured on triggering a low-grade flame war based on my use of a word that I view as being in the same category as “heck” and “dang”… but there it is.
Oh! Now I hope I haven’t offended a whole new group with that last paragraph!
“Oh! Now I hope I haven’t offended a whole new group with that last paragraph!”
Ha ha! No, I think most readers know you’re a decemt fellow, Tim J. 🙂