This is My &%#$ing Blog!

     A few weeks ago (approximately) I wrote a blog in defense of using profanity to make a point.  I want to expand upon my views of profanity and the ways it best communicates real meaning.  Because in the almost inescapable realm of strong language, there are but a few areas of legitimacy found.

     At the end of a pre-game speech in which he thanked the police and emergency workers for the work they do, David Ortiz said, "This is our &%#$ing city.  And nobody's going to dictate our freedom.  Stay strong."  Now, I understand his intention--trying to rally people together in such a sad moment--however, his speech would actually have been better without the taint of the f-bomb.  The way in which he used it almost literally meant nothing.

     You see, profanity in and of itself is usually considered poor and improper grammar.  The words themselves are taken  entirely out of their intended meaning (though this is not entirely uncommon in the English language).  They also often fill all manner of roles within the language that do nothing to modify or enhance the meaning of the words surrounding them.  Those that use them often have no idea what their meaning really is and those that claim to understand their meaning often have some manner of stupid tale that has no place in reality.  The only thing they tend to communicate is the displeasure of an individual (which is easily communicated by non-verbal cues) or the minuscule vernacular of the individual using them (which is also often made obvious through non-verbal cues).

     In the case of Mr. Ortiz' comment, it literally added no meaning to the meaning of the sentence.  That is, unless you want to take the f-word for its commonly accepted meaning today, but that  is obviously not the meaning Ortiz intended to communicate.  But years down the road, when the language has changed (maybe to an entirely new one), we will likely find some very confused researchers.  Even in listening to his delivery of the speech, I was further disappointed.  There was little vocal inflection--something that might have actually communicated more meaning to his message.  The word he seemed to be relying on for emphasis failed him and he was left with a rather uninspiring message.

     Now my meaning for this blog isn't to attack Mr. Ortiz, but rather the misconception that swearing is necessary in every situation and adds meaning to speeches.  If you've spent any manner of time on the internet, you know that people like to swear.  It'd be nice to see this trend lessen and people embrace a wider vocabulary that they utilize in expressing their feelings.  Until then, I guess we'll all just have to continue bracing ourselves for an onslaught of uncalled-for and useless profanity every time we enter our browsers.