If you read political Substacks, you've likely noticed…
CONTROVERSY!
Sub Pub isn't typically a forum for political or social debate. But we could talk about…
LANGUAGE CONTROVERSY!
My wife noted that “bimbo" was disallowed by a word game she was playing online. She and I agreed that “bimbo" is demeaning to women, but still should be allowed in the game, since it's clearly a word in the English language.
I'm for freedom of expression. Total freedom of expression. No one should be banning any words at all. Yet, good linguists, editors, and writers know that in today's world correct use of grammar has gone by the way side and our language suffers. Beautiful works of literature will always stand out, though. And, maybe more should be encouraged to use it and write with it.
(if this isn't allowed, let me know. I'm kind of new here.)
There are offensive, cringeworthy words I wish I never had to see, like the C word and the N word and Matt Damon's F word, and if I had my way I would edit them out. Without hesitation. They're lazy cliches writers use to shock. There is no other use for those words and they were overdone decades ago. But ban them? That's not going to happen.
Misused grammar is something else entirely. Should writers use them? Only if they don't care that other writers are shaking their heads or laughing at them. Should we tell them? I think we all struggle with that one. I do editing, so they jump out at me and, try as I might, it's almost all I can think about as I read the rest.
But should I say something? I'm torn. If I know the writer and I'm pretty sure it's an oversight, I would. And I would hope they'd do the same for me. It happens. But I'm going to be honest here: If the entire piece is riddled with those mistakes I'll stop reading and forget the whole thing. They need more help than pointing out a single example of bad grammar.
As the writer of a political Substack, I'm utterly unaware of this controversy. But it seems like we are talking about two different things: freedom of expression vs. poor grammar. Or am I missing something? (I'm probably missing something.) I'm all for freedom of expression, which should be obvious to readers that the writer is intending to go a bit rogue. For example, when writing about personal growth (my other subject) I capitalize the word Self, for reasons my readers understand and appreciate. But their never gonna see me mangle grammer or speling because thats just insanely unprofessional and better left to elementary school teachers and they're students.
As much as I hate "irregardless" and phrases like "Me and Pat" (or, even worse, "Myself and Pat" which is a growing phenomenon in England), I have slowly come round to the view that what really matters, grammatically speaking, is whether your readers can understand the intended meaning. https://ilearnedtowrite.com/how-to-express-myself/#grammar
I agree with a lot of what's already been said. It's important that we don't curtail people's ability to express themselves, so I don't think that a ban on specific words is appropriate. But I also think it is important to remember the context and intent of a person's usage of an offensive word. Is King Crimson's use if that certain "F" word in the lyrics to their song "The Great Deceiver" an offensive slur, or is it a more literary use? I also think a private rebuke will go much farther than one delivered publicly - Matt Damon would probably not have had the same reaction if the criticism came from someone on twitter vs. from his daughter. It's alright to call someone out for being offensive, but more effective to do so through private message or email than through a public platform or even a substack comment, which will probably only lead to defensiveness.
As to grammar... it's the 2020s, barely anyone on twitter even uses capitalization anymore, so I feel that's a losing battle. But poor grammar and punctuation just adds more noise to intended signal, and good writers know that polishing their writing makes it easier to communicate their message as intended.
As some other commenters have noted, I think there are two points being conflated: poor grammar usage and offensive language censorship.
Grammar isn't good or bad. It is only a framework used to facilitate communication. So, if someone makes a grammatical error that causes miscommunication, it should be clarified (not necessarily corrected) but if it is understandable in context, it should be examined as though it were a deliberate choice and the author should be asked about their intentions. Maybe they mistyped it, maybe they were making an attempt to explore the boundaries of the language as Twain, Joyce, and so many other writers did before them.
As for censorship, I'm against it purely because the older the word is, the more uses and forms it has. Take the word "gay" for example. Should it be used as a slur or to cast derision? Absolutely not. Should it be used in its older context of "happy" or "carefree"? I would like to think so. I mean, it used to be a fairly common name and that shouldn't be banned. Unfortunately, the world (especially the online world) is what it is, and taking things out of context has become a national pastime. So while I don't think I would use it, I don't think it should be banned.
The other issue with censoring words is that it's a neverending task. Today, "bimbo" is censored in the game, but what about "himbo"? Language changes at the speed of thought. All it takes is for one person to coin a new word or a new usage and suddenly everything changes...
The conflation was intentional. I was curious whether people would pick up on it. I worry sometimes about the quality of commentary on the internet. The comments on this thread are a ray of hope to me.
I'm no prude, but I'm put off these days at how much profanity is allowed in MSM outlets, including the major cable shows. As a journalist myself, I avoid it in my stories. If I use a direct quote with a profanity in it, I'll write the first letter followed by ****. For me, increased profanity in our daily discourse marks yet another indicator of the coarsening of our culture, another blow to class and refinement.
BTW, misuse of "its" vs "it's" drives me up the wall.
I'm for freedom of expression. Total freedom of expression. No one should be banning any words at all. Yet, good linguists, editors, and writers know that in today's world correct use of grammar has gone by the way side and our language suffers. Beautiful works of literature will always stand out, though. And, maybe more should be encouraged to use it and write with it.
Funny you should post this today, on the very day I've also posted on grammar. (Mine is not as serious as yours.) https://writereverlasting.substack.com/p/no-its-not-national-grammar-day
(if this isn't allowed, let me know. I'm kind of new here.)
There are offensive, cringeworthy words I wish I never had to see, like the C word and the N word and Matt Damon's F word, and if I had my way I would edit them out. Without hesitation. They're lazy cliches writers use to shock. There is no other use for those words and they were overdone decades ago. But ban them? That's not going to happen.
Misused grammar is something else entirely. Should writers use them? Only if they don't care that other writers are shaking their heads or laughing at them. Should we tell them? I think we all struggle with that one. I do editing, so they jump out at me and, try as I might, it's almost all I can think about as I read the rest.
But should I say something? I'm torn. If I know the writer and I'm pretty sure it's an oversight, I would. And I would hope they'd do the same for me. It happens. But I'm going to be honest here: If the entire piece is riddled with those mistakes I'll stop reading and forget the whole thing. They need more help than pointing out a single example of bad grammar.
So it depends.
As the writer of a political Substack, I'm utterly unaware of this controversy. But it seems like we are talking about two different things: freedom of expression vs. poor grammar. Or am I missing something? (I'm probably missing something.) I'm all for freedom of expression, which should be obvious to readers that the writer is intending to go a bit rogue. For example, when writing about personal growth (my other subject) I capitalize the word Self, for reasons my readers understand and appreciate. But their never gonna see me mangle grammer or speling because thats just insanely unprofessional and better left to elementary school teachers and they're students.
I didn't see that!
Haha. Good thing. :)
I may not agree with some words, but I stand ready to defend your right to say them all the way to the level of mild discomfort.
You forgot "revert back". Makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
As much as I hate "irregardless" and phrases like "Me and Pat" (or, even worse, "Myself and Pat" which is a growing phenomenon in England), I have slowly come round to the view that what really matters, grammatically speaking, is whether your readers can understand the intended meaning. https://ilearnedtowrite.com/how-to-express-myself/#grammar
I agree with a lot of what's already been said. It's important that we don't curtail people's ability to express themselves, so I don't think that a ban on specific words is appropriate. But I also think it is important to remember the context and intent of a person's usage of an offensive word. Is King Crimson's use if that certain "F" word in the lyrics to their song "The Great Deceiver" an offensive slur, or is it a more literary use? I also think a private rebuke will go much farther than one delivered publicly - Matt Damon would probably not have had the same reaction if the criticism came from someone on twitter vs. from his daughter. It's alright to call someone out for being offensive, but more effective to do so through private message or email than through a public platform or even a substack comment, which will probably only lead to defensiveness.
As to grammar... it's the 2020s, barely anyone on twitter even uses capitalization anymore, so I feel that's a losing battle. But poor grammar and punctuation just adds more noise to intended signal, and good writers know that polishing their writing makes it easier to communicate their message as intended.
“Me and Pat are going to a party” is in fact perfectly correct grammar in my ideolect.
As some other commenters have noted, I think there are two points being conflated: poor grammar usage and offensive language censorship.
Grammar isn't good or bad. It is only a framework used to facilitate communication. So, if someone makes a grammatical error that causes miscommunication, it should be clarified (not necessarily corrected) but if it is understandable in context, it should be examined as though it were a deliberate choice and the author should be asked about their intentions. Maybe they mistyped it, maybe they were making an attempt to explore the boundaries of the language as Twain, Joyce, and so many other writers did before them.
As for censorship, I'm against it purely because the older the word is, the more uses and forms it has. Take the word "gay" for example. Should it be used as a slur or to cast derision? Absolutely not. Should it be used in its older context of "happy" or "carefree"? I would like to think so. I mean, it used to be a fairly common name and that shouldn't be banned. Unfortunately, the world (especially the online world) is what it is, and taking things out of context has become a national pastime. So while I don't think I would use it, I don't think it should be banned.
The other issue with censoring words is that it's a neverending task. Today, "bimbo" is censored in the game, but what about "himbo"? Language changes at the speed of thought. All it takes is for one person to coin a new word or a new usage and suddenly everything changes...
The conflation was intentional. I was curious whether people would pick up on it. I worry sometimes about the quality of commentary on the internet. The comments on this thread are a ray of hope to me.
I'm no prude, but I'm put off these days at how much profanity is allowed in MSM outlets, including the major cable shows. As a journalist myself, I avoid it in my stories. If I use a direct quote with a profanity in it, I'll write the first letter followed by ****. For me, increased profanity in our daily discourse marks yet another indicator of the coarsening of our culture, another blow to class and refinement.
BTW, misuse of "its" vs "it's" drives me up the wall.