Why I Don't Curse HereDean Barnett has a
post on his blog about the subject of battling first impressions that I thought was terrific.
Like most politicians, [Richard] Thornburg was an affable and charming individual; we all liked him very much. He also offered a pearl of wisdom for the aspiring politicians amongst us – be aware of your inherent weak points and shore them up. For instance, if you never served in the military go out of your way to show an interest in veteran affairs and be solid on defense. Or if you grew up rich, go out of your way to show a “common touch.”He goes on to talk about a recent column he wrote on the lefty bloggers and Paul Hackett, and particularly the guys over at Swing State Project, which I have covered before.
What I’m not impressed with is how Brigham can’t tell the difference between a mistake and a “f*cking lie.” I know his response was just a manifestation of the angry young blogger shtick, but it’s tired. All the obscenities, all the rage – what do Brigham and his ilk think they accomplish? Do they not see how pathetic such antics make them look?Exactly. Cursing in print is lazy and immature. It's almost as bad as the folks who need to CAPITALIZE words to show how SERIOUS they are. The word "f*cking" used as an adjective, does not tell us anything more than the noun "lie" does alone. It's meaningless puffery, like the word "very". What's the difference between "I'm angry" and "I'm very angry"? Nada.
And as Dean points out, it characterizes you to the reader. It says that you're immature and overly emotional. Considering that's the very image that Democrat bloggers need to overcome, it certainly seems counterproductive. And if you think about, it's illogical. Is there anybody out there who won't read (or worse, link to) a blog if it contains swearing? Certainly. Is there anybody out there who won't read, or link to a blog if it doesn't contain swearing?
Hat Tip:
Instapundit
