There is swear-blogging, and then there is this:
Emily Thornberry MP: a very stupid and thoroughly unpleasant person who should be severely punched in the cunt, and then thrown into the sea.
That’s way too far over the top of the top for me. Maybe I’m getting old. It’s in a posting in response to a posting here by Johnathan Pearce on Saturday, about how giving women rights at work will make them more expensive to employ and consequently cause women to be employed less.
I’m genuinely in two minds about this swear-blogging thing. (See also this blog.) On the one hand, as with the passage quoted above, I think it can be horribly offensive by almost any standard and liable to make a lot of people think badly of something I value, namely the libertarian movement. (If you look under affiliations, you see that DK is affiliated to the Libertarian Party.) I can foresee a time when such passages as the above will be quoted in evidence against us all. If anyone points out that “they” (i.e. us libbos) were writing things like that, and none of “them” complained, well, I did. And if this posting alerts enemies of the libertarian movement otherwise unalerted and it all blows up in our faces, then the sooner the better, I say. Get the argument about swear-blogging over with.
On the other hand, this kind of language does at least communicate just how angry people get about the plundering and bossiness of politicians. If you are similarly angry, read on, Devil’s Kitchen is for you. You are not alone. It libertarianism was only written calmly and dispassionately, something important would be lost.
One thing I do know is that if Devil’s Kitchen was nothing but the above offensiveness, I wouldn’t give a … flip … about him. It is because he writes good stuff about important topics, in among the effing and blinding and sometimes worse, that I now ruminate upon the wisdom or lack of it of how he writes. Whatever I end up thinking about this, I am not now recommending and never will recommend that what I might consider to be excessively sweary swear-blogging should be illegal, to read or to write.
In answer to the question, Brian, not really.
With the two sites you mention you know, after the first visit, what you can expect. You then have the choice of returning, or not.
Choice – is that not libertarian?
Personally, I do not use language like that on my blog – other than the odd initial letters now and again, such as WTF – but that is my choice.
Live and let live – eh Brian?
We all have our own way to fight the power, Brian. We have ours and speak to ‘our’ kind of audience and DK has his, gawd bless his little cotton socks.
I actually laughed at that. I can’t wait until an opportunity arises to say that somebody “should be punched in the **** and thrown in the sea.”
It doesn’t really matter what the *** stands for. You could say “face” or “knob” or “arms” or “neck”, and it would still be funny.
To me it is less the swearing than the violence of the imagery.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love the Devil to bits, but aren’t we the ones who are anti the initiation of violence?
You know, the good guys?
I believe the Devil’s swearblogging(Link) caused problems for BishopHill(Link) in getting his message over to Lynn Featherstone on the grotesquely illiberal home schooling debate.
The comment quoted by Brian was the first time in years I’ve winced at a blog comment, it shocked me despite being a reader of DK for years. I guess that could be considered a compliment!
We know Devil’s Kitchen means no malice with the OTT swearing used to show outrage, incredulity and how stupid someone is being. However, I doubt those in the line of sight visiting for the first time see it that way.
Well, Brian, I guess it might have a different context.
If I had said that Ed Balls should be kicked in the balls, would you view it differently? And if you did, is the difference because the word “balls” is more acceptable than “cunt”? Or is it because it is more acceptable to propose violence against men than it is against women?
Because these are the only two reasons that I can think that the comment might be taken as being above average in terms of excoriating politicians.
These people are beneath contempt, Brian; you know this. They are destroying our lives—either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, they have no compunction about killing us: why, in the name of all that’s unholy, would you protect them?
They will kill us: this is a war. Until you people wake up, this will continue to be a war that they win.
DK
What is the point in having a blog if one cannot vent with it? Say things one would not be able to say in other circumstances?
And whether or not you agree with DK it is people like Emily Thornberry who have come the closest to undoing everything good that the suffragettes, then the feminists ever achieved. It is they — who claim to defend women — who are the true enemies of women’s rights.
CountingCats
Spot on. Violence rather than swearing is what I object to also, in this particular quote. The thing is, when DK uses the word “cunt” in the quote I quoted, he is not swearing. He is being descriptive. That is what is so truly shocking about it. If he had merely called her a cunt, it wouldn’t be nearly so bad.
Oh well, that’s the price of thinking aloud. Maybe I’ll one day attempt a fuller treatment of the same topic.
And if I ever do do that longer essay on swear-blogging etc. I will try to include the thing about how swearing can often reveal weakness and impotence rather than strength. You swear because you are enraged, and you are enraged because there is nothing that you can think of to do about it, except be enraged. Sometimes swearing helps, because it alerts others to your shared feelings and turns disparate individuals into a group to be reckoned with, as I said a bit of in the posting. But often all you communicate is the fact that you think you are beaten.
moonbat nibbler
“We know Devil’s Kitchen means no malice with the OTT swearing used to show outrage, incredulity and how stupid someone is being.”
On the contrary, I think DK means lots of malice, towards the objects of his anger. You’ll be trying to turn him into a national treasure next! DK is trying to intimidate his enemies, and to muster an army against them, to get them to retreat, not because he has persuaded them but because he has frightened them.
At present, I think the army-mustering is working better than the scaring.
It will be interesting to see how this argument develops after the next general election, when coalition -building with potentially sympatico conservatives becomes a bit more possible. Iif you think that coalition-building with potentially sympatico conservatives is a snare and a delusion, you will want more swear-blogging, to tell the Conservatives to fuck off and die also. Which DK does already, of course.
Every movement needs its calm, rational thinkers, and its angry firebrands.
We can’t all be William F. Buckley or George Will — gawd knows. we’ve enough polite people in politics — and I think the Devil plays an important part with his cunt-punching, just as Mr. Free Market plays his part in talking about the Glorious Day when Stout Bulldogs launch artillery fire onto the Commons, and Lefties are sent en masse to the Hanging Tree.
The point is that everyone knows that conservatives and libertarians are unlikely to do anything of the sort, no matter what they say. It’s the LEFT who do actual violence to their opponents on a massive scale.
And no, anger should not be the sole preserve of the Left. We’re as entitled to ours as any “Bush = Hitler” banshee in San Francisco or Trafalgar Square.
One wonders what would happen if DK did indeed succeed in rounding up the enemies of freedom and have them strung up from lampposts.
Does anyone really think that sort of arbitrary, mob violence can be controlled or limited?
I think we would be much better off trying to convince the thugs (or at least their current supporters) that it is in their own narrow self-interest (which it is) to lay off the thuggery.
I’m old. When too young to know much, let alone better,
I was often “shocked” (really,only ‘taken aback), not by anything said, so much as what was actually done.
“The Silent Majority” doesn’t care about “political correctness” any more than “free speach”. It’s more like “I believe in free speach, so watch what you say about that, too” A prostitutional sincerety.
Of course, we should assume there are agents provocateur who will bait the anger of individuals for the purpose of incriminations.
The art of arguement is not in expressions; but, in artfully impying the unthinkable while leading opponents
into unsavory expressions.
People commit the worst deeds while being outraged by rhetoric. The banality of evil is common.
No worry of what people say, be concerned when they don’t. Pregnant silences can lead to unhappy events.
“I think we would be much better off trying to convince the thugs (or at least their current supporters) that it is in their own narrow self-interest (which it is) to lay off the thuggery.”
It would be nice to think so. I just got back from a shift at the club. Myself and another doorman caught a man pissing down the stairs. We told him he had to leave. He refused and braced himself into the stairwell. We grabbed hold of his arms to shift him then he turned to the other doorman, called him a black bastard and then tried to hit him in the head.
I threw him down the stairs at which point he got up and started posturing in front of us again telling us we were going to be killed. A third doorman showed up at which point he decided to walk out. As soon as he got outside he started making threats again, waited for the third doorman to turn away, then hit him with a cheap shot in the temple. Said doorman retaliated immediately and hit him once, square on, knocking him straight down.
The man spent a little while curled up and then got up and proceeded to smash up someone’s car. The owner happened to be outside and rushed over and pushed the man over. The man then grabbed the car owners leg and started biting into his calf. It took three people to get him off and throw him to the ground.
At this point he was ready to fight anyone. A few customers from the club were more than happy to step up, he got his arse handed to him then finally decided to go back down the street, shouting how everyone was going to be killed etc etc etc.
The early appeal (from me) to self-interest failed.
Sometimes there is no choice but violence.
Counting Cats writes: “but aren’t we the ones who are anti the initiation of violence?”
Not me, babes, and I’m a gal. I think DK pretty expressed my thoughts.
Devil’s Kitchen, thanks for the succinct explanation to the faint hearts.
Verity,
Does this mean that you are no libertarian? Responding to violence with violence, fine, but initiating it?
I would rather she simply be put in a place where she cannot harm either us or herself.
Counting Cats – Except we, the right, are not initiating the violence. We are responding to violence done against us by removal of our right to free speech, our right to voice an opinion in public, our right to complain about the intentional overrunning of our country with individuals whose ethos is alien to – indeed, militates against – our own, the imposition of ideas on education that actually militate against children becoming literate, numerate and prepared to be contributors. And so on.
The violence has already been initiated by the Gramsci/communist/Trot left. We are responding to it, and it took us long enough …
The problem of engagement, either by initiation or by
response, is that it rules out other courses of action.
Watch the people whom troublesome people avoid.
Those will seldom seem committed to conflict; and, any
that ensues will quickly end, painfully for their opponent.
And, their size or outward looks are not the reason.
They are usually very kind, smart and good people to know, in any walk of life. So, why are the nasties afraid of them?
I have touched on the issue of when humour goes over the top before. As much as I share the worldview of DK, I thought this was pretty revolting.
In the blogging world, like the MSM, the removal of editorial/other barriers to entry means that this sort of thing is more widely available than before. I will take the benefits and hold my nose for the other stuff.
So from a libiterian point of view what is wrong with informing someone they are a piece of shit?
I mean really this turd of a wench wants to steal yet more tax to push her pet cause. Why shouldnt she be told in the firmest possible language shes a idiot of the highest order, and polite company should shun her?
She intends to take some of the 50% (give or take once you factor in various council, fees etc) tax they allready get and spend it on what she wants.
Thats theft and eveil, she should be told that.
I’m a regular at DK…long may he survive because he tells it like it is, as they say.
I confess to a slight wince when I read the sentence in question as I have an outstandingly graphic imagination & always play out the written action. When you do that it is easy to understand that you were meant to wince…and rightly.
Anger has not only to be seen but to be felt in the soul.
Hello, Verity…good to read you again. Drop me an e-mail if you have time.
The first time I visited the Devil’s Kitchen I thought his tone was both offensive and counter-productive.And I didn’t like it.
I have changed my mind;it’s still offensive but I like it and now I go there every day I am near a computer.
He writes a great deal of sense. His foul-mouthed vitriol is directed at targets who deserve it and he is regularly a joy to read; incisive,insightful and also funny.
Long may he continue.
There have been times when the Devil has said something extremely sensible, pedantic even, and has thrown in a few swears anyway, apparently for the sake of consistent style. That’s jarring when it happens. I keep expecting him to give up the swearing under the influence of creeping maturity. I’m enjoying it while it lasts.
I find his comments and viewpoint interesting enough to overlook the “word pictures” and tone poems he creates, but I WAS deeply and sincerely shocked and offended by artwork which depicted “Jesus f@#$ing Christ.”
This was a very realistic drawing of Christ, naked, having anal intercourse with a twin Christ. The Devil’s Kitchen is openly atheistic, and that in itself is not an issue, but I wonder what sort of problem he has had with the Church to include on his website the most blasphemous piece of art that I have ever seen. If he was molested by a priest or choirmaster, then his anger and bitterness are understandable, but he needs to separate the actions of sinful men from the holiness of Christ. He has recently married, so perhaps that event will mellow him over time.
Cats:
(emphasis mine) What’s up with the labels anyway? Do you like what he is saying? Fine. Do you not like the way he is saying it? That’s fine too. You can read it or not. I don’t and never have just because I don’t have time to get addicted to yet another blog. Swearing could be an issue, but I would have to read to form an opinion. And DK does have a point in his comment above: if he was instead suggesting punching a guy in the face, would that have been more acceptable? I have never experienced either, but something tells me it would hurt (both physically and emotionally) just as much.
Brian:
That would be the day. It would mean that their more material objections have finally lost credibility with the public.
Laura:
The Devil’s Kitchen is openly atheistic, and that in itself is not an issue, but I wonder what sort of problem he has had with the Church to include on his website the most blasphemous piece of art that I have ever seen.
What in the world are you talking about? DK has never produced a piece of art with that, er, theme. Could you possibly provide a link? Because he’s as confused as I am.
And for the record, I hope marriage doesn’t mellow him!
I think it’s refreshing. There is an art to swearing. When too lazy to think up my own stuff I “borrow” a good cuss from DK.
DK is currently down.
The response to Brian’s post can still be found at:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:U3Bh2iujjLkJ:devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/10/this-swearblogging.html
Hands off my Devil! Look, the Devil is simply expressing the quite natural outrage one might expect when faced with politicians who either lie through their teeth with a straight face or are so ignorant of reality that they are immune to any sort of logic or facts. More power to the Devil, he is a breath of fresh air. No need to be civil or polite to people who in a sane world would be put down like mad dogs.
I think the Devil is magnificent.
His superb use of language brightens my day and makes non-violent Libertarians like me feel that someone has just expressed what we all want to say about these overbearing, interfering busybodies.
The Devil is an icon of freedom. More power to him. As an expat Brit, there is nothing more satisfying than reading deep-cutting english swear words, particularly the way our devil concocts new words, phrases and sentences that sound right and fit the target like nothing else can.