On bad language, argumentation and freedom of expression

Having just completed my Preliator February 2010 Survey results and analysis posts (which only took me all ruddy day …), I was pleased to note how my little eviscerations of idiocy and nonsense were actually a well-liked topic on this blog. However, understandably, not everyone thought as much. From the freestyle answers I received, here are some who disagreed with my little bouts of potty-mouthed petulance:

A statement looks more objective if there are no insults in it ;-)

And particularly, from a certain someone:

Bad mouthing is passe. Time to grow up and act an adult.

If your ideas have merit, you don't need to muddy them up with bad manners.

If your ideas don't have merit, all the mud throwing won't help make them any better.

That last one is particularly worth responding to. It gets mildly bothersome when people try and tell you to be more polite – or, particularly, to “grow up” – simply because you use some choice words they find distasteful. I don’t randomly lace my writings with insults for whatever reason; in fact, if anything, I consider myself to be quite restrained when it comes to the vernacular I choose, as I try to keep my writing appealing to a wider audience. But every now and then, something comes along that’s just so stupid, so vile, so irritating, infuriating, or downright insulting, that it’s really just about impossible not to tell someone that they’re being a “fucking idiot” at times. Let’s say it just “slips out”. Voluntarily.

Another point of contention, one I have debated every now and again, is the false idea that insults and snark somehow weaken someone’s position. Let’s get something straight: there is a clear difference – a colossal one, even – between being insulting or snarky when arguing a point, and resorting to ad hominem attacks. They are not the same, not by a long shot. The latter is a fallacy where you respond to someone by insulting them without actually debating the real matter at hand, whatever it may be. Whereas, if you are correct in your argumentation, then no amount of insults or derisiveness will weaken your points. Mean words do not affect one’s logic or state of being right.

For example: saying that “most Creationists are ignorant fools” may sound all mean and judgmental, but that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of Creationists, nearly all of them in fact (by very nature of being Creationists), are both ignorant (about basic science) and foolish (in their mindless refusal to listen to reason). You could whine all you want about how the choice of words is mean and hurtful, but that’s simply irrelevant to the truth of the matter and does not affect one’s stance, credibility, or simply how right they may or may not be. Facts don’t shy away and go cry in a corner just because some harsh words are employed. They remain the same.

Finally, I must say that, unless it hasn’t been made clear enough yet, I have absolutely no intention of toning down my vocabulary in any way, not now, and not ever. This is my personal blog; metaphorically speaking, this is my living room in my home, and you, my dear readers, are seated at my couch and listening to me rattle off whatever I feel like sharing with you. This being my virtual home, I can and do speak in any manner I choose. And being insulting, mean, or even downright nasty towards people whom I judge deserve it, is par for the course. Censorship is the bane of the Net these days; in too many places is it used in an attempt to silence criticism and oppress free expression just because someone employs a sharp vernacular. Not here: anyone (including me, funnily enough) can use any words they wish in any way they wish (that is not illegal, obviously), short of breaching the commenting rules. (This blog does have rules, after all. Just not many of them.)

EDIT: 02/21/13 11:36 PM ET – Replaced the broken image.