A.R. Moxon Profile picture
Jan 31 15 tweets 3 min read
PROFANITY AND OBSCENITY

Those who desire obscenity also engage in profanity, of course. They do so for many reasons, but one of the strategic ones is to muddy the difference between fractious language and deliberate harm and abuse.

getrevue.co/profile/julius…
Perhaps we’d do well to make a contrast between “profanity” and “obscenity."
Let me suggest “profanity” as language that breaks agreed social rules of propriety. Some people call them “curses.” It’s fractious language.
Meanwhile, let me suggest “obscenity” as something that violates fundamental standards of decent human behavior. Some people call this “abuse.” When made systemic, it’s injustice.
There’s enough adjacency to cause confusion, I know. In both cases some generally accepted rules have been violated. And curse words are also often called “obscenities,” so unless we’re thoughtful about it, we might understand the two terms to be completely fungible.
An example:

George Carlin’s “seven words you can’t say on television” is a hilarious example of profanity.

Using the power of television to disseminate misinformation about vaccines during a deadly global pandemic is an obscenity.

You see?
It’s never the words used. It’s what you use them for.

In this culture we all understand this, I think. Most of us aren’t offended by curse words just as curse words.

Some pretend otherwise, to gain their advantage.

We know by now they’re just pretending.
Trump’s supporters can pretend it offends them to hear a president curse, but we’ve seen them cheering in his crowds and we’ve heard what they cheer for.
We knew they can tolerate cursing.
We know they aren’t concerned about attacks on journalism.
And we know they want obscenity.
This illustrates the reason it’s so important to distinguish between profanity and obscenity: our culture has been historically defined by abuse by the powerful against those without power, and by a systemic enablement of that abuse.
There are abusive families out there. If you want to understand the nature of the abuse, you discover which topics can’t be spoken.

As with families, so with countries.

Abuse relies on enablement. Enablement relies on silence—and powerful abusers know this.
And it’s true that people within the regressive political ideology to which these book banners belong have spent the past years complaining about the fact that there are things that “can’t be spoken” anymore.
But it's also well-documented that an abusive person strategically accuses others of their own intended abusive behavior, to insulate themselves from the report of their abuse.
And now, as we can clearly see, it is they who are engaging in the systemic, organized, strategic legal codification of silencing voices they find offensive, with the presence of profanity one of their favorite pretexts.
If you’re confused about who is being abusive, ask: who is, right now systematically, strategically, for the accommodation of their own psychological and political comfort, banning books that expose real present obscenities or expose the ugly truth about historical ones?
Don’t get confused. Don’t agree to false framing presented in bad faith.

Don't listen to the whines of book banners who feel "silenced" by the convicting presence of a marginalized voice.

Always fight the obscenity, fight the injustice, fight the abuse. getrevue.co/profile/julius…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with A.R. Moxon

A.R. Moxon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JuliusGoat

Jan 30
Let's play ball. 6 players allowed on court.

1st half: I get 6 players and you get 0.
3rd quarter, I get 5 players and you get 1.
Before the 4th quarter the league announces we're going to keep the score the same, but now it's 3 on 3.

I complain this discriminates...against me.
I used to have SIX players. Then I allowed the other team to put a player on the court—and that player struggled! Look how few points they scored!

But now I'm being FORCED to give up 2 more players on a winning team?

Whatever happened to merit-based basketball?
What makes me even angrier is when people suggest that we could just switch to 5 on 5, so that everybody could play. Um, that's not the way the game's founders intended us to play it, guys.

Let's be realistic.
Read 16 tweets
Jan 28
I asked to which of MLK’s words he referred. It was, unsurprisingly, this:

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

So, interesting thing: As far as I can tell, MLK never said those words.
I do at least know that it’s not what he said in his famed “I have a dream” speech. There he said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
He was talking about the way his specific nation treated his specific children, because they are Black.

But there’s a very popular bowlderization out there, that somehow manages to excise those details.

Interesting.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 28
Snark aside, if you believe this, I would like you to ponder the phrase “the choices afforded by the qualified pool at the time” for a year, then try again. Make careful study of the words “choices,” “afforded,” and “qualified.”
The idea of this one single most qualified person is a canard.

There have for decades existed many black women who are well qualified for SCOTUS, yet no black woman to date has been named. That IS the systemic problem. You make the systemic fix by naming a black woman to SCOTUS.
That fix is what Biden has declared he’ll make.

One might say that he could’ve just made that case by nominating a qualified black woman, w/o signaling the intention.

Perhaps. But this would miss giving people who think “qualified” means “white guy” a chance to self-declare.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 15
Imagine if these crybabies ever faced actual oppression.
Facing mass voter disenfranchisement, they vote for it, but if they have to take some easy free steps before getting access to endless breadsticks suddenly it’s TO THE BARRICADES.

Get over yourselves, Nathan Hale.
These dipshits are the Rosa Parks of people who would have called the cops on Rosa Parks.
Read 6 tweets
Jan 14
The human capacity to ignore the most relevant part of an issue in order to believe what they want to believe is extraordinary.

In the case of the pandemic, that thing is increasingly this: that we are still in a pandemic, and the pandemic is still a destabilizing problem.
There are many reasons we remain in pandemic. Some may prove endemic. Most are systemic political blocks to coordinated responses that are possible and necessary, but not yet attempted.

It's tiring. It's awful.

Nevertheless, we remain in a pandemic, which remains destabilizing.
The problem of the virus is a systemic one, and the system is the human body.

The unwillingness/inability to effectively counter it is a political one, which is its own type of systemic problem.

In this country especially, the problem is cultural. We have a culture of neglect.
Read 21 tweets
Jan 13
People who want to keep the filibuster to kill the bill think the same as her, not differently.

It’s those who want to remove the filibuster in order to safeguard our democracy who think differently from her.

Where are her attempts to understand them?
Comfortable people discomfited by injustice are always asked to “understand different perspectives,” and it never ever means the people who are actually harmed by injustice, who have an actually different perspective. It always means those who are comfortable with injustice.
Yes, and what do we mean when we say “we’ve never been so polarized,” anyway?

What if instead we said “It’s been a long time since the reality of injustice has been made so unavoidably present to otherwise comfortable people”?

getrevue.co/profile/julius…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(