On Taking Offense

"I ate all da' foodz bc yolo."

Such phrasal grotesquery. I speak of no one in particular; my concern is with the general debasement of language.

It is a mystery why educated people write in such fashion. Surely these phrases are overused, and a cliche cannot be a good means of conveying personality--unless, of course, a good proportion of the population has the same personality, and are as walking cliches. A scary thought.

Right now I imagine some of you are probably having an emotional reaction and will begin typing something hasty in reply. Please read further, so your thoughts may not be ill-conceived, and to appreciate the flow of my ideas.

I can anticipate some replies. Such as, "It's America. I can write what I want!" Or "Cocteau can choke on tripe." You are correct on the former; the latter sentiment is only correct in a hypothetical way as tripe requires careful cooking and I have been known on occasion to indulge--yet only at fine restaurants. But ask yourself this, in the name of free expression: Have U.S. soldiers endured so many wars in the 20th and 21st centuries so you can reduce your coherency to that of Honey Boo Boo? Nobody enlists under such convictions.

Right now it is late and I am drinking wine. In defense of habit, I cite Baudelaire: "So as not to be the martyred slaves of time, be drunk, be continually drunk! On wine, on poetry or on virtue as you wish."

Ahh, virtue. I have heard that morphing an 's' into a 'z' and a 'th' into a 'd' is considered a fun thing to do. Some are too easily amused. They should go see a puppet show, and not write.

Yet truly my concerns extend further than orthographic atrocities. I am talking of philosophy. Let us consider "yolo" for instance. It covers everything, doesn't it? Let us bang, pass, ignore, marry, and observe naked the universe--because "yolo, y'know"?

Here's a thought: If you only live once, why not learn a proper language? Such as English.

Oh, but you say, it is offensive to point out hackneyed prose? Everything is offensive in the USA these days. Not a day passes without some new Internet outrage; or some small slight at Starbucks or the office becoming cause celebre for vengeance.

But what is really offensive? Are thought and language the only things left that we can assail without fear of correction? Rather, I would suggest, in the words of the great American poet Dylan Thomas, to "rage, rage, against the dying of the light." The light of your mind, friends.

There now, I am finished. I stand now ready for faux outrage, snark, copy-and-paste memes, and the usual effluvia to be directed at this essay, intended as a piece de resistance. Google that if you must.

This weekend there will be apple festivals and such. I shall read in the shade of vineyards and groves, for the autumn equinox approaches, and we must dispel the hobgoblins of the mind.

I bid you good night, -G.E Cocteau
"Should you rush to quell my diction, I shall riposte with lucid conviction."

Just finished reading Frankfurt's, "On Bullsh!t"? Fun read.

Stephen Fry makes me feel things. Mostly naughty.

Finally--to those who think I am arrogant, pompous, trying too hard, a hipster, and so forth--I care not what you think of me personally. I will say I harbor no negative thoughts of you, personally. My interest is not in who you are, but the substance of what you are saying, if indeed you are up to that challenge.

Observations:

Some of you have launched aspersions at my character. But I am not angry, for when one has nothing of real value to say, they attack the messenger rather than the message. And the wine has me somewhat mellow. Me: 1, You: 0.
.
Neither am I surprised some of you walked straight into the pit of logical fallacies I laid out when I announced from the start where they were in my initial post: "I am ready for your faux outrage, snark, and memes." I'm not surprised because reading comprehension and clear thinking are on the decline. Me: 2, You: 0

It is sad, overall, when social interaction involves mimicking some of the worst cable news shows, and with even less comprehension of the argument. You know the score by now--no need to tally further.

To those who have raised substantive issues with what I wrote, I salute you! Some valid arguments and my replies:

As such, I recognize that the way most people write is different based on the context. I'm not going to speak to you using high language and stiff prose on a forum. I also know that language evolves.

Such a "When in Rome" defense ignores the question of the value of a social context--to put it simply, what are the Romans doing? Put another way, the argument could amount to, "But my friends all jumped off a bridge."

Also, I would argue that there is value in resisting debasement and modifying the social context, For example, to the extent I have encouraged others to read or think clearly--I consider this a victory. I do not have to follow along with the sheep just because that's what the social context would have. The sheep may very well be walking into a butchery.

As to language evolving, this is true--Dante was criticized for writing "Inferno" in Italian rather than Latin. There is an opposite risk, however-- that of language devolving, and this risks social dissolution and political chaos. Abuse/misuse of language has led to all kinds of perverse outcomes (e.g. propaganda, wrongful convictions, etc.).

I like tripe as long as it's fried with a little egg, flour and salt.

A good way to enjoy it. I also suggest tripe parmesan (trippa alla parmigiana).

Just finished reading Frankfurt's, "On Bullsh!t"? Fun read.

An excellent book. Well-chosen. Also looking forward to "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which another poster mentioned.

Finally--to those who think I am arrogant, pompous, trying too hard, a hipster, and so forth--I care not what you think of me personally. I will say I harbor no negative thoughts of you, personally. My interest is not in who you are, but the substance of what you are saying, if indeed you are up to that challenge.

Victory,
-G.e.C

I do like this quote, though, from Fry:
"The free and happy use of words seems to be considered elitist or pretentious."

I do like this quote, though, from Fry:
"The free and happy use of words seems to be considered elitist or pretentious."

I'm back, couldn't stay away. Fry is not only intelligent, but wise.

It's not the individual words that people have a problem with, but it is how you've chosen to weave them together. There might be something intelligent here and there in that weave, but there isn't much wisdom, but rather insults. I don't smell much humility in there either.

I spoke of the general trend of debasing language through textspeak.

In return, I was personally called a hipster with compromised genitalia; pretentious; arrogant, and so forth.

And I'm the insulting one here? I think not.
-G.e.C

Edit: Also, you persist in wanting to make this about who I am--or rather your perceptions of my character--rather than the argument. This, I don't understand. Especially in a nation that elected a "likeable" guy such as George Bush, whose presidency was considered by historical experts to be a disaster. Bush won because he played the part of the "eiron"--the plain-speaking, non-pretentious guy. This is to be desired?

this thread reeks of fedora

Would you say it has a fedaura?

Feodora?

*reaches for coat*