Adventures in Expletives

With William Shatner's new show readying for primetime, a look at the creative ways we bleep.

Are you ready for the new William Shatner show $#*! My Dad Says? That’s as close as CBS can get to the name of the Twitter account that inspired the series, though many have aptly noted that Shat My Dad Says would work too.

Oodles of TV shows have featured “CSI” or “Family” in their titles, but I can’t recall any that include a non-word like “$#*!,” which is more the obliteration of a word than a word itself. Though euphemisms will probably always be our main method of filth filtration, this new show is a reminder that there are plenty of other ways to neuter a naughty-ism. Avoidance characters like “$#*!”—as well as dashes, parenthetical substitutions, and torturous paraphrases—are all part of the rich history of taboo avoidance.

“$#*!”-type characters are quite common, and as Nancy Friedman points out, there is even a jean brand that uses the technique to exorcise a word as well as project an attitude: “Crazy B#@!h jeans.” These kinds of avoidance characters originated in comic books, and are called “grawlixes” or, as New York Times On Language columnist Ben Zimmer puts it, “obscenicons.” A feast of grawlixes can be found here, where Gwillim Law traces them back to 1911 and the Katzenjammer Kids.

Less flamboyantly, asterisks and dashes can also serve as avoidance characters: The f-word becomes “f-ck,” or shit becomes “s**t.” These bleeping techniques are even older. In The F-word, Jesse Sheidlower finds an example of “f-cked” in a legal document from 1865, and way back in 1680, the now-innocent “turd” was spelled “t-rd” in a poem. On Language Log, University of Pennsylvania linguist Mark Liberman collected many other old examples of “typo-bleeping,” which is similar to the spelling of “God” as “G-d”—though that practice maintains reverence rather than banishing sleaze.

Parenthetical substitutions are another common way of quoting without quoting completely. When umpire Jim Joyce recently blew a crucial first-base call, papers reported his mea culpa like so: "It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the [stuff] out of it. I just cost that kid a perfect game." After shooting horrendously in game 7 of the NBA finals, Kobe Bryant was quoted as saying: “I was thankful that I was able to make one [darn] shot at the end of the game and make some free throws.” Another parenthetical taboo-avoider was made famous by the Nixon tapes, as seen in Nixon-isms such as “(expletive removed) it,” which appeared in 1974’s The Presidential Transcripts, along with “(adjective deleted),” “(expletive omitted),” and the ever-popular “(expletive deleted).”

Then there are head-spinning circumlocutions. You have to admire the art of the paraphrase in a recent New Yorker piece by Tad Friend that mentioned a bodyguard who proposed to a paparazzi “...a tension-relieving service that he could perform upon himself.” In another piece on Kobe Bryant, Matt Moore writes, “Players are on record calling him a certain term for an orifice.” Stanford University linguist Arnold Zwicky has given several great rundowns on taboo avoidance, such as how a word much-beloved by Samuel L. Jackson is described as an “Oedipal expletive.” The craziest example Zwicky spotted might be “Well, f--- that” rendered as “Well, [I summarily reject] that.” Sometimes it’s hard to say whether salty language or de-salted language is more creative and bonkers.

An age-old issue of taboo avoidance is that the taboo may be avoided, but the avoidance is so clumsy and obvious that it feels obscene anyway. An Oxford English Dictionary example of “bleep” from 1975 expresses the problem well: “I fail to see why bleeps are used in radio and television interviews to cover up ‘unsavoury’ words and expressions. As soon as the bleep is heard the listeners immediately think—Oh, a four-letter word.”

Inevitably, “$#*!” brings to mind the shit it was meant to scoop up. Our minds go further into overdrive when hearing something is “unprintable” or “not fit for a family newspaper.” Zwicky has summed up taboo avoidance as a conflict between “Faithfulness (reproducing an original faithfully)” and “Well-Formedness (cleaving to some rule about what is ‘right’, ‘correct’, ‘appropriate’, etc.).”

That battle will never have a winner. In any era, “To bleep or not to bleep?” is a mother&#*!er of a question.

Julian Meehan

Young leaders from around the world are gathering at the United Nations Headquarters in New York Saturday to address arguably the most urgent issue of our time. The Youth Climate Summit comes on the heels of an international strike spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, who arrived in New York via emissions-free sailboat earlier this month.

Translated from Swedish, "berg" means "mountain," so it may feel fated that a young woman with Viking blood in her veins and summit in her name would be at the helm. But let's go out on a limb and presume Thunberg, in keeping with most activists, would chafe at the notion of pre-ordained "destiny," and rightly so. Destiny is passive — it happens to you. It's also egomaniacal. Change, on the other hand, is active; you have to fight. And it is humble. "We need to get angry and understand what is at stake," Thunberg declared. "And then we need to transform that anger into action."

This new generation of activists' most pernicious enemy is denial. The people in charge — complacent politicians and corporation heads who grossly benefit from maintaining the status quo — are buffered from real-life consequences of climate change. But millions of people don't share that privilege. For them, climate change isn't an abstract concept, but a daily state of emergency, whether it comes in the form of "prolonged drought in sub-Saharan Africa…devastating tropical storms sweeping across Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific…[or] heatwaves and wildfires," as Amnesty International reportsare all too real problems people are facing on a regular basis.

RELATED: Greta Thunberg urges people to turn to nature to combat climate change

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

Millions of people in over 150 countries across the globe marched for lawmakers and corporations to take action to help stop climate change on Friday, September 20.

The Climate Strikes were organized by children around the world as an extension of the of the "Fridays for Future" campaign. Students have been walking out of classrooms on Fridays to speak out about political inaction surrounding the climate crisis.

"We need to act right now to stop burning fossil fuels and ensure a rapid energy revolution with equity, reparations and climate justice at its heart," organizers say.

There's no doubt the visual images from the marches send a powerful message to those on the ground but especially those watching from around the world. GOOD's own Gabriel Reilich was on the scene for the largest of the Climate Strikes. Here are 18 of the best signs from the Climate Strike march in New York City.

Keep Reading Show less

September 20th marks the beginning of a pivotal push for the future of our planet. The Global Climate Strike will set the stage for the United Nations Climate Action Summit, where more than 60 nations are expected to build upon their commitment to 2015's Paris Agreement for combating climate change.

Millions of people are expected to take part in an estimated 4,000 events across 130 countries.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Apple

When the iPhone 11 debuted on September 10, it was met with less enthusiasm than the usual iPhone release. A lot of techies are holding off purchasing the latest gadget until Apple releases a phone with 5G technology.

Major US phone carriers have yet to build out the infrastructure necessary to provide a consistent 5G experience, so Apple didn't feel it necessary to integrate the technology into its latest iPhone.

A dramatic new feature on the iPhone 11 Pro is its three camera lenses. The three lenses give users the the original wide, plus ultrawide and telephoto options.

Keep Reading Show less
via I love butter / Flickr

We often dismiss our dreams as nonsensical dispatches from the mind while we're deep asleep. But recent research proves that our dreams can definitely affect our waking lives.

People often dream about their significant others and studies show it actually affects how we behave towads them the next day.

"A lot of people don't pay attention to their dreams and are unaware of the impact they have on their state of mind," said Dylan Selterman, psychology lecturer at the University of Maryland, says according to The Huffington Post. "Now we have evidence that there is this association."

Keep Reading Show less