Rehabilitating motherf***er


Good news for sweary people like me – You’ve heard it from “The Washington Post” so it must be OK:

Apparently the word “motherf***er”  is now fine if you use it against a President you don’t like – though if it’s really fine, why not print the whole word, WaPo? Democracy Dies in Deleted Letters:

The argument from the pro-civility crusaders is that talking this way is sinking to Trump’s level. That’s wrong. It not only misses the meaningful difference between words and actions, but it doesn’t even grasp the difference between words and other words.

“Motherf—er” is filler; it means little more than “someone more unpleasant than ‘unpleasant’ can convey.” Saying you grab women “by the p—y,” on the other hand, is truly damaging: It turns members of that gender into something to be played with. Calling immigrants an infestation dehumanizes them.

“Motherf—er,” in short, is about civility. “Shithole countries” is about character. Democrats who conflate the two weaken themselves. They minimize the abuses of the Trump administration, and they invite the president to go on committing them without expecting anything more than an anemic reprimand. Democrats, he understands, won’t ever really fight back.

So now you know all the useful, Jesuitical distinctions, if you can ever remember them. In the word of WaPo opinion writers, calling a country “shithole” is different than calling a person “motherf***er”. Memo to Trump: start calling women, immigrants and other countries “motherf***ers”; it won’t be damaging or dehumanising anymore and “The Washington Post” will approve – after all, all that the President will be saying is that some immigrants, countries, women, or for that matter Democrats, are “more unpleasant than ‘unpleasant’ can convey”. That probably makes “The Washington Post” a bit of a motherf***er of a newspaper.