<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No duh.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/</link>
	<description>one writer's daily download</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ashley</title>
		<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>ashley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://70.88.31.129/nancy/2003/10/17/no-duh/#comment-142</guid>
		<description>Well, the f word is gone wif da wind.  Now, if you say the N word, you will lose your job.  My question is, what the hell do I call my old Richard Pryor albums?



In my graduate linguistics class, we discussed how "fuck" is the only word in English (and we thought perhaps any language) that can be used as any part of speech.  Really.  I almost bought a t-shirt on Bourbon Street that said "fuck you, you fucking fuck".  



From what I have read, the NBC censors gave Homicide more leeway than any series ever up to that point.  Of course, the only things that other shows really copied was the shaky handhelds and the coarse language.  God forbid they notice the writing, acting, and lack of car chases and shootouts. 



There is still a magic word or 2.  Nigger and cunt will still stop conversations in their tracks.  Period.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the f word is gone wif da wind.  Now, if you say the N word, you will lose your job.  My question is, what the hell do I call my old Richard Pryor albums?</p>
<p>In my graduate linguistics class, we discussed how &#8220;fuck&#8221; is the only word in English (and we thought perhaps any language) that can be used as any part of speech.  Really.  I almost bought a t-shirt on Bourbon Street that said &#8220;fuck you, you fucking fuck&#8221;.  </p>
<p>From what I have read, the NBC censors gave Homicide more leeway than any series ever up to that point.  Of course, the only things that other shows really copied was the shaky handhelds and the coarse language.  God forbid they notice the writing, acting, and lack of car chases and shootouts. </p>
<p>There is still a magic word or 2.  Nigger and cunt will still stop conversations in their tracks.  Period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alex</title>
		<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/comment-page-1/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://70.88.31.129/nancy/2003/10/17/no-duh/#comment-141</guid>
		<description>The perfervid fascination of small children with butts, poop and farts is nothing new. But the good cheer it brings young mothers these days—buyers of such popular children's reading as Captain Underpants—is another great indicator of the sea change in sensibilities. 



My sister-in-law, mother of an infant girl, recently said she can't see herself spazzing out like a blue-haired schoolmarm over the usual roster of excretions and body parts we were forbidden to contemplate as youngsters. She also believes a more liberal attitude toward potty talk will actually go a long way toward cutting down on the tiresomeness of it all. Remember, nine-tenths of the thrill is in getting a rise out of authority figures, whose over-the-top indignation back in the day might have better befit, say, crack whoring.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The perfervid fascination of small children with butts, poop and farts is nothing new. But the good cheer it brings young mothers these days—buyers of such popular children&#8217;s reading as Captain Underpants—is another great indicator of the sea change in sensibilities. </p>
<p>My sister-in-law, mother of an infant girl, recently said she can&#8217;t see herself spazzing out like a blue-haired schoolmarm over the usual roster of excretions and body parts we were forbidden to contemplate as youngsters. She also believes a more liberal attitude toward potty talk will actually go a long way toward cutting down on the tiresomeness of it all. Remember, nine-tenths of the thrill is in getting a rise out of authority figures, whose over-the-top indignation back in the day might have better befit, say, crack whoring.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/comment-page-1/#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://70.88.31.129/nancy/2003/10/17/no-duh/#comment-140</guid>
		<description>Much as I agree that the 90-year-old perhaps shouldn't be catered to quite so much, the aged ones are the guaranteed readers, at least until they die. Unfortunately, there's not so many of the younger folks taking up their slack. How many people under 18 do you know that read a newspaper voluntarily, beyond the Sunday comics? Hell, I was the only one I knew of that read it at that age. Most kids aren't going to sit down with the paper and go "Daddy, what's masturbation?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much as I agree that the 90-year-old perhaps shouldn&#8217;t be catered to quite so much, the aged ones are the guaranteed readers, at least until they die. Unfortunately, there&#8217;s not so many of the younger folks taking up their slack. How many people under 18 do you know that read a newspaper voluntarily, beyond the Sunday comics? Hell, I was the only one I knew of that read it at that age. Most kids aren&#8217;t going to sit down with the paper and go &#8220;Daddy, what&#8217;s masturbation?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nance</title>
		<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/comment-page-1/#comment-139</link>
		<dc:creator>Nance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://70.88.31.129/nancy/2003/10/17/no-duh/#comment-139</guid>
		<description>Well said. One reason I'm of two minds about this sort of thing is, you loosen the standards for artists, who are followed by crap-peddlers. Allowing "NYPD Blue" characters to say "asshole" brought greater authenticity to the show, but it was followed by "Nip/Tuck," where they say "shit" in service of, well, shit.



But you're right -- young people have no problems with obscenity, or far fewer problems than their grandparents do. I sat at a study group the other day while one of the participants, a lovely, seemingly well-brought-up girl of 21 or so, said, "So I'm like, 'Dude, stop jumping on my nuts, OK? I need this class!'"



I worry, though, that as dirty words become commonplace, the ability to swear creatively is being lost. And you can take that motherfucker to the bank.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said. One reason I&#8217;m of two minds about this sort of thing is, you loosen the standards for artists, who are followed by crap-peddlers. Allowing &#8220;NYPD Blue&#8221; characters to say &#8220;asshole&#8221; brought greater authenticity to the show, but it was followed by &#8220;Nip/Tuck,&#8221; where they say &#8220;shit&#8221; in service of, well, shit.</p>
<p>But you&#8217;re right &#8212; young people have no problems with obscenity, or far fewer problems than their grandparents do. I sat at a study group the other day while one of the participants, a lovely, seemingly well-brought-up girl of 21 or so, said, &#8220;So I&#8217;m like, &#8216;Dude, stop jumping on my nuts, OK? I need this class!&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>I worry, though, that as dirty words become commonplace, the ability to swear creatively is being lost. And you can take that motherfucker to the bank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alex</title>
		<link>http://nancynall.com/2003/10/17/no-duh/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://70.88.31.129/nancy/2003/10/17/no-duh/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>When I see what the current younger generation is viewing on television—along with the way advertisers now pander with a flippant raunchiness unimaginable just a few short years ago—I have the feeling that even the f-word is fast going the way of the h-word and the d-word and the a-word. No one but the biggest bluenose will think twice about it appearing in print or on the air.



The Chicago Reader, one of the last bastions of literary journalism, seldom shies from conjuring images that wouldn't be allowed to fly in most papers. One that had me laughing one time was a quote from my alderman, Helen Shiller, regarding a political rival's tactics during a campaign. "[That guy] must really have a hard-on for me."



At an advertising and marketing seminar I covered for a trade journal a few years back, a representative for Kimberley Clark said their research was showing that the new generation prefers straight talk about tampons and toilet paper, which goes entirely against the grain of what I'd been taught: never conjure an unpleasant image in the consumer's mind. In the ad biz, this meant that such things as toilet paper could only be referred to as "bath tissue," lest someone associate the product with shit. Tampons could only be referred to as "feminine protection." Diapers could only be shown absorbing blue liquid, lest it make someone think of pee. These prudish conventions are giving way to more frank, even clever imagery. Consider the toilet paper ad on network TV with the cartoon bears in the woods. 



If dying media like newspapers and network television want to quit losing out to other media, they should quit trying to be so goddamn inoffensive in a world that doesn't really give a flying fuck about dirty words anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I see what the current younger generation is viewing on television—along with the way advertisers now pander with a flippant raunchiness unimaginable just a few short years ago—I have the feeling that even the f-word is fast going the way of the h-word and the d-word and the a-word. No one but the biggest bluenose will think twice about it appearing in print or on the air.</p>
<p>The Chicago Reader, one of the last bastions of literary journalism, seldom shies from conjuring images that wouldn&#8217;t be allowed to fly in most papers. One that had me laughing one time was a quote from my alderman, Helen Shiller, regarding a political rival&#8217;s tactics during a campaign. &#8220;[That guy] must really have a hard-on for me.&#8221;</p>
<p>At an advertising and marketing seminar I covered for a trade journal a few years back, a representative for Kimberley Clark said their research was showing that the new generation prefers straight talk about tampons and toilet paper, which goes entirely against the grain of what I&#8217;d been taught: never conjure an unpleasant image in the consumer&#8217;s mind. In the ad biz, this meant that such things as toilet paper could only be referred to as &#8220;bath tissue,&#8221; lest someone associate the product with shit. Tampons could only be referred to as &#8220;feminine protection.&#8221; Diapers could only be shown absorbing blue liquid, lest it make someone think of pee. These prudish conventions are giving way to more frank, even clever imagery. Consider the toilet paper ad on network TV with the cartoon bears in the woods. </p>
<p>If dying media like newspapers and network television want to quit losing out to other media, they should quit trying to be so goddamn inoffensive in a world that doesn&#8217;t really give a flying fuck about dirty words anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
