Thanks to Gothamist for bringing this to light.
Last week, the story broke in the New York Times on a young man whose facebook status saved his neck in court by providing a hilarious alibi. However, the use of the term “Fat Chick” was humorlessly censored from the account and the Puritans threw up their arms in rejoice. Then yesterday in NYT, a page-one piece was published examining the history of the word “douche” and its journey from hygiene product to commonplace insult (favorite among fraternity bros and other people searching for an effortless way to put someone down).
Now, we at Scallywag will admit right way that we dont possess doctorate degrees in semantics, linguistics, or other relevant credentials to classify us as experts on the matter of language and expletives. However, we do recognize that the Puritans hate the human body; more specifically, they hate the evil parts their God gave them with which to procreate. Given that qualification, shouldn’t the word “douche” be put on a higher pedestal than the description “fat chick”? Really, one describes the general outward appearance of a woman (fully-clothed, or not), while the other describes a tool for cleaning the evil life-producing vagina. If it cleaned the gears on a factory assembly line would all be well?
Both “douche” and “fat chick” are insults used to degrade someone, so why is one completely unacceptable while the other is allowed to have valuable newspaper real estate dedicated to it? Maybe it was just a slow news day. In any case, Censorship Gurus, get on your game. Figure out what you hate the most and start from there. Whatever your current approach is, it is just confusing the people you’re supposed to be protecting..Gothamist For The NYTimes, “Douche” Is Okay, But “Fat Chick” Isn’t? Scallywag Not so useless after all: Facebook provides alibi for robbery.