However, my primary concern was always to put across my point of view and one cannot do that effectively without having clear arguments and a reasonable knowledge of what the hell is going on in the world.
Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on your point of view (and may I assume that the majority of my readers do think it fortunate?)—I just got carried away: many of my ideas occur to me whilst I am writing (which is why posts tend towards the prolix: you are reading my thought processes) and I found, as I considered all the shit that goes on in the world, that I became absolutely enraged. The swearing was—and still is—more for me than my readers who, after all, at the time measured in the mere tens a week.
However, there are those who subscribe to the idea that, if you swear, you must be puerile and incoherent—as Prodicus has just discovered.
I got a ticking off by email today, for swearblogging. That's a first. My correspondent sent me one, maiden-aunt-ish line, something like: 'If you swear, you've lost the argument! Tsk!'
Our Greek philosopher friend uses this wrist-slap as a springboard for a rather good discourse on the nature of swearblogging (during which he is embarrassingly complimentary about your humble Devil).
There is a special sort of creativity to classy swearblogging, like poetry. Not just the right words in the right order, but the very best words in the very best order, to suit a particular purpose, and the (very legitimate) purpose is political outrage. In the right-o-sphere (copyright DK, I would think), a very high level of political thought and analysis is presented, in amongst the essential anger.
Rude words without cerebration are boring, and weak. It's only fun reading a swearblog if the blogger is above average at political thinking, as well as selecting choice obscenities. And I mean selecting. Mere effing and blinding is not enough. Swearbloggers don't build their audiences by using a lot of naughty words at random like a fourteen year old on the school bus. That sort of puerile crap belongs on Facebook.
Politicians, and the more venal the more true this is, simply cry out for swearblogging.
Indeed, Prodicus actually goes so far as to suggest that swearblogging is a public service.
Venting one's spleen in the hope—or in the case of the great swearbloggers, the knowledge—that you are saying what ten thousand others would love to say but can't because, if they did, civil society would collapse—even faster than it is actually collapsing already—is a service to liberal democracy. This is healthy, raw, grass roots politics, without your actual lynch mob and gibbet.
I don't know if others view swearblogging as such but I would say that if it makes my site popular enough that I can communicate my opinons then it is, at the very least, a service to my sanity. If I can entertain others at the same time, then that must surely be a good thing...