Tell someone in the Barrowlands that they are a cunt and then try to explain in a calm voice that it is no more than a mildly humorous combination of a pun and the peculiarities of phonetics as you are being clattered.
What? The name “ImmanuelCunt” is a pun, telling a stranger “you’re a cunt” isn’t. It’s fine to be offended by the latter, but being offended by the former just seems silly.
None of this is true, though. Sure, your favorite color may be blue and your least favorite color may be yellow, or what have you. But remember while you’re inside your head, the rest of us are out here. All 8 billion of us. It’s worth a moment to reflect on that fact, sometimes.
No, I will not do that, because in your example my attitude would be clearly inappropriate.
However, if I use “ImmanuelCunt” as a name on a forum, I’m just doing an inoffensive pun. I am not referring to anyone in particular nor am I personally demoting them.
I think I may have misread you - the fact is that people can make a funny joke but substituting Cunt for Kant, and that this may well summarise (in zero detail) one’s thoughts about Kant, but of course you wouldn’t get any marks for that in an exam.
I find the distinction between cunt and wanker particularly interesting. As Mark Steele observed, they usually don’t go together. He suggested Tony Blair was a rare example of both inhering in one person.
I’m confident that I and others hereabouts are sometime cunts and yet often wankers. But doing both at once would require adroitness beyond my abilities. Kudos.
In ImmanuelCunt, cunt is clearly referring to Immanuel Kant, which is an insult to those who respect Kant as a philosopher.
If someone disagrees with Kant’s philosophy, then they should at least attempt to justify themselves.
I would greatly admire your restraint if someone referred to you as MichaelCunt, and you just shrugged it off as a meaningless silly pun on words. You must have a far better self-control than me. Fights have broken out over less.
Tolerating crude expletives on the Forum, even as silly puns, does not seem to be right. However, that is just my personal opinion.
At the end of the day all so-called “swear words” are but noise made by those unable to express their feelings intellectually and properly. For reasons that vary from sheer inability or simple refusal to do so. So yes, these noises, as they are, do alarm people—and for good reason.
In some ways, they are like the sound of a person cocking a gun or unsheathing a weapon. Sure, the act in and of itself is harmless. But if addressed to a person, especially when the person who did so is in a state of illogical blathering (swearing) it is reason to either fear for one’s life, any life around them, or any life who that person will return “home” to who are unfortunate enough to have to live with or rely on them to live.
So yes, OP has a point and valid concern, vague as it may be. But considering it’s clearly in the context of a pun regarding a celebrity, I would say it’s not that big of an issue unless someone who actually has reason to be concerned (not OP) brings it up.
Just my 2 cents.
The crude expletive is clearly referring to Immanuel Kant and is naturally demoting him.
What else can the crude expletive be referring to other than Immanuel Kant?
When I refer to my country, I say “the United States” or “the US.” For better or worse, the standard demonym for citizens of the US is “American.” I use that.
I doubt you are really offended.
I didn’t have the nerve to use that word.
Mate, I can say it louder but not more clear…
I didn’t expect to get much support for my position on this. As I noted in the OP, the word is not as ugly in other parts of the world.
No. I’m not bothered by any cultural disrespect. I"ll say it again—the use of “cunt” in a username angers me because of the contempt it shows for women.
Fair. But upon reading this statement one might find them self wondering any number of the following:
-
Are you a woman?
-
Have you harmed/disrespected women in the past and so feel guilty or otherwise in need of atonement or eternal hyper-vigilance in even small relatively unknown corners of the Internet such as this?
-
What acts do you do perform (whether online or yes ideally in person) that reduce or otherwise stop contempt, but most importantly, that which results from contempt, true and actual harm, be it physical or mental, towards women through your own real life efforts and endeavors (a cause and concern you seem to be impassioned about)?
If any of these questions are untrue or to be answered in the negative, we arrive at what modern society in 2026 calls a “you” problem. Otherwise, carry on noble sir. Though one should realize everyone else seems to take it as the opposite as you do. I wonder, pray tell, did someone other than yourself put this thought into your head? Perhaps someone who’s treated and feels as such. 
No.
I won’t say I’ve never shown disrespect in the past, although I try not to. But no, I don’t feel any need to atone.
In this context, I see the expression of public contempt as “true and actual harm.”
For what it’s worth, I highly doubt there’s many young and easily-offended girls perusing “The Philosophy Forum” on a whim or as a hobby.
Reminds me of the “shot in the dark” dynamic. Sure, someone might get hurt. But it’s not likely. In fact, it would be extraordinarily rare, and in this particular context might even offer more benefit than loss in the long run.
Not to be snide, but in a true logical position, one might call your “need to protect women” as an equal public declaration of, not contempt, but superiority, that for some reason you, as a man are allowed to be offended, but a woman, is simply unable to process such intellectually. This is the very definition of unconscious condescension. Sure, we can point to history and even countries in the world today where women are treated as less than equals, far lesser, in fact. Absolutely. But here? Perhaps one is simply crying wolf at the mere sight of a chihuahua.
I see, thanks. But in the UK, and likely Australia at least, it shows no disrespect for women in the way it is typically used. At least that’s the claim. That’s why I’m going on about cultural differences.
I think you are factually wrong that in Europe, @ImmanuelCunt showed any disrespect for women in his choice of username. But maybe that’s not your claim.
This is a rather good practical example of issues around ethical relativism.
I have never heard the term “rock spider” before.
But as for nonces, there’s none more infamous than Jimmy Savile.