Universal Declaration of Fucking Rights

Universal Declaration of Fucking Rights
Experimental reframing
Reframing a preamble for efficacy
Implications of Article 30 for responsible constraint
Preamble
Declaration
Fucking generically reframed
Judicious recourse to euphemism?
Requisite strategic ambiguity?
Overt symbolism of a fucking mindset?
Mapping systemic connectivity of fucking rights
References

Half of the supporters of Donald Trump have been labelled by Hillary Clinton as a "basket of deplorables" (How deplorable are Trump supporters? The Economist, 13 September 2016). In the emphatic language favoured by many of them, what is the "fucking problem" of current governance? Understood otherwise, however, does global governance indeed have a "fucking problem"? Might that in some way be unconsciously recognized through such deplorably widespread use of "fuck" and "shit" -- behind the "closed doors" of decision-making contexts (as well as in "locker rooms")? Ironically use of such expressions by Clinton has been widely reported (Aryssa Damron, Hillary's Foul Language Is Deplorable, Townhall, 11 October 2016).

Why does such emphasis and focus in private not inform the drearily repetitive public discourse, with its usage so severely condemned as inappropriate, foul and uncouth -- if not crass and undignified, as in the case of Trump (Mark Hensch, Trump on foul language: 'I'll never do it again', The Hill, 12 February 2016)? Is the current condition of global civilization not usefully described as "bad", "disgusting", "foul" and "uncouth"?

The US presidential debate of 2016, recognized as crucial for both that country and the world, therefore features protagonists who privately make extensive use of "foul language" in their efforts to achieve their political ambitions. Curiously, but potentially of great significance, public use of such language is specifically condemned by the legislation of the country of which they are competing to be president -- a country widely criticized for its abuse of human rights in the USA and around the world.

Is the failure of public discourse to engage effectively with the "fucking problem" of society indicated by highly constrained ability to recognize the missing dimensions in that discourse -- ironically well indicated by occasional use of asterisks in "f***" or "sh*t" -- as symbols of the ineffectual? Will the disastrous collapse of civilizaton, currently anticipated as World War III, be marked by a high order of political correctness -- ignoring language favoured by many of the disempowered "deplorables" who have most to lose?

There is a tragic naivety to the belief that political correctness is appropriate to a global condition in which every convention of human rights is being systematically abused in countries and cultures of every kind.