Profanity as a reaction to power becomes a visible symptom of anger and impotence in public life. The debate in Poland, some observers argue, has grown coarser, and the line separating fierce criticism from unacceptable language has blurred. A journalist from Rzeczpospolita weighed in, suggesting that the escalation of unparliamentary terms reflects not only rhetoric but a deeper frustration directed at those in power. The writer described his irritation and concern about how public discourse increasingly frames disagreements in crude, dismissive tones. His reflections appear to respond to outspoken remarks by the actor Andrzej Seweryn, who urged forceful actions against government supporters, as well as similar provocations seen in statements by Władysław Frasyniuk on social media.
Absurd conclusions
The author observes a troubling rise in profanity within public spaces. He notes that the right side of the political spectrum often reacts with incredulity rather than restraint, and he asks readers to consider what the ruling party has already done to degrade the quality of public conversation. The sentiment he shares is that cursing conveys a sense of anger and helplessness directed at those in power, and the author frames the problem as a critique of PiS rather than an attack on freedom of speech itself.
– a note attributed to the journalist on social media, highlighted as a key point in ongoing debates
According to the commentator, the central drivers of the public debate’s breakdown are not every critic who uses sharp rhetoric or provocative slogans. The responsibility, he argues, lies with the governing party when its policies and leadership generate strong opposition that then spills over into harsher language. In this view, the anger of opponents is framed as a reaction to governance rather than a justification for every scornful remark directed at politicians or supporters.
He suggests an analogy, describing the shift as blaming a shop window for a theft that the thief commits. The implication is that the environment created by leadership can encourage extreme responses, but that does not absolve individuals of accountability for their words and actions. The piece raises a broader question about where the line should be drawn between legitimate political confrontation and gratuitous hostility that harms civil discourse.
Other perspectives on the matter emphasize that public figures, celebrities, and lawmakers share responsibility for maintaining a constructive tone. When rhetoric crosses into threats or dehumanizing language, the risk is not only harming the tone of debate but also normalizing violence or coercion as a response to political disagreement. The writer urges readers to reflect on how language shapes the political culture and whether voices from all sides can model a more disciplined and respectful form of contestation.
READ ALSO:
– A plea from a public figure to avoid swearing seems to have been met with resistance; critics describe a vulgar message aimed at the opposition march, warning about consequences of permissive rhetoric
— A well-known actor calls for stronger measures, with remarks about the leadership and figures associated with the opposition, sparking debate about lines crossed in public discourse
— Commemorations and political reactions in the run-up to a major public demonstration prompt discussions about the responsibilities of public voices and how to respond to provocative rhetoric
— Commentary on the dynamics between political actors and media coverage highlights how language and framing influence public perception and political engagement
In the end, the discourse reflects a broader struggle over how Poland should express dissent and how leaders set the tone for public conversation. The question remains whether sharper words can coexist with a commitment to civility, or if the line has already moved beyond the point of reasonable debate. The exchange underscores a persistent tension in democratic life: the pressure to critique power forcefully without surrendering the norms that keep dialogue open, humane, and inclusive.