Slow Burn Podcast Episode Summary: Decoder Ring | Mailbag: Drug Names, Cow Abductions, and the “Ass-Intensifier”

Release Date: July 16, 2025

In this engaging episode of Slow Burn’s Season dedicated to unraveling cultural and linguistic quirks, host Willa Paskin delves into a mix of quirky linguistic phenomena, cultural myths, and the intricate world of pharmaceutical naming. Titled “Decoder Ring | Mailbag: Drug Names, Cow Abductions, and the ‘Ass-Intensifier’”, the episode masterfully weaves listener questions with expert insights, providing a rich exploration of each topic.

1. The "Ass Intensifier": A Linguistic Deep Dive

[00:51 - 03:08]

Willa Paskin introduces the concept of the “ass intensifier”, a linguistic trend where the word “ass” is appended to adjectives to amplify their meaning, such as in “big ass” or “dead ass.” This phenomenon caught the attention of Eric Scheuer, an animator from Portland, Oregon.

Eric Scheuer remarks at [01:57], “I definitely remember the first time a friend of mine came to me and said like somebody was talking about her son being a grown ass man. I've never heard that before.”

Nicole Holliday, an acting linguistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, provides foundational insights into this trend. At [06:25], she clarifies, “We actually do call it ass intensifier in the scholarly literature,” adding that some scholars refer to it as the “anal emphatic”.

Nicole explains that an intensifier is a word or phrase that emphasizes another word, serving as a substitute for terms like “very” or “extremely” ([06:44]). For example, “she’s a grown ass woman” equates to “she’s very grown.”

The discussion traces the origins of the ass intensifier back to 1942 among United States Marines in the Solomon Islands, where terms like “big ass” emerged from military slang. Nicole suggests it may have roots in African American English, although definitive evidence is scarce ([08:36]).

Notable Quote:

Nicole Holliday [09:54]: “We use it more now. This is interesting because things like intensifiers are not supposed to be invented, right. They're supposed to be what we call a closed class.”

The conversation highlights how the intensifier has evolved, becoming more prevalent in informal and humorous contexts, and explores similar phenomena in other languages, such as Danish ([13:15]).

2. Aliens Abducting Cows: From Folklore to Pop Culture

[15:57 - 30:54]

Listener Stacen Goldman from Stowe, Massachusetts, shares a curious anecdote about her son playing the video game Scribblenauts, where an alien demands a cow to leave in peace ([16:06]). This question propels the hosts into a fascinating exploration of the cultural trope of alien cow abductions.

Willa Paskin references various pop culture instances where cows and aliens intersect, including South Park's early episodes, the movie Mars Attacks, and Got Milk? commercials, underscoring the ubiquity of this imagery ([17:20]).

The episode traces the cattle abduction myth back to 1897, detailing an incident involving Kansas farmer Alexander Hamilton, who reported a UFO abduction of his cow. Although Hamilton later admitted to fabricating the story as part of a local “Liars Club”, the tale persisted, gaining traction during the atomic age and the rise of UFO fascination in the 1960s and 1970s.

Greg Egigian, a historian at Penn State University, provides historical context, revealing how Linda Moulton Howe’s 1980 documentary “A Strange Harvest” cemented the connection between cattle mutilations and extraterrestrial activity ([26:22]). Her work posited that these mutilations were part of alien experiments to create human-alien hybrids ([27:07]).

Notable Quote:

Willa Paskin [30:01]: “But for those of us who fret neither about alien visitation nor the health of our herd, the appeal of the alien cow connection may be pretty straightforward.”

The segment discusses the enduring appeal of this myth, despite its fringe status even among UFO enthusiasts. Willa humorously notes the commercialization of the trope with merchandise featuring UFOs abducting cows, while Eric Scheuer reflects on its humorous aspect: “The likeliest explanation is because it's kind of funny, this image of a cow being sucked up by a beam of light.” ([30:12])

The segment wraps with a tongue-in-cheek reflection on the persistence of the myth, mingling humor with curiosity about societal beliefs.

3. The Quirky World of Pharmaceutical Naming

[31:36 - 45:50]

Another listener, Amy Goldfine from Marin County, California, inquires about the perplexing names of prescription drugs, highlighting names like Culypta, Viepti, Ubrelvi, and Zabspret ([31:00]). Enter Laurel Sutton, a professional namer and co-founder of Catchword, who sheds light on the complex process behind pharmaceutical naming.

Laurel explains that naming drugs involves extensive creativity and stringent legal and regulatory checks. Pharmaceutical names are divided into generic names, assigned by medical bodies to convey the drug’s purpose, and brand names, crafted to be memorable and marketable ([35:03]).

Notable Quote:

Laurel Sutton [33:46]: “Part of the testing that they do is things like having people say drug names over the phone. So can you hear it clearly over the phone? Can you read it if it's written in a doctor's terrible handwriting?”

She discusses the challenges in creating unique, pronounceable names that don’t cause confusion with existing drugs, often leading to unconventional combinations of letters. Examples include Zostavax for shingles and Gardasil for HPV, which effectively convey their purposes while maintaining distinctiveness ([39:48]).

The conversation touches on the FDA’s role in approving drug names, ensuring they are not overly prescriptive or misleading. Laurel highlights how names like Skyrizi successfully evoke imagery and associations conducive to brand identity ([44:31]), whereas others like Zavpret and viepti may sound awkward or artificial due to the constraints of availability and clarity ([43:42], [41:31]).

The segment concludes with Laurel expressing concerns over the future of pharmaceutical naming, pondering whether the increasing difficulty in finding unique names might lead to less effective branding ([45:50]).

Conclusion

In “Decoder Ring | Mailbag”, Slow Burn adeptly navigates through the peculiarities of language, the persistence of cultural myths, and the intricacies of pharmaceutical branding. Through insightful discussions with experts like Nicole Holliday and Laurel Sutton, and engaging listener anecdotes, the episode offers a comprehensive look at how language evolves, how certain myths endure in culture, and the behind-the-scenes challenges of naming life-impacting medications. This multifaceted exploration not only entertains but also deepens our understanding of the subtle forces shaping everyday language and beliefs.

Notable Quotes Recap:

• Nicole Holliday [09:54]: “We use it more now. This is interesting because things like intensifiers are not supposed to be invented, right. They're supposed to be what we call a closed class.”

• Eric Scheuer [30:12]: “The likeliest explanation is because it's kind of funny, this image of a cow being sucked up by a beam of light.”

• Laurel Sutton [33:46]: “Part of the testing that they do is things like having people say drug names over the phone. So can you hear it clearly over the phone? Can you read it if it's written in a doctor's terrible handwriting?”

This episode exemplifies Slow Burn’s mission to illuminate intricate and often overlooked aspects of contemporary culture, making sense of the past to better understand the present.