Bad Words
Offline Story first, then question:
I recently made another sport youtube video, as I often do, which had an accomponing song that had a decent ammount of expletives. I had chosen the song though, not because of this but because the beat and production was amazing and flowed with the clips I had very well. I decided to share it with some like-minded fans on an internet forum, and accidently opened a can of worms. While some praised the video, several said that they were highly offended by it. Now I don't have a problem with cursing, and I did put a warning before the link, yet I was very surprised by the reaction.
So my question is this: are bad words really that bad? Do they offend you in some way? If so, why? And if not, why not?
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Nah there's not a goddamn thing wrong with "curse words". This, for some reason is an arbitrary rule that religions, especially Christianity like to practice...but nothing in the bible really supports it. The only thing in the bible that talks about language that I know of mentions "let the words of my mouth be acceptbale in thy sight o lord" or something to that degree. It's not explicitly mentioned what things are and are not acceptable. And CERTAINLY no modern english word would be considered among any words mentioned anyway.
The problem is with the idea that you can attach morals to words without context. You can't. If I say something like "I hate you you dumb bitch you", the the word is used in such a way to be combative and negative, the a negative connotation and would provide the recipient reason to be offended. Now, if I instead say "Did you go to the party last night? It was fuckin great." Now I used an explitive there but was not directed at anyone in a negative way. On the contrary it was used to display a positive feeling about an event, so none SHOULD be offended.
HOwever, for whatever stupid reason, people are offended by the words themselves rather than the context used.
The more you know about the world around you, the less you have to make up.
The Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode on this is excellent and sums up my attitute quite well. These 'bad' words are just sounds and have no more power than other sounds. We've just arbitarily decided that those sound's should make everyone uncomfortable. The best part though is that it's making a big deal about these words and insisting they not be used that gives them the power to offend. If noone made a big deal about them theny they wouldn't be offensive and people intending to offend or be cool and rebellious wouldn;t bother using them.
Personally I'm completely baffled by the reaction to the c-word (Not crap, the other one. I wont use it here due to the reaction it gets) People who seem to use Shit and Fuck in every sentence will suddenly get serious and tell off the speaker off if they ever hear the c-word. What makes this one the super swear? Why is it offensive even to those who make a point of swearing at every opporunity?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
There have been a couple of really great studies on bad words. I have my own theories on it, and this is actually something I was considering doing a research paper on.
First, a couple of things to take into account:
*Expletives (curse words) are used primarily to express deep emotional content. "Fuck off" is more emotionally charged than "Go Away" without even taking body language into account.
*In the workplace, approximately 3% of the words used are expletives.
*At leisure, it's somewhere around 13%. Think about that for a second. One out of ten words or so is a curse, on average!
*Now the biggie. I don't recall the percentage off the top of my head, but a HUGE proportion of curse words deal with one topic. You know what it is already, of course.
Our obsession with censoring expletives is related to, if not directly tied to, our obsession with censoring sex. Both sex and cursing are natural acts, common to all cultures. We just have an unnatural fixation on not admitting that everyone does both.
I've asked parents the question, "Why do you want your children to be protected from hearing swear words?"
It's kind of an interesting question, when you consider it. Do we think our children will not curse? Would we want them to not curse? I mean, you remember in school, that one kid who would never curse? He caught an awful lot of hell for it. Remember?
If we're not protecting our children, who are we protecting?
What exactly will we gain if we don't hear curses?
The really odd thing that I discovered in some preliminary questions back when I was considering this as a topic, is that virtually nobody can even come up with a reason why cursing is bad!
When someone says, "Don't curse!" And you say, "Why?" They'll say, "Because my mother is around," or "It's rude," or "The kids will hear."
If there was something bad about it, don't you think you would hear, "Don't curse because then X will happen" where X is a bad thing.
Think about it. Someone getting offended -- bad? Not inherently. Taking offense is relative, and usually means that someone has done something personally injurious to someone else. So the answers above are circular. Why will mom get offended? Because curse words offend her. Why?
Personally, I've noticed that most people who think that curse words are magically bad, also believe in magical invisible friends. I wonder if there's a connection...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You think that one's bad? Think on this for a second. George W. Bush has lied to take us to war. Thousands of our citizens are dead as a result. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are dead in Iraq as a result. Escalating terror is likely to cause more American deaths as a result of the correct view that America unjustly invaded Iraq.
And yet, Bush is in office.
He has taken away our freedom. He has condoned, and perhaps even ordered that people be arrested for things as mundane as wearing Anti-Bush T-shirts at Republican rallies.
And yet, 38% of the people in the country think he's doing a good job.
He has vetoed stem cell research, potentially keeping tens of thousands of Americans from getting treatments in their lifetimes for diseases that would be curable.
And yet, every third car on the road still has a "W. The President" sticker on it.
Now...
Imagine for a moment that he walks off stage at a State of the Union address, and someone leaves his mic on. As soon as he walks offstage, he mentions the nigger in the front row. What would his approval rating be then? Would the demands for impeachment be more than a few hours behind?
Curse words do have meaning, and power. But, having meaning and power does not make them bad. It makes them meaningful and powerful. There's a really, really big difference.
Oh, and incidentally, that magical "c" word that you're afraid to say is not nearly so bad in other places. I have a friend from the Netherlands who says that over there, it's more like a mild expletive, and is often used in friendly banter.
Go figure.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ironically, you avoided to use the word in that post as well.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
I don't think any of the regulars here would object. Now almost any woman will if you ask , for example, "Can I see your cunt?" or say "your cunt stinks." or even comment "nice cunt!"
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
The progression of your argument here is inherently flawed.
"Don't do action Y because X will happen (where X is a bad thing)"
doesn't preclude X from being "cursing".
In the same way I believe things like inter-species murder are inherently ethically wrong, I think things can be inherently ethically wrong in and of themselves. And in a way you cede this by allowing for consequence X, which is a bad thing.
However, I agree with the guy above who invoked Penn and Teller.
They did a genius piece on this.
It simply has to be the ideas behind the words (that begins the taboo), because the words themselves are harmless. (go to someone who doesn't speak any english and call them a "cunt". Just do it nicely. They won't know the fucking difference.)
Since I am not offended by any of the ideas represented by taboo words, I could give a fucking shit less.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
The gay community turned a bad word into a neutral word. Thirty years ago if somebody called me queer I was ready to fight them. The word was considered a terrible insult to gay folks.
But over the years many in the gay community started using the word in a more positive context. Example; Queer Studies, Queer Baseball, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Using it like that took the sting out of the word. It became less offensive.
The word queer today is much less offensive than it was in 1977. If somebody today called me queer, I'd probably reply, "That's right. So what's you're point?"
Same thing happened to the word "redneck". In the Seventies the word redneck was used to insult uneducated, low income, white Southerners. To call somebody a redneck in the South back then would be asking to get your ass kicked.
But today the word is used by many white Southerners to describe themselves or their culture. There's Redneck Pride and Redneck Rodeo and "You Might be a Redneck if...." jokes. Nobody gets pissed off about it anymore. It's used as a sense of pride.
If you own the word, you also control its power.
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
There are social norms...that is why you dont do certain things...
If never used an explative in front of my mother, not because if I do something bad will happen, it is out of respect. I hold her in higher regard than I would some guy I am out having a beer with. One of the ways you can show respect to someone is these small meaningless things.
It is why you dont fart in front of a girl on your 1st day.
It is the reason you dont talk during a moment of silence.
It is the reason you wear black to a funeral.
It is the reason you wear a tie to court.
socail norms.
These small inconviences I think can help you stay grounded about the order of things. I dont believe in god or the afterlife but if one of my friends die and his mother says I know he is still with us. I just agree...not because I agree with her, but in the big picture my disbelief in the afterlife is not as important as her losing a child.
So the short answer it is out of respect.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Why respect baseless beliefs?
You argue that you don't swear around your mother because you respect her more than "somebody you're out having a beer with".
But it's only a matter of respect if there's something wrong with swearing, otherwise it's not a lack of respect. It's just an action.
So you can advance an argument that the thing that is wrong with swearing is that it goes against social norms.
But I then advance the obvious argument:
Why not challenge social norms you disagree with?
If there's nothing else wrong with swearing then the fact that a lot of people agree that there's something wrong with it, then there's no reason to persist in the delusion.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you would "agree" with the mother who lost her child. It's intellectually dishonest to commit to a lie just to make someone feel better about themselves. There's nothing wrong at expressing sorrow over someone else's loss, but there's no reason to pretend it's something you don't believe it is.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Well yeah, Given the lectures I've recived when I've causually said "cunt" in the past I figured I'd better play it safe. But others have gotten away with it in this thread, so... cunt, cunt cunt cunt cunt.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I also agree with Penn and Teller's profanity episode. I mean, words only give you power if you let them. I'm not black, so I'm going to sound very white saying this... but if someone called a black guy a nigger. Sure it has been used in the past as a very demeaning and dehumanizing term, but it is only a word. If you let that word, or any other word bother you, it gives that word power. If you don't give shit, then who cares? Sticks and stones people. I'm not sure it was such a good example, because today in rap you hear "nigger this, nigger that." I'm not sure why people are so offended when that word is so public now, and has lost most of its hateful meanings (not all though) </whiteness>
JESUS SAVES!!! .... and takes only half damage!
I agree, and I also like the point P&T make about words changing meaning over time. Like the word 'humbug' or the white/dark meat of chicken (instead of saying breast or thigh).
Along with the P&T episode 'Profanity', the documentary 'FUCK' is also interesting.
ETA:
P.S. I personally don't understand the problem with 'cunt' TBO.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
There is a time and a place for everything.
I'm all for challenging baseless societal norms, but sometimes, it's really not that serious and probably not worth the trouble. For an example, as much as I'd like to, I can't call my boss a 'stupid cum dumpster'. I think she is, but the corporate rules and societal rules tell me if I do, I'll get fired. After all, she's my superior.
Again, there is a time and place for everything. I don't think it's being 'intellectually dishonest' not to challenge someone's belief system in a time of great grief. In fact, I think a person would have to be a huge cuntbag to actually try to correct a grieving mother in her belief. My grandfather passed away a few days ago. My grandmother kept telling me his spirit is finally at peace in the after life and I kept nodding my head and hugging her. I think it would take a real cold person to disagree at a time like that. I certainly don't think it's being 'intellectually dishonest'.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I have been reflecting on this foul slang issue and decided that our language is missing one important word.
What is the worst curse one could use on this site? I believe it would be a name for a person who posts in a thread without any thought intended. So, to be called a valueless poster is arguably the worst slur in these environs.
Such an individual may be doing so for attention or . . . points. Post for Points, P4P...I can't seem to think of a word ugly enough for this that incorporates the double "P". Suggestions?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I agree that it's sometimes not in my rational self-interest to swear, so I will not. However, this is the exception and not the rule. This is akin to claiming that:
I dont do X because X is against the law, and I dont want to break the law.
Which is devoid of any moral statement because law presupposes morals, the same way that the rules you have to follow at work presuppose morals.
We dont have to confuse moral statements (is there anything wrong with swearing?) with a discussion on what is in our own self interest (I dont swear because of the consequences I might recieve).
Ok, whether or not it's morally right, it's still intellectually dishonest to feign a belief you don't hold. There might be a good reason behind the intellectual dishonesty, but it's still intellectually dishonest.
Also, I didn't say that we have to "challenge" people's beliefs in times of great grief. You aren't obligated to entertain them. I'm sorry about your grandfather, but I'm not going to any great lengths to entertain ideas about the afterlife for anyone. We all deal with death. If someone wants to believe in the afterlife, that's their prerogative. However, it's not my fault if they are insecure in their belief to the point that the fact that I hold opposing beliefs is emotionally hurtful. They have to accept my opposing beliefs to the same point that I have to accept their opposing beliefs.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I like "PointlessPoster".
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
First off, I hardly think nodding or hugging someone is 'going to great lengths to entertain ideas about the afterlife'. It's also not intellectually dishonest to comfort someone and withhold your own beliefs for the time being for the sake of someone else's comfort in the time of grief. It is not a political rally; I see no reason so inform someone that the one small comfort they are holding on to during a very emotional situation. Perhaps if we were sharing coffee and cake and having a conversation, it would be different. To point out her irrationality in front of her husband's coffin is a dick move. It is her perogative to believe in an afterlife, as it is mine not to.
It has nothing to do with insecurity. If she wants to believe that her husband, who is lying dead before her, has gone to an afterlife, I would be a fucking douchebag to say 'No, Grandma. Grandpa is dead and he no longer exists. Not here, not anywhere. His body is decaying and soon he will just be a rotting corpse in the ground.'
If you have no problem pissing on someone in their time of need, more power to you. I have slightly more compassion and social competence than to bring up an 'afterlife' disagreement at someone's funeral.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Before Penn & Teller, George Carlin had an excellent monologue on the seven words you can't say . . .
More seriously, it does seem like we empower certain words almost to the point of voodoo. Forbidden lists come from traditionalists (sexual, religious content) and advocates of the politically correct (gender, ethnic, etc).
For what it's worth my instincts here are libertarian. People who regularly define forbidden things are inherently suspect.
I never said that "hugging" was going at great lengths.
I never said anything about "pissing" on someone.
I never said you had to "bring up" the disagreement (and I quite explicitly said that you don't have to always 'challenge' people's beliefs). If you had previously made your beliefs known, she shouldn't be suprised if you just say nothing and still "nod and hug".
If you hadn't previously made your beliefs known, she shouldn't press the issue if you don't say anything and just "nod and hug". I simply can't see your grandma pressing the issue under those circumstances, anyway. If you had said nothing, she would probably assume you agreed with her or she would forget about it.
I never said it was intellectually dishonest to "withold" your own beliefs. Again, I explicitly said there are times where it is in your best interest to do just that. There are also times where, for other circumstances, it might be the morally correct action to do.
Of course it would take a sadist to interject their ideas if it's known that it's going to produce undue emotional harm. However, these events (such as a funeral) are the exception and not the rule. And you should hold the right to withold your belief under these circumstance. The reason I mentioned intellectual dishonesty is because the person I responded to said he would "agree" with someone because of whatever event that transpired. I agree, witholding your views is sometimes a good move, but it remains that feigning other views is never necessary.
I never advocated actively pushing your beliefs on everyone under every circumstance. However, your grandma's belief in the afterlife should take no precedent over your disbelief. She quite simply shouldn't expect you to entertain the notion differently because of recent events. Her expecting you to change your beliefs or feign that you have is the same as you doing it to her for the same exact reason. Again, I'm not actively advocating "pissing" on your grandma's belief by taking advantage of her emotional state. But you shouldn't fully entertain them for the same exact reason that she shouldn't entertain yours (unless there is a genuine intellectual reason).
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I undestand that you did say to 'challenge a person's belief'. I didn't say you did.
I wrote this:
My grandmother kept telling me his spirit is finally at peace in the after life and I kept nodding my head and hugging her.
To which you responded:
I'm sorry about your grandfather, but I'm not going to any great lengths to entertain ideas about the afterlife for anyone.
My interpretation of this is that you felt I was being intellectually dishonest for not correcting or stating my beliefs to my grandfather.
I never once said that my beliefs were questioned. As a side note, my grandparents were atheist, as were there parents and my parents. It was only when they got older that my grandmother began to believe in a spiritual afterlife, but not god. She could care less whether I believed in god or not. It was your comment to another post that caught my attention:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you would "agree" with the mother who lost her child. It's intellectually dishonest to commit to a lie just to make someone feel better about themselves.
Here you're suggesting that the poster is intellectually dishonest for agreeing with a woman who just lost her child. I responded by saying it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest to 'agree' in a case where someone has just faced the loss of a person. My point in my story was that I did technically agree with my grandmother by my actions. I see nothing dishonest about that. It's called comforting another person.
In any other circumstance I would say that if I knowingly agreed to a position I held to false, then yes, it would be dishonest. In this case, however, it is not.
My apologies for the fucked up quotes, my computer is refusing to format the quotes for some reason.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You're right. I misled you with that statement. I am sorry.
It's obvious this is irrelavent since we are talking about any given issue of disagreement. In this case: the afterlife. I'm not here to debate that topic. If we want to debate religion or the afterlife, then we can make a different topic.
And my point was that there are respectable ways to "comfort" a person without actively commiting to a belief you don't agree with.
I don't think there is any circumstance where the emotional well-being of another person relies on you actively accepting their beliefs.
I am also asserting that intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty whether or not you think there is a good reason behind it. You can argue that there are good reasons for feigning beliefs, but it's still intellectually dishonest.
These seem to be the two issues on which we fundamentally disagree and I don't see the discourse leading either one of us to change, so can we just call a truce on this? (I am getting the sense that we are arguing nothing but semantics and I don't think this issue is large enough to get openly hostile over. We are also getting way off topic.)
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
You've missed my point completely, I'm afraid. And, if I understand you correctly, you're making a bizarre philosophical mistake. A thing can be inherently "wrong" within a particular paradigm, to be sure. But there is no such thing as inherent good or inherent bad without a point of reference, and without cause and effect.
To say that a thing is still "cursing" even though it's separate from a cause and effect is missing the point entirely. "Curse words" is just a colloquial way of saying "words whose meaning pushes the envelope of social acceptability." Without the cultural barrier, they are no longer "curses."
For a good part of our history, calling someone a "democrat" in public was the same as calling them a cunt at a business meeting would be today.
Psychologically speaking, curse words are a way to mark boundaries. Deviance is always culturally frowned upon. The question is where the boundaries lie. In some cultures, cursing is not the boundary it is here, and is not sanctioned socially the way it can be here.
The question the OP is addressing is whether there is anything "inherently" bad about curses. The answer is a resounding NO. This does not address many other questions, such as whether or not cursing is always inappropriate, or whether it contributes to moral decline, or whether it is a sign of healthy self expression in appropriate forums.
At the roast of Hugh Hefner, shortly after 9/11, Gilbert Gottfried told "The Aristocrats." It was a masterpiece in profanity and sexual deviance. And... it was exactly what the doctor ordered. You could feel the tension lift in the audience as he was telling the joke. It was catharsis for a city that didn't know what to do or how to act.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Some will say that cursing is bad because of this or that. I'm saying there is no actual argument underlying that statement. Everything someone will say in answer to the question, "Why is cursing bad?" is an answer to why someone will be offended, or why someone would rather not think about the words, or some such answer. That's not even addressing the question!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You said:
All I was trying to say is that it seemed you ignored the possibility that cursing itself could have been the 'bad thing' X.
That's the entire point of the OP, to debate whether or not cursing is a bad thing.
I personally conclude that cursing isn't inherently a morally deplorable action in any way.
When I was using the example of inter-species murder, I was using my own moral framework, which is the culmination of many things (most of which I probably don't even realize) to make the statement that there's something wrong with inter-species murder. This was an example to motivate the view that some things are inherently morally wrong (indeed, in some frameworks).
Basically, I was saying "While I personally think that some things are morally wrong in and of themselves, I dont think cursing is one of them."
It appeared to me that you were looking at this in a consequentialist framework to say that people would make the claim that swearing is bad if its consequences are bad.
However, you left open to interpretation what "X" is in the statement "X is a bad thing". To some people, "x" could be swearing.
(and I know people with circular logic who would assert that very claim).
I was just trying to show this as a possibility.
People that make that claim will never hear the absurdity of it.
Why is swearing bad?
Because people might be offended.
Well, why are they going to be offended?
Because they think swearing is bad.
Why do they think swearing is bad?
But if we think cursing is a bad thing, then other actions can be made morally wrong (in a consequentialist framework) by doing this:
If action X is completed, then John will curse.
How absurd sounding.
Don't make John angry, he might curse! (and we wouldn't want that!)
I'm sorry I'm not going to address the rest of your post because it is made at someone who holds different beliefs than I do.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
"Cursing" is another sin that Christians made up. They seem to make a lot of those.
I'm not ignoring it. When you suggested it, I responded by refuting this as a possibility.
I understand.
Precisely! You refute your own premise by admitting that within the framework of your experience, X is inherently wrong. This is demonstrating my point that without a frame of reference, there is no such thing as inherent good or inherent bad.
And I'm saying that I agree with you that cursing is not wrong, but you're making a philosophical mistake to claim that things exist as good or bad independent of a frame of reference.
Why else is something bad?
I still don't think you understood what I was saying. Perhaps this post cleared it up.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Since I do not wish to interrupt this thread as much as we already have, I will drop the issue for the time being. That, of course, does not mean I am agreeing with you. Because I'm not.
My apologies to the OP for hijacking your thread temporarily.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Personally, I like cussing. I don't cuss all that much, and I don't like it when people cuss so much, it overshadows the gist of what's being said, but it doesn't offend me. When I'm mad, it's stress-relieving. When I'm thrilled, it's fun to say. ("Fuckin' awesome!"
On the word "nigger." Why can't we just say it, when we want to discuss it? I mean, it seems so childish when people say, "The N word," rather than having an adult conversation using the full word.
[tangent] So redneck is a sign of pride now? Now that is offensive to me. To be proud of being uneducated *shakes head* [/tangent] Relating tot his thread, I cuss quite a lot. Its just part of how i speak., but i get angry when people tell me to not cuss. Such as my mother or my born again sister. Alot of people in this country need to realize they don't have a right to not be offended, whereas there is a rigth to , lmited, freedom of speech. I see no way that a cuss word hurts anyone unless that person lets themselves be hurt by it. When it comes to children, i truly do not understand it. When i was a young kid, about middle school, i had a friend who could no longer be my friend because i cussed. That was the sole reason. I get told often, i never listen of course , to not cuss around kids because it some how "hurts" children. Of course there never is a explanation given for how it does just that it does. ok enough of my ranting i could go on for hours about cussing, since i've been told not to do it for so long (probably why i do it so much now