Subject: Re: Bad Language (was Re: Time to stop the rot.)
Date: 13 Sep 1999 11:07:01 +1000
From: (Andrew Bromage)
Organization: Monash University
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian

G'day all.

Peter writes:

>Well the 'so called' bad words have legitimate equivalents. It's because
>people wish to be offensive that they have constructed the 'so called'
>bad words. Consider various alternatives for a womans sexual organ for
>example. 'So called' bad words, ARE 'in fact' bad words.

As I noted, most modern English "bad words" were the legitimate Saxon
words for the concepts they describe. They became "bad words" because
the Norman invaders believed that anyone who used Saxon words was
uncouth or uneducated.

It was cultural genocide which "constructed" most bad words, rather than
a desire to offend.

Disclaimer: This is, of course, not how all bad words came about. It's
true of most of the overwhelming majority, though.

"Bad" _phrases_ (made from ordinary English words which in combination
appear offensive) are a different beast. They can appear in many ways,
such as taboo, euphemism, dysphemism, rhyming slang and so on.

>I cannot understand the mindset that does not see a value
>in upholding social values.

I don't see a value in upholding "social values" in and of themselves.

They are a means to an end. When we hollowly follow social niceties
(or religious tradition, or whatever) without realising why we do it,
that's a very dangerous thing.

In the case of "bad words", I think it's useful to study how they came
about, so we can understand _why_ they were originally considered "bad".

Once we understand that, we can decide if the reasons are good or bad,
and thus decide whether or not we want to keep on considering them bad.

>The current climate of political
>correctness actively discourages value judgements of any kind. If I, for
>example, decide that white civilisations are superior to black ones, Im
>a racist.

It would depend what your motivations were for deciding that.

BTW, if you decided on that belief in particular, you'd be on very shaky
ground. "White civilisations" and "black civilisations" are very
broad brushes.

Part of the problem is that people are so unwilling to look critically
at their own values and beliefs, and to understand why they believe and
value what they do.

>Any society however must make some
>value judgements in order to survive. We must decide what is good and
>bad for us. Is it any wonder that young people of today are confused?

As a young person, I can truthfully say that I am confused. I don't
understand some aspects of the culture in which I live. They seem
bizarre and alien to me. I don't understand, for example, why we
believe
that some words are in and of themselves "bad". This seems a strange
concept to me.

>There are no social values that are given to them as criteria for such
>decisions.

I'm more confused by the "social values" that I see in my fellow human
being...

>Christianity at least attempts to give some guidelines.

The Bible says nothing about "bad words". Blasphemy, yes. Insults
and curses, yes. Not offending people for the sake of it, yes. No
mention of "bad words".

>With regard to men who sheepishly follow the current fashion trend

[...]

Nobody has ever been totally free from that particular limitation.

>Whilst your comments are indeed welcome, you have not answered my
>question, as indeed no one else has, which was - What is so 'fantastic'
>about a proliferation of bad language in society?

What I would find fantastic is not an increase in the amount of offence,
but more recognising how what we call "bad language" came about, and
recognising it for what it is. THEN maybe we can make an informed
decision as to how desirable it is to label some words as inherently
bad.

Cheers,

Andrew Bromage