Sorry, the article doesn't really explain much of anything. 'Fuck' has always been offensive. 'Shit' wasn't offensive but was always vulgar. 'Damn' was offensive but now is less so. 'Nigger' wasn't offensive unless you were white and the word was used about you.

The thesis, I suppose, is that offensive words were 'born' that way; but, that is contradicted within the article (see the above examples).

The article does touch on something significant by mentioning 'vulgarity':

vul·gar

1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation. 2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture. 3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant. 4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses. 5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs. 6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue. 7. lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting. –noun 8. Archaic. the common people. 9. Obsolete. the vernacular. (dictionary.com) And this is where offensive language really comes from - words the elite don't like us commoners using. Offensive words are dangerous to the elite because they challenge effete sensibility and show the common denominator: everybody shits and most everybody likes to fuck. 'Niggers' were slaves exploited by the elite and the status conveyed by this word even made 'white trash' feel superior. The best way to defuse the power of offensive language is to 'mainstream' it (e.g., 'fuck'). When offensive language is banned, it is effectively canonized. Really makes a good argument for the First Amendment (and against PC bullshit, IMHO). Lenny Bruce is not afraid.

You have an interesting premise - that the root of delicate sensibilities about certain words are a form of elitism (presumably, class-based?). I don't understand, though, how your conculsion that "mainstreaming" language follows from the premise. If words are deemed offensive on the basis of their mass appeal, then shouldn't mainstreaming a word make it more offensive rather than less?

I am fed up with men claiming special privilege

regarding the use of strong language to express frustration fuckin’ a

because of their direct participation in warfare what the fuck

that pernicious activity we’re fucked for sure

invented and perpetrated by alpha males

on the rest of the human race situation normal all fucked up

an activity that most harms

those women and children and elders those poor fucks

unfortunate enough

to live on the particular piece of dirt

the alpha males have selected

as the object and site of battle fuck no

and harms as well

the young just fuckin’ babies

combatants who have

been deceived or coerced into uniform

(deceived or coerced into the motherfucking

valley of death)

an activity

which ultimately harms us all.

as if the rest of the human race,

those of us not directly under fire,

do not daily face fuck yeah

the same issues of life and death,

aggression

fear

courage

cowardice

risk to life and limb

power and powerlessness that’s fucked up

living in this dirty, distorted bloated nightmare

of consumption and fuckin lies

that is the end product of ruthless competition who gives a fuck?

among other alpha males who will stop at nothing

to amass

the biggest

pile

of

shit. fucked with no kiss that’s for fuckin’ sure.

Here is a usage you omitted that I learned from my son serving in Iraq: FUBAR Fucked up beyond all recognition.

Fuck has not always been offensive as it was originally a legal acronym when one was arrested "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge"

That's what I thought too. When it wasn't mentioned in the article I assumed I was wrong.

And yes "mainstreaming" words to take away their power does work. We queers have it down to a science.

Thank you (and all the other fraysters) for the reply (s).

You are correct, the conclusion does not follow from the premise for I was not presenting a deductive argument*; rather, I was making two inductive observations: 1) 'Naughty' words, 'foul' language, 'obscene' discourse has historically derived from language used by laypersons, and 2) The offensiveness of such words becomes diluted by the frequency and migration of usage.

1) I think you admit 1 from the definition of 'vulgar' submitted in the top post. But, I would substantiate that by Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (you'll find an interesting usage of 'queynt' in there, if you look- it renders our current usage of the 'C' word and our current usage of its homophone, 'quaint', even more insulting). Dante's Inferno (one of the first works written in the vernacular) is almost pornographic in its violent imagery.

It is also interesting how current elites, attorneys and doctors, still use Latin terminology to preserve their status (e.g., "Prima facie" the "pudenda and vulva" and "habeas corpus"). Historically, Latin was the 'delicate' language for describing bodily functions and personal rights (even more interesting with regard to individual self-determination, no?). It is a 'dead' language - one that 'the strangers do not know'.

2) Special (offensive) usage of words becomes more incisive with official (or authoritative) sanction of its usage, irrespective of whether that sanction is negative or positive. The specialness of the word becomes diluted with frequent, and more malleable usage.

A good example from the article is 'fuck'. 'Fuck' is now more often used for emphasis - similar to the German word 'doch' (e.g., "I think I'm fuckin' right", or better yet: "Fucking A!"). There are good reasons to believe that Eisenhower used this word, Kennedy used this word (and it is certain that Nixon) used this word. Bush and Cheyney have used this word and it is promulgated - the word is defused because it no longer has its 'backroom' status and is used without offense to the audience frequently. It's not the end of a politician's career if the word is quoted (it might have ended Eisenhower's career if quoted in the media).

If we examine a very offensive and hurtful (and currently taboo) word, "nigger", and its current use, some interesting considerations arise. "Nigger" cannot be said by Imus, or Russert, or Bush, or Cheyney, but it can be said by 50 cent, Snoop Dog, or Kanye West, c.f., "Now I aint sayin she a gold digger (When I'm in need) but she aint messin wit no broke niggas (I gotta leave)".

"Nigger" will be appropriated by affluent white teenagers (well, it is being appropriated), and middle class teenagers because they want to be pseudo bad ass posers. In this way, hip-hop has subverted the insult - a word poor whites have used to denigrate has become a word that affluent persons use to complement (in context).

When the victimization associated with the word becomes healed (and obviously I believe transitive usage is part of the healing process), 'nigger' will go the way of 'bastard', 'son of a bitch' , or become so mundane that it is irrelevant (e.g., "sambo") or utterly uncool (e.g., "hophead" ... 'hep cat' ...'old fart').

The exclusive use of the word, however, will fortify both its significance and devisiveness.

Ultimately, the relationship between a sound (utterance) and its referent is arbitrary - established by mere social convention. The signifier is worthless without significance.

"Stick and stones may break my bones,

but names will never hurt me."

But, what do I know, I'm a 'dick head'.

*deductive arguments are only valid if they are tautologies - useful for eliminating obfuscation or 'unpacking' meanings in complex symbology.

As a kid, I remember Dad would look up obscure words in the dictionary and prepare himself so that he could use them the next day at work. His motive was to embarrass his boss and create a situation where he looked superior. My Dad was "transferred" quite a bit which resulted in us kids having to change schools many, many times. My Dads coworkers thought he was a dick for doing what he did, and they were right. People that write articles using uncommon words and use complex sentence structures are not superior. They are in fact, dicks. Did I use deductive reasoning? Is it in fact a tautology? No, literary diarrhea is what it is. The article was a good idea but poorly executed. The first commenter is just a dick, and the the author took the bait. You guys would have loved growing up at my house. In England you would be wankers.

Well, I'm sorry you had a difficult time with your father. Tough about changing schools and all.

Sorry as well to your father's co-workers and boss, perhaps your father was just being...himself. That's what happens when you take a dick seriously.

Words can't hurt people if people don't let them. The old 'sticks and stones' things.

But, I'm sorry if you were hurt. Lenny Bruce remains unafraid.

Best wishes always,

Richard Noggin

A little historical perspective needed here. Both shit (pronounced "shyte" ) and fuck (fouke-from low Dutch, middle English) were once in the common vernacular. It is in prohibiting the use of a word that gives it power.