Does profanity pollute speech, or pleasurise it?

[367kGNh0]

Personally, I think profanity a sheepish way to just show you can't go about things normally. What do I mean by this?:

I think the last time somebody swore to me (recent) was when they tried to explain how Hitler was intelligent, only "his morals were [REDACTED] up". this person, in my opinion, has portrayed one of two things though his use of profanity.

1) The use of profanity has become so mainstream and dominant, that it became apart of his regular vocabulary

2) He was so infuriated by the action of Hiter, lack of self control drove him to add foul language, when he could easily have said "his morals were radical"

So I ask, does profanity pollute speech or do something else?

[Duthomhas]

It is rarely a lack of self control.

It is sometimes an inability to be more expressive (at the moment), but more often than not it is part of an emotional impact, either designed (to affect the audience) or spontaneous (to express intensity).

You are asking an open question that scientists (psychologists, sociologists, etc) have been asking and studying for a while now.

There is plenty of good reading if you wish.
https://www.google.com/search?q=purposes+of+profanity+in+speech
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+swearing+offensive

Just be aware that not everything that pops up on Google is true. In particular, avoid the opinion pieces, even those from people with letters after their names. They have an agenda which doesn’t necessarily reflect on reality. And all those studies that claim causal links between swearing and honesty/intelligence/whatever.

You will get the most benefit from reading about the underlying purposes/reasons/psychology of bad language.

Enjoy!

[z05DSL3A]

Profanity is language that is considered by certain parts of a culture to be rude or offensive. It can be used pejoratively to express a low opinion of someone or something or used to express strong feelings towards something. I have no problem with people using language correctly and 'profanity' is just a more expressive way of saying something. If your prudishness means you are offended, that is your problem.

[George P]

For those who know me in the meat world, they know I speak profanity as if it were my first language.

I know when to use it, I know when not to. I use it as a highly rarefied spice. As infrequent and sparingly as possible.

Those who know me in the meat world know that if I'm cursing up a blue streak there's something serious going on.

[ne555]

> The use of profanity (...) became apart of his regular vocabulary
funny typo
iirc, «The Stuff of Thought» (Pinker, 2007) presented examples were the subject suffered some mental degeneration that impeded them from normal speech, but could still swear.

> "his morals were [REDACTED] up"
useless censorship is quite bothersome.


wonder about swearing in a secondary language...

[fiji885]

Furry Guy wrote:

in the meat world

Furry Guy wrote:

blue streak

I can't believe how much I'm laughing because I've misread and misinterpreted this... I've honestly never heard the term meat world before, so I thought FurryGuy was probably a steak-enthusiast or something. It really doesn't help that I read it as "if I'm cursing up a blue steak" (steak cooked for very little time so basically it's raw).

ANYWAYS

Rascake wrote:

So I ask, does profanity pollute speech or do something else?

Profanity is like spices. Some spices go great with some foods, some don't. It all depends on what that specific food is and how people are used to enjoying it. Some like their foods with a lot of spice and some like it mild. There exists some foods where you should never use a particular spice and some foods that YES you should use a particular spice.

[George P]

fiji, meat world....the real world. As opposed to the digital world. A phrase that I've used for years.

I am glad I could make you laugh. :)

[helios]

"his morals were [REDACTED] up"

I think if we're discussing profanity, it's worthwhile to be explicit when quoting other people or when discussing words. I suspect that person didn't actually say "bracket redacted bracket", but did they say "fucked", "screwed", or what? I mean, I don't think anyone who reads this thread is going to be shocked to find that the word "fuck" is mentioned, so what's the point of censoring it?

The use of profanity has become so mainstream and dominant, that it became apart of his regular vocabulary

Profanity is as old as language itself. I can't imagine what leads you to conclude that it has become more "dominant" than at any other point in history.

He was so infuriated by the action of Hiter, lack of self control drove him to add foul language, when he could easily have said "his morals were radical"

Well, for starters, "radical" and "fucked up" do not mean the same thing. "Radical" means "extreme" or "outside the generally accepted boundaries", while "fucked up" means "fundamentally and irredeemably wrong". A thing could be both, neither, or just one of the two.
So it's not necessarily "lack of self-control". Language is about conveying ideas and emotions. If you say that something is "fucked up", you're not just describing the thing in question, but also your personal opinion on the matter. There are obviously cases where such subjectivity is irrelevant, of course, but I don't think casual conversation is one of them.

So I ask, does profanity pollute speech or do something else?

It pollutes speech exactly as much as you think it does. There's no test you can apply to a sentence that will tell objectively how "polluted" a sentence is, there's just your opinion on the matter. Personally your typo of "apart" bothers me more that the word "fuck".

[367kGNh0]

say "f word", "screwed", or

f-word. Also I did redacted as I just didn't want to be in trouble. I am also (don't use this as an argument please it isn't relevant) uncomfortable with swearing. I DONT MIND people doing it to me, but I refuse to do so to others. As I fear it may occur due to the influence of others. Mainly for religious reasons

Well, for starters, "radical" and "f-word'd up" do not mean the same thing. "Radical" means "extreme" or "outside the generally accepted boundaries", while "f-word'd up" means "fundamentally and irredeemably wrong". A thing could be both, neither, or just one of the two.

I see, in that case he could have just said "wrong"

Language is about conveying ideas and emotions.

He possibly portrayed an emotion of hatred through it. And hatred links to anger. anger links to lack of self control. It works like "damn!"

your typo of "apart" bothers me more that the f-word.

more that the word

Irony.

[helios]

Is not the typo itself that bothers me, it's that "a part" and "apart" are a grammar joke. "Apart" means separate, but the words are joined, while "a part" means together, but the word is split.

Also, please don't misquote me. If you don't want to transcribe my phrasing verbatim consider not quoting that passage.

[Repeater]

Profanity is like any other part of speech. Used well, it can be extremely effective. Especially if it's used creatively. Used badly, less so.

David Simon's used of "fuckbonnets" in this - https://davidsimon.com/but-im-not-a-lawyer-im-an-agent/ - is like an emotional punctuation mark, expressing not only his anger and frustration, but by virtue of not just being something familiar like "bastard" or "fuckwad", I can really feel how he feels; that existing harsh language just isn't harsh enough. It's effective, and funny, and engaging, all at once.

Replace "fuckbonnets" with "bad people" or "unpleasant characters" and the impact and meaning changes radically.