Assault, abuse, and discrimination can all be verbal but it isn`t the always words used that make it so. For example calling your ten year old a "fucker" would be abusive but it is not abusive towards anyone to call a problem a "fucker". Rather it is the sense of the language that makes it abusive or benign. However, there are words such as cunt, nigger, kike, jap and chink which, when used by
certain segments of the population, are always assumed to be in an abusive and derogatory sense. The use of these words in conversation is particularly dangerous because they will be considered a part of common and acceptable use over time. If you want to talk about slippery slopes look at the word gypped (to be cheated out of something), which is derived from the word gypsy and is extremely offensive to many of Roma descent. So, yes, these words, and others, are, for
certain segments of the population, always unacceptable and if you use them you should be a social pariah
More on the current debate below the fold:
The word most relevant to the current debate is different from those I have just described and it is of course: Fuck. The power of the pro-fuck side of this debate (how's that for framing?) is that the etymology of fuck is so unsure. It can, depending on how it is used be extremely offensive or almost completely benign. There is no segment of the population which is morally justified in taking an extreme offense to any use of the word, as there are for other words which are considered similarly taboo. Nevertheless, I would argue that it is in the interest of English speakers everywhere to abandon the use of the word.
I think that it is generally useful to consider obscenities in three distinct classifications Derogatory (those aimed at deriding a specific segment of the population), Religious (Jesus Christ!), and descriptive (shit, fuck, ass, bitch, cock etc.). I argued above that the derogatory are always unacceptable, and that is a moral stance, which I feel is unassailable. I wont consider those that are religious in nature in this diary because I don't feel that it is particularly relevant, however the descriptive obviously are.
Most of the descriptive obscenities in our language are tied to acts of, or anatomy related to sex and those that aren't are focused largely around our excretory functions (though I will admit that no obscene mention is ever made of the kidneys). Maybe this is because of our puritan legacy, though I have no evidence to support any reason for our fixation with considering the sexual obscene. The motivation behind the preponderance of sexually inspired obscenities is irrelevant to their effect of perpetuating a view of human sexuality as obscene.
Derogatory obscenities have clearly defined targets however it takes slightly more mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that the words fuck, cocksucker, and their ilk are reinforcing a counterproductive view of human sexuality as obscene just as derogatory terms reinforce negative stereotypes about the groups that they are aimed at. I think that it almost undeniable though that the typical treatment of sex in the public American discourse is that it has much more in common with fucking than with love making. The constant debate regarding sexual education's best format is an example of this, the right's argument being that teaching methods of safe sex encourages sex while we argue it increases the odds that sexual activity that will occur, regardless of the curriculum's, content will be safe. In this case, the left has been effectively forced to concede the moral high ground. Between 1999-2001 the CDC conducted a study indicating that 46% of high school students have had sex, and a separate study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy says that most sexually active teens wish they had waited longer to have sex. Why is it that our answer as a party is to teach these kids to use a condom while the Republicans get to say that we should help them avoid having sex? I think that it is because we (Americans, not liberals) use the word fuck and other sexually explicit obscenities that we (liberals not Americans) are forced to concede that sex is in fact dirty. We can't argue that we should encourage the emotional education (as opposed to the right's indoctrination) of teens in order to prepare them for the sexually trying period of their lives that they enter in high school. A program could be created that would prepare teens to find for themselves the situations and times when it is right for them to say yes or no but it is not feasible to do so because any program which suggests, or even alludes to, a teen being ready to have sex is "morally" wrong. If discourse about sex were more related to terms with positive or neutral connotations such as love making, intercourse, or intimate relations instead of fucking then America would be much closer to an open and honest assessment of the government's role in human sexuality. Similarly, ff sex wasn't couched in terms like fuck and cocksucker then the people living in America would be in a healthier position to assess sex's role in their lives.
To fuck means to have sex, and that is as inescapable as cunt meaning vagina. Cunt is an obscenity that refers to the female reproductive system and is therefore derogatory towards women. Unless you believe human sexuality is something to be derided why would you use fuck in passing anymore than you would use cunt?
It should be noted that nowhere have I argued for government or site wide censorship of any obscenity. That is not my argument and I believe that obscenities should not be censored. I instead argue that intelligent people should be able to self-censor themselves out of concern for the conclusion I reached in my diary.