Words to be avoided in Polite Conversation

[downbeatplumb]

For example the word "cunt" is probably one of the last taboo words in our language and is considered by most as a vulgar word and to be avoided in polite discussion.

Not in the UK it's not.

It is in the nice bits.

[Excited Penguin]

No words should be banned in any manner, period. Free speech all the way. That is my position on the matter.

I don't think anyone said anything about banning. The OP clearly is talking about politeness, which doesn't mean avoiding words because they're forbidden, but avoiding them voluntarily, in order to avoid causing offence. Sure - free speech guarantees you some freedom to offend in certain situation, but then other people are also allowed to think less of you for it.

This is what the OP said.

I agree  that our freedom of speech should not be restrained, unless it can be shown that others have suffered some sort of harm.

Emphasis mine.

That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that. Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't think anyone said anything about banning. The OP clearly is talking about politeness, which doesn't mean avoiding words because they're forbidden, but avoiding them voluntarily, in order to avoid causing offence. Sure - free speech guarantees you some freedom to offend in certain situation, but then other people are also allowed to think less of you for it.

This is what the OP said.

I agree  that our freedom of speech should not be restrained, unless it can be shown that others have suffered some sort of harm.

Emphasis mine.

That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that. Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.

But do we have bans on things like threats and incitements to violence.

[Excited Penguin]

This is what the OP said.


Emphasis mine.

That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that. Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.

But do we have bans on things like threats and incitements to violence.

Is that a question?

Yes, we do. I do not think those should exist either. This is about me expressing my opinion, not about debating the legal practice in any one jurisdiction. In addition to that, OP's phrasing was a bit ambiguous. I, in turn, responded unambiguously enough to address that part of his post, that is all.

[account_inactive]

Not in the UK it's not.

It is in the nice bits.

Meh. Probably.

[Homeless Nutter]

This is what the OP said.

I agree  that our freedom of speech should not be restrained, unless it can be shown that others have suffered some sort of harm.

Emphasis mine.

That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that.

No, not necessarily. "Restraint" does not mean "banning". Seems to me you're jumping to conclusions. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction among young people these days, whenever hot-button issues are mentioned, or alluded to. No sense of subtlety.

Your speech will pretty much always be restrained in one way or another, depending on the medium you use to convey your messages - by the laws of physics and your own self-preservation instincts, if nothing else. Get over it. But don't worry, nobody's trying to put a muzzle on you - no one, who realistically could do that, really gives a sh*t about what you have to say...

Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.

Yeah, well - if you're going to express yourself in vague, naively idealistic, blanket statements, you can expect people to put similar amount of effort into deciphering what you mean.

[Joods]

Is it too PC now to think that certain mere words can offend and should be avoided to placate the minorities?
I don't think so.  Some people think that words don't hurt people and we should not be dictated to by anyone else trying to tell us what we can and cannot say.  I agree  that our freedom of speech should not be restrained, unless it can be shown that others have suffered some sort of harm.
Examples of disability slurs that offend me are retard, fucktard, and lame.  They harm me because my feelings are hurt as I have kids that have mental and physical disabilities. To say that retard means slow and lame means feeble doesn't make me feel any better, especially when the intent is obvious. These are words that have been used to vilify people with intellectual disabilities.



I would appreciate your thoughts, thanks.

emphasis mine.

Totally agree with you on this. There are over 300,000 words in the English language and people choose that one? When I hear people using the word retard or any form of it, it pisses me off and I tell them why. Then out come the excuses:

Oh it wasn't directed at your kid, so what's the harm?

Or my personal favorite:
It means slow. That's all I was saying.

Nope, bullshit. Sorry, offenders, you don't get a free pass to think that I'll excuse you for using such a hateful word. The intent matters. If you call someone a nasty name, your intent is all too clear. What gets me even more is that the people using that particular word know that I have a daughter with Down syndrome. So when they say that word, they fail miserably to think how would they feel if their child had some form of MR and they knew people knew that but those people used the word anyway. Unless someone has a family member with a mental disorder, then they have no clue. And if they do have a family member with a mental disorder and they choose to use that word anyway, then shame on them for enabling the stereotype to continue.

It hurts. It just hurts. It's insensitive, rude, ignorant and just shouldn't be said. Period.

[Excited Penguin]

This is what the OP said.


Emphasis mine.

That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that.

No, not necessarily. "Restraint" does not mean "banning". Seems to me you're jumping to conclusions. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction among young people these days, whenever hot-button issues are mentioned, or alluded to. No sense of subtlety.

Your speech will pretty much always be restrained in one way or another, depending on the medium you use to convey your messages - by the laws of physics and your own self-preservation instincts, if nothing else. Get over it. But don't worry, nobody's trying to put a muzzle on you - no one, who realistically could do that, really gives a sh*t about what you have to say...

Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.

Yeah, well - if you're going to express yourself in vague, naively idealistic, blanket statements, you can expect people to put similar amount of effort into deciphering what you mean.

Restraint can mean banning. Banning is a form of restraint. Like I already said in another post thereafter:

 In addition to that, OP's phrasing was a bit ambiguous. I, in turn, responded unambiguously enough to address that part of his post, that is all.

Meaning I chose to make sure I expressed my views on the matter, lest the OP meant restraint in the way he could've meant it, namely as banning.

[downbeatplumb]

It is in the nice bits.

Meh. Probably.

There is nothing wrong with swearing, but if overused it loses its edge.
My wife hardly ever swears and this week said "fuck" I knew shit got serious.
some people use it all the fucking time just to fucking add inappropre fucking ate punctuation to their fucking words, when people like that say fuck it means nothing.

[Whateverist]

Poop, fart, period.

Ewwwww!