4 ms·

> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response. I completely disagree. It is a lot

> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response. I completely disagree. It is a lot more absurd. Language is not a priori. It must be learned. It requires both a speaker and a listener. Both must understand the meaning of the spoken word as well as other factors of communication, including tone and body language, in order to interpret and understand the communicated meaning. The idea behind a "bad word" is that the word is offensive no matter what. It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word is, or the intended meaning of the word or the subject of the sentence that employed the word. The word is intrinsically "just bad" according to this religious belief. Objectively, sometimes there are polite ways to use a "four letter" word such as "fuck." The preceding sentence is one such example. But ... if you hold the irrational view that I am describing, there is no such thing. It is ALWAYS "bad." This is a faith based belief system. There is no grounding for such a position. Under such a position, even an academic discussion of the word would require it be censored for fear of offending someone.

thfuran 1y ago
You describe it as a religious belief. Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? The rationality of religion aside, belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.
- gspencley 1y ago
  > Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system." > belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational. I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence. - I don't "believe" that there are people with religious beliefs. I observe that to be the case. - I never described "belief that there are people with religious beliefs" as irrational. I think your point might be that, because there are people with irrational beliefs out there we must appease them? Or something? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational. We were talking about language and communication and the absurdity that there is a such thing as an arbitrary sequence of phones or characters that would cause anyone exposed to that to be offended. All I was saying is that such a belief is unfounded. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    >There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational. But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.
    - gspencley 1y ago
      > But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases. Now I understand why we are talking passed each other. Thank you for the clarification. You are reframing my premise and, in doing so, changing it to something I never said. Although before I explain the source of our misunderstanding, I want to point out the irony that you are coming from a philosophically "subjectivist" position and are defending a philosophical "intrinsicist" position. Usually they are two opposite extremes and tend to be at odds with each other. Subjectivism is the idea that perception creates reality. We often will hear people use language like "my truth" vs "your truth." Your position is subjectivist in the sense that you are clinging to a premise (that I never refuted or discussed) which states that "SOME people are offended by certain words, therefore 'bad words' exist." Again, that's not the premise I stated or was discussing. But after your clarification, this is the premise that you thought we were discussing. The intrinscist position states: "Certain words are bad by their nature. They will automatically cause ANYONE who hears them to be offended." it is the "intrinsicist" position that I was calling absurd. I never said that there aren't people who hold this belief. And I never said that there was no such thing as PEOPLE who get offended by words. I was saying that the idea that a word unto itself can be "bad by nature" is absurd. And I stand by that.
      - 1y ago

thfuran 1y ago

You describe it as a religious belief. Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? The rationality of religion aside, belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.

gspencley 1y ago
> Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system." > belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational. I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence. - I don't "believe" that there are people with religious beliefs. I observe that to be the case. - I never described "belief that there are people with religious beliefs" as irrational. I think your point might be that, because there are people with irrational beliefs out there we must appease them? Or something? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational. We were talking about language and communication and the absurdity that there is a such thing as an arbitrary sequence of phones or characters that would cause anyone exposed to that to be offended. All I was saying is that such a belief is unfounded. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.
- thfuran 1y ago
  >There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational. But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.
  - gspencley 1y ago
    > But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases. Now I understand why we are talking passed each other. Thank you for the clarification. You are reframing my premise and, in doing so, changing it to something I never said. Although before I explain the source of our misunderstanding, I want to point out the irony that you are coming from a philosophically "subjectivist" position and are defending a philosophical "intrinsicist" position. Usually they are two opposite extremes and tend to be at odds with each other. Subjectivism is the idea that perception creates reality. We often will hear people use language like "my truth" vs "your truth." Your position is subjectivist in the sense that you are clinging to a premise (that I never refuted or discussed) which states that "SOME people are offended by certain words, therefore 'bad words' exist." Again, that's not the premise I stated or was discussing. But after your clarification, this is the premise that you thought we were discussing. The intrinscist position states: "Certain words are bad by their nature. They will automatically cause ANYONE who hears them to be offended." it is the "intrinsicist" position that I was calling absurd. I never said that there aren't people who hold this belief. And I never said that there was no such thing as PEOPLE who get offended by words. I was saying that the idea that a word unto itself can be "bad by nature" is absurd. And I stand by that.
    - 1y ago