DU Community Help
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)which is in itself a little bit rude.
I think you can say anything to anybody under the right conditions. The operational envelope for some of those utterances is extremely narrow, but it's there. I don't believe in telling people what kind of images to make, what kind music to play, or what kind of stories to tell. Literalism in terminology is about as authoritarian as you can get, and I don't believe that's how liberals are supposed to think.
I don't agree with banning the words that are already banned. And I can say that without advocating their use. Neverthess, they're banned and since I never use them anyway I don't notice their loss from my vocabulary.
Why set a bar at all? Who will set it? What is the criteria? Why does one type of vulagrity merit more opprobrium than another? Because a group of people clamor for it. And their criteria is based on emotional responses for which they are not held responsible. And of course, such a critical mass of emotion creates an opportunity for some people who simply want to tell others what to do to "lead from the rear". Is that kind of eventuality befitting the attitude of a group of people who consider themselves liberals?
Why is it necessary to carve out a special class of vulgarities for each group that demands it? Vulgar is vulgar. Rude is rude. Hate is hate. I don't like the idea of people carving up basic human decency like a consumer product. It's divisive.