I’m not against “dirty words”. I’m against degrading words that have malicious intent and functions built into them

Often my posts against using insult words or slurs as part of public debate about ideas are dismissed on the grounds that I am supposedly overly focused on mere words. There are several different complaints.

One is that words do not matter but how we use them. There is of course an obvious truth in that statement taken by itself. There is nothing inherently wrong even with a harsh word like “fuck”. It’s good that we keep a lot of emotional charge in the word by not overusing it and abusing it and it’s good that we have recourse to it in any number of circumstances where it can be used to shock or provoke or intensify or otherwise stimulate people. There is also no mysterious intrinsic wrongness to a lot of other such “curse” (or “cuss”) words, e.g. “shit”, “ass”, or “dick”.

In fact, these and other similarly “vulgar” words have a sort of wonderful dialectical tension that gives them their power. They are somewhat arbitrarily forbidden and ruled as impolite and potentially offensive and their forbiddenness in certain contexts is precisely what makes them effective words. Bringing them into contexts they are typically not allowed makes them strong words. The more we relax the general rules of politeness against them and make them entirely ordinary, the more we rob them of their power when we want to use them.

The true defender of harsh and vulgar words wants to keep them as harsh and vulgar words. That means keeping the general politeness norms in place so that the words keep their expressive power on those occasions when we employ them. People who say the word fuck every other word eventually inure those around them to it, after the initial shock. A word becomes too routinized, too ordinary while giving no offense and it loses all of its emotive power.

So, I am for keeping many curse words around. I like that our language has words with emotive thrust. I also think that not using them all the time or, at least, having social rules that specify where they are appropriate and where inappropriate is terrific. This is one of the ways we signal intimacy and formality. Being able to relax the restraints on language or needing to tighten them up is part of adjusting ourselves to the differences of relationships with the people we are talking to and the contexts in which we are talking.

The latitude to curse more loosely with friends is an expression and manifestation of one’s broader comfortability with friends. The restraints in cursing in formal contexts is part of one’s expression and manifestation of respect for social norms generally. And in general, the air of forbiddenness around certain words gives them their force when the time is right to use them. If you love those words, or love having available the functions that they serve for when you want recourse to them, you should usually uphold the general restrictions on their usage that give them their power in the first place.

The words have no magical “intrinsic” wrongness. The rules about them are on one level arbitrary of course. But once there are meanings and implications associated with words then they have effectiveness. It’s knowing that a word is considered and will be taken by others as generally coarse or informal that makes it your choice to sound coarse or informal when you use it. You know that the social understanding is that you are going to present yourself in this way should you use the word.

And it’s good that we have words set up and at our disposal for when we want to sound coarse or informal. If I want to drop the f bomb for emphasis, it’s good everyone’s properly sensitized so my emphasis is received. If I want to signal to you that I am unusually comfortable with you by talking with relaxed language restraints, it’s great we uphold the understanding about formal language restraints normally.

So, no, I am not pearl clutching prude who cannot handle the coarseness of foul language.

And of course I also understand that you can hurt or insult people in other ways besides using insult words. I get how language works.

So why the stance against insult words from “stupid” to “douchebag”?

First of all, the ethical wrongness of these words is not found in politeness rules that arbitrarily (but usefully) rule them coarse. The word “fuck” is not ethically wrong. It may be ethically wrong to violate politeness norms or treat someone overly coarsely and the word “fuck” could contribute to that in any number of circumstances. But basically it is just a politeness norm that is against “fuck” at all.

But there are ethical norms that set me against the words “stupid”, “moron”, “idiot”, “imbecile”, “fucktard”, “retard”, “asshole”, “shithead”, douchebag”, “nigger”, “faggot”, “cunt”, “tranny”, “bitch”, “kike”, etc.

These words are not merely ruled out by politeness. They are not merely coarse. They are not merely informal. They are not merely emotive. All of that would make them fine in some cases and not in others. Like with the word “fuck”.

The problem with these words is that, given our linguistic customs, they express hatred and are functionally harmful. They are words intended to hurt and so they are expressions that have malice loaded into them, given our speech norms. Of course, there are exceptions. Some of the slurs listed above can be (or even have been already) reappropriated by their targets. Some people friendly with each other may have understandings that they are using derogatory names as ironic terms of endearment and as long as that’s genuinely how they’re taken, they may be functionally fine.

But it is wrong to express maliciousness itself and insult words do that. They also are degrading, dehumanizing, and falsely essentializing. They dismiss people’s worth too broadly. This makes them false and opposable on truth grounds. Even people with a number of character flaws are not just bad people. Even people who do not comprehend a lot of important truths or who are willfully ignorant are not just stupid.

Let me stress–it is vital that we be able to properly ascribe vices to people. For those who bizarrely accuse me of being an Orwellian language tyrant trying to obscure the truth by taking away the words for expressing it, nothing could be further from reality. I want us to use lots more words. Rather than lumping everyone who says or does something erroneous together in the supposedly irredeemable pile of the “stupid” people, I want us to be more honest and more precise and more constructive.

Call someone willfully ignorant if that’s what they are. Or figure out if they are just injudicious, shortsighted, biased, undereducated, miseducated, underinformed, misinformed, autistic, suffering from dyslexia or another learning or reading disorder, guilty of a logical contradiction, employing fallacious reasoning, falling prey in a particular instance (or often) to any of several dozen cognitive errors common to all of us, etc.

I am categorically not saying that you should obscure the truth of intellectual errors for the sake of others’ feelings. I am saying that you should not treat people maliciously and with either callous disregard for their feelings or the cruel desire to hurt them. Abusive insult terms for pointing out intellectual mistakes are not just factually descriptive.

In our general linguistic context, they are usually loaded up with hostile emotive content that regularly is intended to hurt and discourage people and regularly functions to do just that quite effectively. Using that language signals you want to hurt. It’s the malice that is unethical, not the truth. (And since these words over essentialize someone’s proneness to error, they are also often untrue also).

It is similar with insults aimed at attacking people’s characters–words like “asshole”, “douchebag”, “fuckface”, and on and on. The English language, for one, has an incredibly rich and varied range of words for precisely describing any number of very particular character flaws someone could have or the wrongness of any particular action.

You can, without the unethical malice of a degrading insult word more targetedly criticize someone or (usually more accurately only a specific action or set of them) as stubborn, callous, cruel, insensitive, lazy, mean, irresponsible, dangerous, reckless, tyrannical, abusive, dishonest, hypocritical, underhanded, cowardly, two-faced, vindictive, nasty, sociopathic, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, flippant, glib, rude, obnoxious, self-centered, self-absorbed, selfish, narcissistic, greedy, egomaniacal, insecure, hostile, ungrateful, unjust, authoritarian, unfair, etc.

This is just the tip of a huge iceberg of precisely targeted, potentially truthful and accurately descriptive words. They can be used in ways that justifiably both convey strong emotions and evoke them in their targets or in others–but without degrading their targets with malicious words.

As long as you are just accurately describing someone in ways that are evidentially supportable then should they get offended and accuse you of undue hostility that’s their problem.

“No, no, no. I’m not insulting you. I’m describing you.”

Of course, even in describing someone negatively, we should show some tact and concern for their feelings in many cases if we want them to grow or if we want to have constructive relationships with them. But where a lot is at stake socially and politically it is fine and good in public discourse to call spades spades. And in interpersonal relationships we need to be able, however tactfully, to broach the subject of others’ vices as a matter of our own self-defense if nothing else. We are entitled to request of others that they not treat us poorly. We just should not do so in abusive and degrading ways with insults. But we should do so in targeted ways, with limited accurate describers about the precise natures of how their actions or, in really serious cases their characters themselves, are problematic in one way or another.

So in short it is not “dirty words” that are the problem. It is not criticism of bad ideas or bad actions that at all needs to be reined in. The problem is the malice loaded inherently into insults and slurs, given the norms of our language. The problem is also that the words are falsely over-essentializing and they are degrading. And good people should refrain from treating others in degrading and malicious fashions as matters of principle. Good people should be very leery of the temptation to become self-righteous people who feel so morally certain of their ideas and/or their moral character that they feel they have license to lash out nastily at others, vent their cruelty, and, in the process become abusive, bad, self-indulgent people themselves.

We see this with those religious people who call others they deem bad “sinners” and delight in imagining them in hell. It’s an ugly temptation. I am repelled by all cruelty that blinds itself to its own maliciousness by self-deceptively flattering itself by calling itself either “moral rightness” or “honesty”.

It is neither.

Your Thoughts?

 

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • http://GatwickCityofIdeas Richard W. Symonds

    “Can the word ‘fuck’ be morally wrong, you ####### moron?”

  • scottbelyea

    “… “fuck”. It’s good that we keep a lot of emotional charge in the word by not overusing it and abusing it ”

    Really? It seems to me that “fuck” is about the most overused and abused “intensifier” we have. In some conversations/writing, it’s frequency of use is staggering. Rather than being a useful part of good strong writing, it’s become nothing more than a token of lack of imagination of the writer.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      I’m speaking normatively, not descriptively. It’s good as a general practice that we refrain from overusing it. That doesn’t mean everyone is adhering to this principle adequately.

      But, that said, even as much as it is overused in some contexts, it’s still kept sufficiently out of others to have its punch. Like, for example, when a politician is caught using it in public, it’s a big fucking deal.

    • http://cfiottawa.com Eamon Knight

      Or as Michael Flanders put it:

      I must say we do feel that perhaps the whole field of literature and the arts has got a little too uninhibited lately, wouldn’t you say….These four letter words and so on. I am very much opposed to this. There are very few of these four letter words left. If they all come into common use, we shall have nothing left for special occasions.

  • Brad

    I’d add that spewing epithets is lazy, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, at least in public.

  • grung0r

    good people should refrain from treating others in degrading and malicious fashions as matters of principle.

    Daniel,

    Would you hold this position in regards to a debate with say, a neo-nazi mass murdering rapist over whether it is is acceptable to rape and murder Jews?

    If in the face of such a situation you continue that such a person should not be treated with malice, I commend your consistency, though I wholeheartedly reject your repugnant, and dare I say, stupid ethics. Otherwise, I will continue to wait for the Daniel Fincke Book of People and Positions that Should or Should not be Treated with Respect so we can actually debate he meat of the matter.

    • John Morales

      Malice: I do not think this word means what you apparently think it means.

  • Rick Craig

    No one – NO ONE – has a “right” to be shielded from words they find offensive. When people use offensive words it’s up to those around the offender to strongly criticize such behavior and to give correction which may or may not then be acknowledged and implemented by the offender at his option and no other. Vulgarity is an area of speech and action that we in this society that reveres personal liberty in speech as well as other areas, must tolerate (in the pure sense of the meaning of that word which has nothing to do with acceptance or advocacy) in others in order that they tolerate it in us when (and whether!) we slip into it ourselves.

    • http://poundhillnorthindependentcrawley.freeforums.org Richard W. Symonds

      “Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government’”

      Lenny Bruce

  • Carlos Cabanita

    Autist is an ableist (neurotypicalist) slur.
    I agree with the rest. I think in general the insults in a discussion are a form of ad hominem fallacy. ‘You are too stupid to understand my superior logical arguments’. In some ways, the claim to intellectual superiority has been a form of priviledge, as it has been long used as a justification to have access and belong to the social aristocracy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.richardsfink Patrick RichardsFink

      >Autist is an ableist (neurotypicalist) slur.<

      True.

      One point about "douchebag" — it's the antifeminist aspects of the word that bothers me these days. "What's the worst thing you can call someone? Why, something that goes into a vagina for dubious medical purposes!"

      I guess the answer is to simply quit trying to find ways to insult each other and seek ways to communicate even if we dont; think communication is possible.

    • http://cfiottawa.com Eamon Knight

      My impression is that “douchebag” is being reclaimed by some feminists as an epithet, precisely because it has the connotation of being something useless in practice and misogynist in concept (because the device is predicated on the idea that vaginas are unclean). Never been one of my favorite epithets anyway, so the question of whether it’s acceptable, by whatever criteria, is moot for me.

    • John Morales

      I think in general the insults in a discussion are a form of ad hominem fallacy. ‘You are too stupid to understand my superior logical arguments’.

      You’re wrong, since that’s not the ad hominem fallacy, the which refers to claiming someone’s argument is wrong on the basis of who they are.

  • ointment

    I agree that ‘fuck’ in itself is not ethically wrong, but I think some usages of it are – notably ‘fuck you’.

    ‘Fuck you’ connotes sexual aggression. It’s saying “I want to dismiss and humiliate you, so how do I do that? I fuck you.” Implying that being ‘fucked’ – being penetrated – makes you the submissive, degraded party in the relationship.

    For that reason I think it’s misogynistic, with overtones of homophobia as well. It also twists and degrades sex, which should be a positive act, and makes it into a power game and an act of aggression.

    I never fail to cringe when I see it used by some of the other bloggers here – often those who oppose other slurs that have misogynistic origins or connotations.

    • John Morales

      I disagree; I see it mostly used as an expression of dismissive exasperation, and no less applied to things or circumstances than to people.

    • Ysanne

      That doesn’t eliminate the origins of the phrase “fuck you”/”fuck that”. The dismissive meaning comes exactly from the premise that something that is fucked is thereby rendered worthless.

    • John Morales

      Ysanne, no, but I draw your attention to the etymological fallacy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ivar.husa ivarhusa

    (possible re-post)
    This topic brings to mind Lenny Bruce, who, in the 1950′s attempted to rob the word “nigger” of its hateful value by using it liberally in his comic routine. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      in the 1950′s attempted to rob the word “nigger” of its hateful value

      didn’t work

  • http://www.facebook.com/using.reason usingreason

    I have to respect the proper use of insults and dirty words and bow down before Chris Kluwe as the current heavyweight champ of their proper usage.

  • John Morales

    [meta]

    I am impressed by the sheer amount of work that’s gone into that first line in the OP.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      I am tickled you noticed. :)

  • Ysanne

    Dan, I just wanted to thank you for spelling out all these points so patiently and clearly.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Thank you Ysanne.

  • Ariel

    I sympathize with a lot of what you wrote; nevertheless, some critical remarks.

    You can, without the unethical malice of a degrading insult word more targetedly criticize someone or (usually more accurately only a specific action or set of them) as stubborn, callous, cruel, insensitive … misogynistic, racist …

    As long as you are just accurately describing someone in ways that are evidentially supportable then should they get offended and accuse you of undue hostility that’s their problem.

    Oh yes, the “I’m not insulting you, I’m describing you” cliché. In general, my worry is that you put too much emphasis on mere change of words, instead of what is actually being done with them. And the danger is that it can be seen only too easily as the ‘license to kill’ with the new words of your choice. The point is that in sufficiently focused and emotionally engaged groups, words from your list can take (in practice) the role of insults. Moreover, I don’t think it’s a mere theoretical possibility. Quite on the contrary, this is what’s actually happening.

    It seems to me that it happened to a substantial degree to the word “misogynist”, its technical flavor and descriptive content notwithstanding. (As you undoubtedly know, insults can also have evidentially supportable, descriptive content. And technical flavor only makes the situation worse.)

    For a start, consider someone saying “Oh, the word ‘nigger’ is not an insult – we use it to refer to the black people! Whenever I use this word, I will be very happy to provide you evidential support for the claim that the person in question is indeed black. So you see, we are merely describing them!” Well, I guess we all agree that such a claim is wildly off the mark. But why? What exactly is wrong with it? My answer would be: although it’s quite correct that the word is used to refer to the black people (so it has a descriptive, evidentially supportable component), it simply doesn’t follow that it is used “merely” (or even primarily) for descriptive aims. The point is of course that it’s standardly used to express hatred, contempt, it is meant to be degrading, meant to make you shut your mouth … and so on, and so on. Obvious, isn’t it?

    But that’s also the reason why I’m very suspicious about the “I’m not insulting you, I’m merely describing you” cliché. Being an insult is not a question of having descriptive content (insult words usually have such content); it’s rather a broader question of how the word is used in a given community. And my impression is that the ‘technical’ word “misogynist” is in fact used in the feminist circles with many of the traits of a typical insult: that it is indeed used to express hatred, contempt, that it is meant to be degrading, meant to make you shut up or go away, meant to make the others think that you are not a worthy partner in a discussion … and so on.* All the protestations of the engaged parties notwithstanding. The cliché “I’m not insulting you, I’m merely describing you” – hollow as it is – is then introduced simply as a standard step in this dance. Anyway, that’s my picture of the situation.

    In general again: it seems to me that concentrating on a division between words that are somehow “kosher” and the rest results in the kosher words taking in practice the role of insults. The more ‘technical’ the kosher word sounds, the easier it then becomes to engage in the “I’m not insulting you, no, no!” ritual. In this way the situation is made even worse.

    * The word “communist” is to some degree a fair comparison here. Of course you can define it in neutral terms, but this fact doesn’t have much to do with the question whether it is – or was – used as an insult. And I think it was indeed used by certain groups as an insult. I’m guilty myself of using it sometimes in such a way.

    • http://stuckinthered.blogspot.com Evelina

      Ariel, I see your point, but I’m not sure I agree with “misogynist” as an example. Perhaps it’s because I tend to think of the word as describing a particular behavior or idea rather than the person as a whole. But at what point can we claim, based on a pattern of behavior or ideas, that a person or group is just generally misogynist? Or can we ever, without falling into the habit of essentializing?

  • Raymond

    I want to recommend a book, by Richard Mitchell, albeit a somewhat ‘old’ one, but nevertheless relevant even today. Richard Mitchell was an English professor who used to publish a newsletter before there was the ever popular internet, called ‘The Underground Grammarian.’ But before I type the book title I’d like to say that though Professor Mitchell didn’t, or rarely if ever(I can’t recall one instance), used the word ‘fuck’ in a sentence you pretty much knew the sentiment he was trying to convey in his writing.
    And ‘fuck’ as a word doesn’t seem to have lost anything even though it is so commonly used, it’s as if there’s no other word that can be used so widely as different parts of speech and still supply one’s personal meaning, however one’s brain is functioning grammatically.
    The book by Richard Mitchell is called, “Less Than Words Can Say,” and was published in the 1970s. More information? Google it.
    I leave you to draw your own conclusions about its content. But it, along with a book by Robert J Gula called ‘Nonsense,’ has been, for me, a reference book I generally go back to time and again for various reasons.

  • http://post-modernenlightenment.blogspot.com/ J_Enigma32

    You had me right up until “shithead an douchebag” as insults.
    Those do *not* belong in the same category as faggot, nigger, kike, gook, cunt, tranny, et. al.

    I do agree that words like “moron”, “retard” and its variations, “imbecile,” “tranny”, and the others are harmful, willingly malicious language (I’m still torn on idiot and stupid. I’m often found wondering if those words have been watered down so much that they don’t even bear a resemblance to what they originally meant; I throw them around as insults, but I steer clear of “retard” and the others). Douchebag, shitface, fuckface, and the others are not remotely in the same class of words as the others, because they lack the social impact. Douchebag, shitface, fuckface, and other words of the sort have traditionally not been aimed squarely at a specific group of people with the goal of marginalizing that group of people. Kike, tranny, cunt, nigger, faggot, dike, retard and others have been. Those words carry social baggage in a way that “douchebag” and “shitface” can never hope to achieve and, as a result, they should not be classed together in any sense.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X