Another positive aspect of this, however, is minorities reclaiming slurs against them and making those words as a part of their own subculture so they cannot be used harmfully. The LGBTQ+ community excels at this. For example, the words queer, butch, and fag all contain a lot less venom than they used to (the last one is in-process of reclamation, and should only be used by queer people for queer people who have expressed comfortability with it).
BIPOC communities have reclaimed slurs. Sex workers have, as well. Language evolving to diminish the power of oppressors and transfer that power to the oppressed is beautiful, IMO.
Thanks. What you say is true and interesting—and in some senses, not true for some older slurs. I don't think that "kike" and many other ethnic slurs have been recovered or resuscitated as something positive. So the counter-example is an interesting phenomenon. In this case, to "diminish the power of oppressors."
The examples I'm mainly thinking of, though, are the use of words that had their origin in violence but seem now not to have those senses. Is that good or OK? or a diminishing of language? I'm not sure.
Because I did not grow up in a extreme right wing Evangelical home, phrases like “I’ll be damned,” “come hell or high water,” “I’m having a hell of a day,” and the occasional use of “shit” when trying to fix stuff; was common! Naturally, when I began attending right wing Evangelical institutions, those expressions were deemed “wordy durds.” Nevertheless, such expressions as well of the use of the “f…” word does not bother me at all. Consequently, one’s family and religious background is a factor! For instance, “grumbling and complaining” in Scripture are two words that may be conveyed with one English word … “b..ching.” Some gen-X Evangelical students had no problem saying the word, while others had ears that were quite “virgin” to hearing such language and easily offended. Yet, it’s difficult to watch television or movies today without hearing a four letter word. We are far removed from the Puritan culture that tried to forced people to conformed to their personal convictions about such matters.
What bothers me more are Christians who are so concerned about the words people say while turning a blind eye to the authority of Scripture that’s specifically concerned about our deeds like integrity, justice, sacrifice, lust, etc. It’s been my experience that far too many Christians strain at gnats while swallowing a camel 🐪.
They remind me of the folks that said I couldn’t attend a Bible college unless I cut my hair, stop attending movies, stop dancing, stop drinking beer or wine (as an older student living on their own), stop cussing, etc.
Herb, that makes sense. It's pretty clear that strong language of whatever kind is contextually situated and contextually determined. That you don't hear the f-word as at all bothersome says, I think, that it's originally violent meaning has been mostly lost. That's partly my point: the original strength of words is lost by using them more trivially.
So the question then becomes: what words do we hear today that are still meaningfully strong, and will they hold that strength? or be diminished in the same way that "bloody" has been in the U.K. and many words in the U.S.
I'm not against strong language; I am concerned about the devaluation of language (even if that may be inevitable).
Another positive aspect of this, however, is minorities reclaiming slurs against them and making those words as a part of their own subculture so they cannot be used harmfully. The LGBTQ+ community excels at this. For example, the words queer, butch, and fag all contain a lot less venom than they used to (the last one is in-process of reclamation, and should only be used by queer people for queer people who have expressed comfortability with it).
BIPOC communities have reclaimed slurs. Sex workers have, as well. Language evolving to diminish the power of oppressors and transfer that power to the oppressed is beautiful, IMO.
Thanks. What you say is true and interesting—and in some senses, not true for some older slurs. I don't think that "kike" and many other ethnic slurs have been recovered or resuscitated as something positive. So the counter-example is an interesting phenomenon. In this case, to "diminish the power of oppressors."
The examples I'm mainly thinking of, though, are the use of words that had their origin in violence but seem now not to have those senses. Is that good or OK? or a diminishing of language? I'm not sure.
Because I did not grow up in a extreme right wing Evangelical home, phrases like “I’ll be damned,” “come hell or high water,” “I’m having a hell of a day,” and the occasional use of “shit” when trying to fix stuff; was common! Naturally, when I began attending right wing Evangelical institutions, those expressions were deemed “wordy durds.” Nevertheless, such expressions as well of the use of the “f…” word does not bother me at all. Consequently, one’s family and religious background is a factor! For instance, “grumbling and complaining” in Scripture are two words that may be conveyed with one English word … “b..ching.” Some gen-X Evangelical students had no problem saying the word, while others had ears that were quite “virgin” to hearing such language and easily offended. Yet, it’s difficult to watch television or movies today without hearing a four letter word. We are far removed from the Puritan culture that tried to forced people to conformed to their personal convictions about such matters.
What bothers me more are Christians who are so concerned about the words people say while turning a blind eye to the authority of Scripture that’s specifically concerned about our deeds like integrity, justice, sacrifice, lust, etc. It’s been my experience that far too many Christians strain at gnats while swallowing a camel 🐪.
They remind me of the folks that said I couldn’t attend a Bible college unless I cut my hair, stop attending movies, stop dancing, stop drinking beer or wine (as an older student living on their own), stop cussing, etc.
Does this make sense, Jim!
Herb, that makes sense. It's pretty clear that strong language of whatever kind is contextually situated and contextually determined. That you don't hear the f-word as at all bothersome says, I think, that it's originally violent meaning has been mostly lost. That's partly my point: the original strength of words is lost by using them more trivially.
So the question then becomes: what words do we hear today that are still meaningfully strong, and will they hold that strength? or be diminished in the same way that "bloody" has been in the U.K. and many words in the U.S.
I'm not against strong language; I am concerned about the devaluation of language (even if that may be inevitable).