alt Hacker News>The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd.
No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.
Replies
If a comedian elicits a laugh from a person - who is at fault if the person laughs, the comedian or the person?
I would argue that the person is at fault. Unless you are suggesting one does not have a choice whether to laugh or not.
If that were true, then all comedians would either be funny, or not funny, for all people. That is simply not the case.
> 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.
> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.
Disagree. The fact that voluntary communication works is somewhat miraculous, sure. But the idea that a reader could be made to experience something unpleasant against their will by mere words is far stranger. Obviously unpleasant meanings can be conveyed through words, but the idea that the words themselves can be inherently unpleasant feels like some kind of moral panic/social contagion (like if there was a satanic panic centered on the "brown note") rather than a real thing.