You got it right in the first paragraph! And then drew the wrong conclusion.
That is exactly why you should be for censorship - without it all those words will lose their meaning, and people will invent new ones.
I don't see any need to invent new swear words, and I am against casual use of those words, because doing so leaves them to exist for the situations that warrants them.
I don't want, nor need, to be "shocked" all the time. Not do I want to be so desensitized that it's impossible to shocked me. I like the happy middle.
> without it all those words will lose their meaning, and people will invent new ones.
I can see where you're coming from, and can respect that, but it still feels to me like this idea that we will just perpetually invent new words that serve the same exact purpose to be a bit of an unconvincing assumption. I have no problem believing that racial slurs will go the way of the dodo eventually for example, so would there be a need to replace such words exactly? Maybe the words themselves will be adapted to fit a narrower/different definition, but the point is that it doesn't matter whether the words themselves stay static or not, because the zeitgeist that produced their meanings won't stay static anyway. So either we'll adapt the old ones to these new meanings, or we'll just resort to inventing new words for these similar/derived concepts when the old words are 'unavailable'.
And even this is still assuming that it is somehow innate for us to 'swear', or that 'swearing' as a concept is even well defined enough to try and do anything with it (like try to avoid it). I mean, if I use the word "fudge" everywhere the classic "F-word" would otherwise be used, why is it then still not considered a swear word? Maybe you could argue that it is, and that's cool, but clearly it carries significantly less of a 'sting' to it. So does it still make sense to lump it in with the other swear words? It just feels too arbitrary and ill-defined of a concept.
I don't disagree that we should reserve some expressions for intense emotions (such as those originally attributed to swearing), but like I said, Context is a key part of the language equation, which itself isn't even all that matters in communication (e.g. vocal intonation, and the whole array of non-verbal communications). Language really can't be considered in isolation, it very much still a product of verbal communication, so you have to take those factors into account too.
Besides, the whole debate about whether language limits thought or thought structures language is still up in the air, so to try and say anything conclusive about something that seems to be a purely linguistic artifact feels a bit premature.
> but it still feels to me like this idea that we will just perpetually invent new words that serve the same exact purpose to be a bit of an unconvincing assumption
> .. the word "fudge" ... considered a swear word? .. carries significantly less of a 'sting' to it ... feels too arbitrary
Yes, it's a swear word, and it has less of a string. It's exactly the way you write. It's good to have a variety of words to fit different situations. It's not anymore arbitrary than any other word.
> so to try and say anything conclusive about something that seems to be a purely linguistic artifact feels a bit premature.
It's not an artifact. I think it's pretty universal to all cultures. Toddlers will find "swear" words and use them when mad (usually related to bathroom activities). Kids who don't know swear words immediately try to learn some as soon as they hear any. And as far as I know every single culture has taboo words.
Most of the time the swear words stay pretty static. But then you have people who want to "liberate" them (and enjoy shocking people), without realizing they are actually neutering them.
I've seen people say that modern society is more accepting of swears. That's not what's happening, what's happening is the swears are losing their power. And of course then people find, and use, new ones. (Like the kerfuffle about the swear word in the movie Kick-Ass. The regular swears were too mainstream so they went with the strongest one they knew just for the shock value.)
I don't approve of using a swear for the shock value - use it where warranted by the situation, not to try to impress your listener. I will continue to criticize shock usage, and people will continue to scream about censorship.
That is exactly why you should be for censorship - without it all those words will lose their meaning, and people will invent new ones.
I don't see any need to invent new swear words, and I am against casual use of those words, because doing so leaves them to exist for the situations that warrants them.
I don't want, nor need, to be "shocked" all the time. Not do I want to be so desensitized that it's impossible to shocked me. I like the happy middle.