Swear Word Substitution

[Sycophant]

I was reading the Swearing In Music thread, and I was reminded of something that's always bugged me about a lot of people, but seemingly most often religious people (especially christians)...

The substitution of various words in the place of swear words. I know a number of people who will say "fudge" or "flip" when they drop something on their foot. I've heard "sugar" in place of **** (excuse the censorship, I am sure you can guess what was there). There's "dang" in place of damn and "heck" in place of hell.

Why?

These words only work by mutual understanding. You know that when you say "fudge" you mean ****, and anyone who hears you knows that you mean ****. While the syllables have not passed your lips, the thought has occured, and the word is said with precisely the same intention. Is this getting out of it on a technicality?

I think the whole thing is flipping silly.

--EDIT--
Just to clarify it a little, and sort of pose a question -- do you think it is immoral in any way to swear, and if so is the substitution of swear words and blasphemy any less offensive? Do you do it? And why?

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

I TRY not to swear in any way, but unfortunately, I am not perfect.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The movie ALIEN 3 had an interesting digression on this, the convicts/monks of the prison planet apparently feeling any non-reverent mention of God was a sin but sexual and scatalogical references were okay.

I try to watch my language since there's precious little point in needlessly offending people. I also served 6 years in the army, so there's not a lot that can shock me.

Mind you, I'm not saying I can't be shocked, just that I don't wanna find out what it's gonna take...

 

[Sycophant]

I try to watch my language since there's precious little point in needlessly offending people. I also served 6 years in the army, so there's not a lot that can shock me.

See that's the thing that I think I find most curious. The offence seems to come from the very sound of the word, rather than it's meaning or intent. Such that it's generally considered fine to censor a word with a beep or *s on here, when it's quite clear from the context what the word was, and what it's intention was. It's simply the actual letter or sounds that have been removed, not the intent with which they were uttered.

That said, I also try not to offend people, and try to know the particular language tastes of those around me so I can temper my expression to suit, but there are times when no ****ers ****ed taste in ****ing language is going to stop me expressing myself in whatever-the-**** way I feel I need to.

 

[Ananel]

I think the whole thing is flipping silly.

--EDIT--
Just to clarify it a little, and sort of pose a question -- do you think it is immoral in any way to swear, and if so is the substitution of swear words and blasphemy any less offensive? Do you do it? And why?

1) Blasphemy, for reference, does not equate to saying the 'F word' or 'S word' (There are times that, while I accept this forum's rules, I really think a little less strict censorship would be helpful) so much as it equates to taking the Lord's name in vain, calling upon divine power when not appropriate.

2) That said, I agree with you. The whole thing is indeed 'flipping' silly. The intent behind the words is as important as the words themselves. The thoughts of the heart, based on Christ's words, are as important in terms of ethics as the actual actions themselves.

So, a person replacing one word with another just to avoid people telling them that they've done something wrong is pretty much doing it. They're just not using the conventional word.

So, likewise, when I tell someone that they're a flipping moron, I'm probably doing this for my own amusement. That person can tell exactly what I mean, and the issue behind it remains just as poignant as it would, were I to actually use the original word. I have a certain distaste for those who actually think they're getting out of swearing by using another word.

 

[hat lady]

Using substitute words is no different then swearing. Most Christians don't realize or think about it.

Is it morally wrong? I don't think so.

The Bible tells Christians not to talk vulgar language. (NT) Not a character trait of Jesus using swear words and Christians should be Christ like.

But Christians still sin and have to be forgotten just like anyone else.

 

[And-U-Say]

I have to agree. I find it odd that "jesus" is not acceptable as a term of exclamation (to some) but "jees" is. For "christ" we have "****", "crud", "crimeny" and others. A friend of mine used to use "jees-o-pete" on an hourly bassis or more, despite his being a fundamentalist. The meaning is exactly the same, but pronunciation is just slightly different. Apparently, if you change the pronunciation slightly, god will think its "OK" to still say it.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

See that's the thing that I think I find most curious. The offence seems to come from the very sound of the word, rather than it's meaning or intent.

The late Douglas Adams named his character Slartibartfast because he was looking for something that sounded as offensive as possible without actually meaning anything!

Such that it's generally considered fine to censor a word with a beep or *s on here, when it's quite clear from the context what the word was, and what it's intention was. It's simply the actual letter or sounds that have been removed, not the intent with which they were uttered.

That said, I also try not to offend people, and try to know the particular language tastes of those around me so I can temper my expression to suit, but there are times when no ****ers ****ed taste in ****ing language is going to stop me expressing myself in whatever-the-**** way I feel I need to.

"Rudolph the ****-nosed ****deer
Used to have a shiney ****
And if you ever ****ed it
You would even say it ****ed
All of the other ****deer
Used to laugh and call him '****'
They never let poor Rudolph
**** in any ****deer ****
Then one **** **** eve
Santa came to ****
'Rudolph, with your **** so ****
Won't you **** my **** tonight?'
Then all the ****deer ****ed him
As they ****ed out with ****
'Rudolph, the ****-nosed ****deer,
You'll go **** in ****!"

 

[Archivist]

My understanding is that the f-word was once considered a perfectly appropriate word for the act of sex, and it probably would still be acceptable today if the Anglo-Saxons had beaten the Normans when they invaded England. The word b***h was the proper term for a female dog--you still hear it in its proper usage if you attend dog shows. The word b*****d was the proper term for a child born out of wedlock; until just a few years ago we still had b*****dy proceedings in court.

My point is that the meanings of words changes, and many of these words that we today consider to be improper were once perfectly acceptable words. Someday they may again revert to being acceptable. The phrase "shut up" once once somewhat rude (although not vulger). Today it is commonly used in conversation.

There is a famous old hymn that includes these lines: "New occassions teach new duties, time make ancient good uncouth."

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Archivist -- several hundred years ago a "homely hussy" was a housewife who was a good homekeeper, but it's not the sorta thing one wants to say to one's wife now!

 

[Ben johnson]

The discussion began "borderline"; could have proceded into a discussion of "are substitute swear words OK?"

A couple posts responded in this sense.

But the thread seems to be more of a "swear-word-thread", and therefore is viewed as offensive.

The thread is therefore closed.

 

[Ben johnson]

Closed for offensiveness