comment: >
  
  idk if its in rules of this sub to agree, but im gonna add: taboos on curse words are outdated. most of them are tied to sex, and sex taboo was being lifted for decades now. curse words should follow
context: This is really not a debating point but I'm from the UK and everyone I know swears a lot.. Its not even something I ever think about. To me, most are just words, aside from slurs. So yeah I guess they are important here. My wife is american and I've noticed Americans either don't swear much or swear a lot. Not that many in the middle >
  
  That is entirely true, it's completely based on how you were raised and your experience in your young adult years. For me, swearing is second nature and best when combined with certain tones & accents to really add insult to injury. >
  
  If you check the frequency of profanity verses other words, you would not find them being used in 'special occasions'. They essentially used to add emphasis, or as filler. They aren't taboo anymore, unless you're using slurs, they aren't rare, and they don't convey much information. I can't see how they are important, delete them and nothing in language changes. >
  
  Sure, it's pretty fuckin' common to swear... but a yelled "FUCK!" has more impact than "GOSH DARNIT!", no? >
  
  isn't a louder "GOSH DARNIT" with hard articulation worse than a quieter "fuck"  ? there's more context to factor here >
  
  Obviously I meant all other things being equal.
  Sure, a blood curdling "GOSH DARNIT!" from a mormon who just got into an accident and noticed his intestines are falling out has more impact that a quiet "fuck" from someone who just stubbed their toe, but this is obvious. >
  
  Blood curdling "GOSH DARNIT" from Mormon vs blood curdling "FUCK" from non-Mormon: 
  which is worse and why? >
  
  I don’t think cursing is used for expression of emotion nearly as much as it is an expression of identity.   Cursing is used as a litmus test. You may throw out a low level (ass, damn) curse word early in a new relationship to see how the individual responds. If the person then also picks up cursing you may now know I can be a bit more genuine or a bit less censored in what I discuss.  I may know that I can say something controversial and still be accepted.  I’m thinking of handmaid’s tale (TV series) when a handmaiden would say something slightly non-pious to test if the other handmaiden could be trusted.
  I also think high levels of cursing help me identify what kind of lifestyle you may live. In the fire service and military, for example, cursing is used incredibly frequently. I think physically demanding or perhaps just demanding work cultures can lead to high levels of cursing and the cursing much like the work is really a part of your identity.
  I agree cursing is vital to communication and society but not for means of emotional expression. >
  
  I think you can convey most sentiments without needing to resort to profanity, but that's not what I think the most significant change to this view could be. Languages sort of boundary of the shape of how experience can be interpreted and it is not just in language that cultures have taboos. I think taboo has its origin somewhere in the physiological reaction of disgust shock or recoil and it extends down into our collective past a lot further back then the place that language comes from in our history - closer to when we crawled out of the mud then the present day. Tl;dr taboo isn't a phenomenon exclusive to language and it is not taboo that is important for culture it is the other way around - language is descriptive not prescriptive >
  
  Emotional emphasis can be achieved in other ways. Someone yelling “ARGH!” would surely get the point across, and in less extreme situations, emphasizing specific non-profanity words gets the job done as well.
  I’ve lived over thirty years and have used regular curse words less than 10 times in my life (excluding the milder variations like “darn” or “crap”, which I also don’t use often because I’ve simply not found the need for it). It has never stopped me from fully expressing any emotion or intensity of emotion I want. I use volume for that. >
  
  Perhaps it’s a personal perspective then. I do wonder what others perceive though, if you ever were to break your collar bone and all you uttered was “oh my goodness gracious lord almighty!!” or some other such similar phrase. Probably nothing, but in retrospect, it would be a bit unusual. Most people would have used profanity. I’ll have to think on this a little bit. >
  
  I would shout “AARGH! ARRGH! MY COLLAR BONE!!! ARRRGGGGGH!” >
  
  The majority of swears have other reasons why they shouldn't be said. Even ones that are considered mild, such as bitch, are equating women with female dogs. >
  
  
  Even ones that are considered mild, such as bitch, are equating women with female dogs
  
  Have you never heard of guys being bitches? 
  Bitch, just like asshole is a gender neutral word. Now if someone said "women are bitches" that's a different thing. But bitch in general isn't a sexist word, and if you think so it's you that are sexist thinking that word only applies to women. >
  
  I've never seen a guy being referred to as a bitch, no. >
  
  Guys are sometimes referred to as bitches, but it only reinforces your point because the insult is used on effeminate / "weak" men which is just another way of being sexist and borderline homophobic. >
  
  That's a good point. I'm guessing I'm only getting downvoted because people don't understand psychology of how saying we're like that can affect you and the people around you on an unconscious level. >
  
  Is it language or culture/expression you feel these ideas are. There isn't really a set area of language for taboo, ideas and words can enter and leave that status all the time. Language is a tool for communication and being able to communicate is a function of language. Taboo is a social boundary and as such I'd say comes under culture regardless of the language. Someone can be speaking a different language from the native one and still cross a taboo using different words. >
  
  Crossing boundaries when speaking a different language accidentally is really irrelevant.
  And yes languages can change and evolve. This isn’t really relevant either. >
  
  ...because? Will you address any of the points I made?
  Profanity isn't a more or less important part of language than any other communicative words. It's culture where lines of taboo are drawn and become important. >
  
  Yes, lines of taboo are important, because of the reasons I outlined in my post. When tensions are high, sometimes everyday words aren’t enough to express feelings. So taboo words are used. >
  
  This doesn't address my comment. What you are talking about is not necessarily a function of language but of culture. This includes behaviour like code switching, tone of voice/shouting, and other cultural norms.
  There's not a section of a dictionary marked "taboo" it's not language which contains that meaning it's the culture, because taboo is contextual.
  Why is language your focus? When language is not the only context that a broken taboo can occur under?
  If you're struggling with my question please could you write what you think I'm asking in your own words before answering? That way I can understand how to better put the question to you. >
  
  I don’t wish to engage in a semantic debate. If this is not what you’re doing then perhaps you can be more clear, and my preemptive apologies, English isn’t my first language, despite being fluent in it. >
  
  Is it a semantic debate? Or did you say language when you meant culture?
  What kind of debate were you hoping for here?
  This kind of non engagement is not in the spirit of the sub. I have valid points which you are refusing to address. >
  
  I edited my comment, apologies. Maybe it will clear up some confusion. >
  
  What part of my comment did you not understand? >
  
  
  emotional distress calls for them
  
  and only them? >
  
  No, not necessarily. But sometimes they can be useful in certain situations. >
  
  This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? You're saying profanity is "important" - but what exactly does that mean? If someone is able to communicate emotion without using profanity, then profanity is surely just "useful" or "a good linguistic shorthand" or something. But is that the same as "important" to you?
  I certainly use profanity, but I'm unsure if my general ability to express myself would be heavily impacted were no-no words to be removed from my vocabulary. >
  
  Well, I see what you’re saying, but I truly believe that if all profanity were erased from everyone’s mind and we only had at our disposal words fit for everyday PC language, that in certain situations we would fail to be able to truly express ourselves fully. This is of course not something I can prove, as it’s impossible. But I believe that having certain emphatic words that are believed to be inappropriate for everyday language but acceptable for certain purposes is useful. >
  
  Poking around, I found this thread which is pretty interesting - specifically, this:
  
  Ojibwe doesn't seem to have any [swear words]; it's possibly to speak derisively, and some words, while not dirty per se, are considered a little icky that you wouldn't say them casually in just every circumstance (the word for "shit" isn't a swear word, but that doesn't mean people want to hear it at dinner) but they're not treated anything like English swears either. This seems to be a common pattern for Native American languages. I hear some Central Asian languages are like this too -- they borrow swear words from Russian because they don't have any traditional, local ones.
  
  So I don't think you'd feel comfortable saying the Ojibwe "can't truly express themselves fully"?
  Honestly, it really seems that u/Presentalbion had a very valid point about culture. >
  
  I don’t know anything about Ojibwe, but but it sounds to me that words that are a bit “icky” you may not say in casual circumstances constitute as what we may call in English a profanity. This seems to me like a semantic argument to be perfectly honest. 
  Words you don’t traditionally use in common, everyday situations. You save them for special emphasis in emotional situations. They serve the same needs. >
  
  
  This seems to me like a semantic argument to be perfectly honest. 
  
  I don't think so. You're not going to tell me that saying "I need to take a shit" is somehow an important emotional necessity to us, are you? >
  
  
  I don't think so. You're not going to tell me that saying "I need to take a shit" is somehow an important emotional necessity to us, are you?
  
  Eh, maybe not an "important emotional necessity", but it's certainly a tool in our toolbox, and one that many people use to great effect. 
  A talented artist can paint a masterpiece with only a few colors. Everyday people can get by with fewer words.
  Still, it seems objectively true to me that a language without profanity is lacking something. >
  
  Still doesn't make profanity important though. It makes it "useful"" or "a tool in the toolbox".
  Prepositions are important - profanity is just linguistic window dressing. >
  
  
  Still doesn't make profanity important though. It makes it "useful"" or "a tool in the toolbox".
  Prepositions are important - profanity is just linguistic window dressing.
  
  I guess I don't really feel like that's a distinction I can make. 
  I value all the tools in my toolbox. Any tool that doesn't have a direct replacement is particularly important to me, because working around the lack of it would be far worse than having it. 
  Profanity is attention-getting. It's cathartic. It shifts the meaning of an otherwise identical sentence in a very granular and personal manner. Profanity is an element of style, of intensity, and of intent.
  Is the word "shit" as important as the word "on"? No, I can't make that assertion in good faith. But neither are my pliers as important a tool as my impact driver. That doesn't mean I'd want to cast either from my toolbox. >
  
  I don't know exactly what you mean here, but most of what I consider profanity is used in almost the exact opposite way that you describe. It's abundant in casual conversation, and only avoided in specific professional contexts. It doesn't serve to emphasize anything because it's used like 3 times in every sentence, losing whatever meaning it would have previously had. And it's used regardless of emotional state. >
  
  Is there anyone who disagrees with this view? A viewpoint that everyone agrees with isn't really something that can be debated.   
  I will present that Japanese does not have cuss words as we understand them in English. There are a couple words maybe you could call cuss words - and of course there are words to use when angry, frustrated, surprised, etc. but they are not cuss words such as fuck shit cunt etc. >
  
  Who's saying it's not? What are you arguing against, exactly? >
  
  I’m not arguing against anything in particular unless you hold a different perspective >
  
  I suppose a better question would be "why do you want your view changed"? You're making a pretty uncontroversial statement.  It's self evident that words are important if they're meaningful enough to require censorship.