A rose by any other name...

There exist certain words in our society, whom by there very names do effect how people precieve them. I am ofcourse referring to the words: fuck, shit, cock, bitch, damn, and asshole. There is a longer list, but let us pretend those words stand in for all of them. Countless comedians have pointed out how these words, in the sense of what they refer to, aren't to be offensive in and of themselves. However, society at large has deamed them offensive by convention. Obviously there are certain characteristic among these word that make them more likely canidates (such as ending in hard k and t sounds or referring to sinful and blasphemous acts) but these characteristics also exist in other words which are not considered too heinous. So then without any characteristic shared amongst them that could be used to determine them without previous knowledge it becomes elementary that convention alone denotes these words. This has all be said before, my thesis by comparison is that this behavior is not unique and can be found in specific class of society: Children (thus making the behavior childish in nature).

As my argument does not address these words directly it is not limited to these words, or any words of the group they belong, but rather to the nature of society in denoting groups by mear convention, and thus my argument is not really about words, but about human nature in society. This is important to note for anyone who wishes to disagree with me on the basis that these words have a special categorical algorithm which defines them (in which case the first paragraph is mostly moot, however my argument remains untouched).

If you spend any large amount of time around children below the preteen age, you're realize that the vast majority of activities they undertake are for the sole purpose of gaining themselves attention. Now, since the group of words exist only through the basis of convention, we can then assume that their proliferation is a result of flaunting the social norms of the society in question. Or in other words they only reason they are used is due to the conventions which consider them inappropriate. If we then return to the children, we notice this identical behavior. Children will oft times recite phrases that invoke a response for the purposes of gaining attention. And now we've come full circle. The use of these words in society is solely for the purpose of drawing attention (which will be later backed up when the words are demonstrated to have emphatic use ie. drawing attention).

However, at this point we run into another interesting phenomena. The obvious solution to removing these words from the language (as the current social norms suggest we do), is to remove the conventions which make them important. Without these no one would feel the need to use these words, and thus the goal of removing them from everyday speak would be upheld. If you haven't figured it out already the convention is in and of itself circular logic. Now, should these words be de-emphasized from our language the desire to use words that accomplish their purpose will designate new word to take their place, thus proving the hypothesis that these words serve a vital purpose in our language: emphasis. Thus bringing us back to my thesis, that this is a terribly childish thing to do.
QED.

Because undoubtedly after all that you are wondering, well then what should we do now? Let me provide an answer for that as well. Because the need for these words is based entirely in circular logic, but it has already been demonstrated that there is a sociological desire for the functionality it provides. As such the obvious solution becomes clear, we must do what I often advise and uphold the status quo.

taken from: How to Speak Like an Intellectual and Other Useless Things, by Jim Tzenes