> The idea of "privileged words" that only a subset of people can utter is ridiculous to me.
This comment made me stop to think. Thanks for that.
When I zoom out and try to generalize, I think:
- "can utter": it is not so much about what you can officially say or not say, but rather what is socially acceptable, whatever your social context is. For example, if you're a priest, saying "fuck" in a sermon would probably be frowned upon or worse. Even more so if they continued to do so even after being told by their congregation or colleagues that it is not acceptable.
- "privileged words": I don't have children, but I suspect there are words that parents (and "society") prefer their kids don't say and even reprimand them for it. Whether or not that restriction is a bad thing (limiting free speech?) I cannot say for sure yet, but it seems that privileged words, as you say it, emerge. I haven't thought more about other examples beyond children (maybe there aren't any) or whether the children example is invalid.
This comment made me stop to think. Thanks for that.
When I zoom out and try to generalize, I think:
- "can utter": it is not so much about what you can officially say or not say, but rather what is socially acceptable, whatever your social context is. For example, if you're a priest, saying "fuck" in a sermon would probably be frowned upon or worse. Even more so if they continued to do so even after being told by their congregation or colleagues that it is not acceptable.
- "privileged words": I don't have children, but I suspect there are words that parents (and "society") prefer their kids don't say and even reprimand them for it. Whether or not that restriction is a bad thing (limiting free speech?) I cannot say for sure yet, but it seems that privileged words, as you say it, emerge. I haven't thought more about other examples beyond children (maybe there aren't any) or whether the children example is invalid.