What makes a bad word bad?
by Anne Stickney 
Feb 1st 2012 at 2:00PM
Warning: This post may contain language that is offensive to some.
Our own Fox Van Allen tackled the subject of the odd quirks of the mature language filter last week -- the fact that some objectionable words have been mysteriously left out of the filter, while others of a much less objectionable nature have oddly been left in it. None of this was noticed of course until the mature language filter was bugged so that it reset itself, resulting in a lot of people spewing a lot of random keyboard symbols until they remembered to turn it off again.
Personally? I'm not sure if the mature language filter is at all an effective tool. Since the first days of WoW, Horde and Alliance players have not been allowed to speak to each other. Part of this was because of faction separation, but part of it was to discouraging griefing, which happened all the time in PvP situations. Players of the opposing faction could kill you repeatedly, but they couldn't swear at you -- until, that is, players realized they could communicate with keyboard symbols arranged into letters. This ability was soon squashed.
And that's the problem, isn't it? It doesn't matter how much you block a word. If someone is determined to have their say, they will find a way to say it. If you can't talk to the opposing faction, you roll an alt and cuss them out that way, or over voice chat, or via email, or on Twitter, or wherever they can conveniently contact you. So why try blocking it at all? More importantly, what makes a bad word "bad," anyway?
Our own Fox Van Allen tackled the subject of the odd quirks of the mature language filter last week -- the fact that some objectionable words have been mysteriously left out of the filter, while others of a much less objectionable nature have oddly been left in it. None of this was noticed of course until the mature language filter was bugged so that it reset itself, resulting in a lot of people spewing a lot of random keyboard symbols until they remembered to turn it off again.
Personally? I'm not sure if the mature language filter is at all an effective tool. Since the first days of WoW, Horde and Alliance players have not been allowed to speak to each other. Part of this was because of faction separation, but part of it was to discouraging griefing, which happened all the time in PvP situations. Players of the opposing faction could kill you repeatedly, but they couldn't swear at you -- until, that is, players realized they could communicate with keyboard symbols arranged into letters. This ability was soon squashed.
And that's the problem, isn't it? It doesn't matter how much you block a word. If someone is determined to have their say, they will find a way to say it. If you can't talk to the opposing faction, you roll an alt and cuss them out that way, or over voice chat, or via email, or on Twitter, or wherever they can conveniently contact you. So why try blocking it at all? More importantly, what makes a bad word "bad," anyway?
Apple Cider Mage had an interesting post earlier this week about objectionable terminology of a different kind -- the sexist kind. She takes a look at the disparity between male and female armor, but more importantly, she addresses the term "slut plate," used to describe scanty plate bikinis and other fabulously nonexistent protection from the wrathful elements of the Warcraft world. It's not the armor she's concerned with -- after all, scantily clad women warriors are pretty much commonplace in the fantasy genre. It's the term "slut" that is bothersome, and she does an excellent job of explaining why, even suggesting an alternative term to use.
All of this got me thinking back to Fox's article earlier this week and about words in general. Maybe it's just because I do a lot of writing, or maybe my brain just works in different ways. But to me, words are very odd, powerful little things. Here, we have a random collection of lines we call letters, placed in a certain order, given a certain pronunciation, and then given a collective meaning. All of that out of a little collection of lines.
But those meanings change over the course of years, and a word that meant a bundle of sticks at one point in the distant past now means something entirely different and particularly objectionable to the majority of the public. When did that happen, exactly? How did people take a word with one meaning and give it another -- and more importantly, why did we let it grow and fester into a word that we are now ultimately offended by?
There are words in the English language that I will not use, which is why this post has not been peppered with terms that I don't feel comfortable laying out there for you to read. But as I think about it, I wonder why I am so uncomfortable with saying them, writing them, or even thinking them. They're words. Little collections of lines, put together in a certain way and given a particular meaning -- and apparently that meaning is strong enough that I don't want to even place those words to paper or say them aloud.
Gamers and other people who use offensive language don't particularly care about that meaning in one way or another. What they care about is how people react to the meaning and the words. What they are doing is deliberately throwing a lot of of those collections of lines at people and taking delight when people get upset and take offense because of that meaning. It's a power play, and there are far too many people out there who buy into it on a continual basis.
In short, it's not the words that are harmful; they're collections of lines. Placed in order, and given meaning. The person who gives those words meaning is the person who holds all the power over those words, not the person who is saying them. The person who is saying them is hoping beyond all hope that the ones who are listening are going to give those words the worst meaning possible and have some sort of negative reaction to it.
Maybe telling a person to stop using those words isn't enough. Maybe trying to block that person from saying those words isn't enough. The only thing making a bad word bad is the meaning we attribute to it. Human beings have been around for thousands of years, and in those thousands of years, we've decided that some words are bad and others are good. And over the course of history, we've taken perfectly good words and collectively decided to change the meaning of those perfectly good words into something that is considered bad and wholly reprehensible.
If we have the power to change the meaning of a word from positive to negative, why do we seem to lack the power to stop it from changing at all?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Mcdubs Feb 1st 2012 2:10PM
Words of Curse!!!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e02-it-hits-the-fan
xrarndx Feb 1st 2012 5:22PM
I find that words that have @, !, # and * tend to be bad words. But maybe that's just me.
Aykwa Feb 1st 2012 6:04PM
It's all subjective. Let everyone make their own word blacklist to contain whatever they want. That absolves Blizz of responsibility and gives the users the chance to tailor the language filter to their own personal tastes. Should be pretty easy, actually.
Natsumi Feb 2nd 2012 7:34PM
MECROB!
drumwiz86 Feb 1st 2012 2:10PM
I love this subject. It flies in the face of such widely held beliefs.
There are no such thing as bad words. Words are only bad because we make them bad. I refuse to assign any power to certain words just because society believes they are different.
However, I worry because of two things. People expect some right to not be offended by what other people do, say, think, or feel. People also don't realize that being offended is a choice.
raingod Feb 1st 2012 2:19PM
And being an offensive dbag with no thought to anyone but yourself is also a choice.
Noyou Feb 1st 2012 2:23PM
You can block certain words out. Maybe you can block all words out. I'm sure there are little things that get to you. Problem is subconsciously, you may be bottling these things up. You may or may not even be aware of it. Or you could be the most well adjusted person on the planet. Different things work for different people.
clundgren Feb 1st 2012 2:36PM
Tell that to your kid's grade 1 teacher.
Better still, tell that to MY kid's grade 1 teacher. Because she begs to differ.
Noyou Feb 1st 2012 2:42PM
Most people don't live in a bubble. When you interact with a particular society, it would behoove you to educate yourself what is or is not polite or offensive. Just a thought.
Pyromelter Feb 1st 2012 2:54PM
Clundgren, I think that most of us here on wow insider are adults, and we are smart enough to know that what drum is saying refers to adult conversation. Kids can be very sensitive, as well as very cruel, and I think most reasonable people would not expect a 6 year old to filter out what we have the ability to filter out as adults. No need to bring up impressionable young children, doesn't seem salient to the topic at hand.
Michael Feb 1st 2012 2:56PM
It's fun pretend that you are above it all, but the fact of the matter is that, like it or not, you are part of the society, and, therefore, down here with the rest of us. I'll give you the point that there are no "bad" words, but there are socially inappropriate words. What you are basically saying is that you are the sole judge of what is and isn't offensive, and that people can simply choose to not be offended. Unfortunately, there are very real pains and experiences that come with some of the words that you claim have no power. Personally, I'm more offended by intolerance than words, but I'm aware enough to know that certain language is inappropriate or harmful. Bottom line, language can show respect or it can show disregard for others, and pretending that you can magically step outside the social-cultural rhetoric is narcissistic at best and wildly irresponsible.
Tfish92 Feb 1st 2012 3:10PM
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'
- Stephen Fry.
It's true. People feel like if something somehow offends their sensibilities, then they now have the right to crusade against you until you are no longer able to do whatever it is you were doing any longer.
If you're offended by someone's language learn to be an adult, and stop taking everything you see an anonymous stranger say online as if someone's burning a cross in your front yard.
Matt Feb 1st 2012 3:15PM
i disagree, for the most part.
bad words do exist. they exist because they have meaning. they exist because of historical precedent. their use and associations drive their meaning; their meaning derives from their use. their meaning and society's beliefs are intertwined. the entire thing is circular and inter-related. that's like saying, "this duck is only a duck because people say it's a duck". ok...but the reality is that it's still a duck, just as words are still offensive. just as you readily admit in your analogy...the words are still bad. they exist..there is such thing as a bad word. they're bad because they draw negative associations and inferences, carry hurtful implications, the whole nine yards.
let me be clear from the outset: i curse as colloquially as the next guy, but i also objectively recognize and respect the power of words and language, and adjust my behavior with respect to my surroundings and company. it's not always so much as what's said as what they mean.
of course people have a right to not be offended! by your line of reasoning, it's ok if you call an african american a n**g*r...whether or not they are offended is their problem, regardless of the centuries of hate, bigotry, violence, and ignorance behind that word that you threw at them in half an instant. the only reason you would use a word like that in modern usage would be to cause someone harm; to imply they are beneath you; to imply they are less of a person. as anne said in the article above: to make a power play. a cruel and hateful power play to show your self-created superiority. but all that's ok...because being offended is their choice. you, as the speaker, should be absolved of responsibility for your actions.
likewise, when you call a woman a bitch, or a whore, or a slut. whether or not you mean it literally, the intent is to harm. even if they take it and own it, even if you're using it colloquially, the intent is to associate the person you are speaking to with an image of a man or woman that historically is an object of shame and ridicule because they sell their bodies for money or drugs. this person, you are saying, has so little worth or value that they are like those that take the most sacred thing, "the self", and debase it to the extreme; make it worth whatever the next john is willing to pay or give, degrading themselves and humiliating themselves voluntarily. but that's ok...because being offended is in the hands of the abused, not the abuser. same goes for fa*g*t, k*ke, or any other bad word.
whether you purposefully intend such an implication is immaterial: the word still means what it means regardless of your choice to "assign [it] power", and your line of reasoning absolutely ignores reality. of course a lot can be said for context, but i'm going to ignore colloquial use as an anomaly for the purposes of this discussion. my beef is with people who justify deliberate, non-colloquial use of bad language.
this is my problem with people that try to justify cruel, ignorant, and careless speech: they simply shift the burden to the listener and cover themselves with the, "i can say what i want and if you don't like it it's your problem" shield. but in doing so they fail to recognize that communication is a two way street: blathering idiots that try to justify their slurs and slander think that they're talking to robots who have no right to react...it's unrealistic, short-sighted, ignorant, and small-minded. it's a way to psychologically distance themselves from the hurt they cause other people via an implied dehumanization.
i don't care if you identify yourself as a bitchy, cocky, smart mouthed New Yorker who curses like a sailor and are proud of it; nor do i care if you ID yourself as a down home redneck who also curses like a sailor; nor do i care that George Carlin did it, may he rest in hilarious peace; nor do i care for any other shallow justifications anyone hopes to offer, like any argument along the lines of, "well you could call someone a pumpkin and it would be hurtful because he has a rare genetic disorder that makes his skin orange and his head round! is pumpkin a bad word, then?" reductio ad absurdum arguments such as those try to side step the point: bad words are bad because of intent and history, and you cannot ignore either under the umbrella of, "i can say what i want and it's your fault if you're offended".
sorry for the wall of text...but this self-centered attitude really riles me up.
TL; DR: words have power, and like anything with power it should be respected and taken seriously, especially in light of its potential for abuse. be realistic about language's complexity and its effect on others, and give the people standing in your midst the courtesy and respect they deserve.
Starlin Feb 1st 2012 3:30PM
Highly recommend reading the entire post by Matt above me. I was going to comment with similiar ideas, but he nailed it. Well said, sir.
shotiechan Feb 1st 2012 3:59PM
Stating that we choose to be offended is what they call "victim-blaming", and it is a form of derailing, and putting the onus of offense onto the offended, instead of rightfully placing it onto the people trying to actually be offensive.
I do not understand why our culture does this. Stop it, right now.
BB Crisp Feb 1st 2012 4:09PM
Everybody has had things said to them that make them feel bad, angry, or some other negative emotion. "They're just words" doesn't take you too far when you consider the fact that everybody is influenced by words constantly. It's our means of conveying our thoughts and, frequently, our emotions. They can make us feel good, bad, and everything in between. The only people that get nothing from words are sociopaths.
Tfish92 Feb 1st 2012 4:12PM
@shotiechan
No it absolutely is not, and honestly I hate whenever people start talking about "victim blaming" because it gets to the point where you can't say anything negative at all about the "victim" of the scenario without being talked to like you're basically advocating whatever happened to them.
That aside being offended by something does not make you a victim. What you consider offensive other people do not, and what you don't other people may. You just stop letting stupid things get to you, and if you can't then you avoid those situations. I will never advocate stopping people from doing, or saying anything that is not direct and constant harassment.
Alysandir Feb 1st 2012 4:14PM
@Matt:
Reading through the responses, I can see that we come down on opposing sides of the viewpoint of what are the rights of the speaker and the rights of the listener when it comes to words that are perceived as offensive.
Now before we strip to the waist and engage in a manly brawl, I will say that we are not directly opposite: you appear to defending the right of the individual to not have to put up with attacks, abusive behavior, words that are intent on inflicting personal pain. I respect that, and for the most part, agree with it, with the caveat that it CAN be taken too far.
Conversely, I defend the right of the individual to choose what they will expose themselves to, and am vehemently against governing bodies, whether they are truly representative of the majority or not, deciding what words, ideas, and messages may be spoken by declaring what is offensive and what is not. I believe that only the individual can decide for themselves what is offensive.
Where I think the fine line is between us is over *control.* Do I have the right to control what I am exposed to? Yes, I believe that's reasonable. Do I have the right to control what others say and do? No, I don't believe that's reasonable beyond a point of inherent danger (such as screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, or bearing false witness in a court of law).
I would remind folks that where this whole topic got started was not, should people be allowed to swear, insult, attack, etc. but instead from the question of, should a LGBT guild have the right to openly recruit? I personally believe there is a world of difference between someone dropping the N-bomb to be shocking or intentionally hurtful, and a LGBT guild in earnest trying to find like-minded members, but I do acknowledge that many people consider the very idea of acknowledging, much less accepting, the LGBT community to be highly offensive. So again, we are back to our fine line of control.
No, I do not approve of people who are abusive attackers, but neither do I think broad censorship at an administrative level that catches many other elements in its net is the answer. The profanity filter is there for a reason, as is ignore. It's not a perfect solution, but given the realities of the game (and of the world) it's a better solution than most.
Alysandir Feb 1st 2012 4:26PM
@shotiechan:
"I do not understand why our culture does this. Stop it, right now."
The reason our culture does this is because what is deemed offensive goes well beyond personal attacks.
For example, did you know that, in many places, discussing religion openly is offensive? It's true. It unnecessarily antagonizes athiests, agnostics, or anyone who may not subscribe to the particular beliefs of the religion being discussed.
Or perhaps you may be aware that discussing LGBT issues and legal rights is offensive, because many people have come to the spiritual conclusion that members of that community are at best, mentally ill, and at worst, a pox on humanity.
As someone who is both religious and LGBT, I acknowledge that people may not wish to hear what I may have to discuss in earnest, and I am not offended if they choose not to listen. But I am greatly bothered by those who seek to control what I can say, period, claiming that I am disseminating offensive speech.
So yes, I do think that in some cases, "being offended" is used as a cover for "controlling others." And that these are people who are indeed choosing to be offended, rather than allow an opposing viewpoint to have its say. We cannot merely make blanket statements about "offensive" speech like it was the most obvious thing in the world.
loop_not_defined Feb 1st 2012 4:28PM
Words mean things. That's why we've been using them for the last 100,000+ years.
"Words are inherently meaningless" is a bullshit nihilist argument. Humans invented language, so trying to portray words outside of that context is a false supposition.