I've deleted my other OP but wanted to explain why (language warning) [View all]

And why I generally think doing so is a bad idea.

The OP was deleted because I had received multiple requests to either edit it or delete it entirely. Instead of making anything anymore confusing, I decided it was best to wipe the slate clean and then clarify my actions.

From what I've seen so far there are two competing ideas regarding the discussion of epithets in HoF. The first is that we should use some word other than the literal word to imply the literal word in discussion. Thus we have the C-word or the N-word and so on. The second is that the epithets themselves only carry a vulgarity when used in a specific context. And when discussing them academically, which is what I would like to do in here, it is best not to veil them at all. I favor the latter. Here is why...

By veiling the word I feel as though I am maintaining the insincerity and visciousness of the original offensive usage. This ambiguity creates a void where the actual word should exist and this void allows for the maintenance and furtherance of the negative power of the epithet.

Epithets are a form of passive aggression. They feed off their enigmatic nature and the murkiness of their construction helps them resist intellectual examination and, thus, disarmament. In order to intellectually address the issue of words like cunt or bitch or, as I made another OP on, nigger, we have to resist the urge to avert our gaze or create proxies. Precisely because a proxy, by nature, isn't the word we are discussing.

You cannot deconstruct the many layers and histories and you cannot harness the visceral emotions of a word without referencing it directly.

That is my position. But what do you think?