Ken and John begin by making three distinctions relevant to slurs and mean names. First, there is the question of whether the designation iscorrect-他们声称，例如，使用n字总是错误的，因为没有人是可鄙的仅仅基于他们的种族-但有些人真的是混蛋。Second, there is the question whether, regardless of truth value, a word is itselfmorallyproblematic – like the n-word. Here John claims that use of the word “asshole” can be morally justified. Third, there is the question whether a word ispolite在给定的上下文中。Ken认为不礼貌地使用名字会破坏政治话语，使社会变得更糟。约翰认为他怀念一个从未存在过的世界。

Geoff Nunburg joins the discussion by first noting his fascination with the word, “asshole.” Telling the story of this word requires delving into American social history since World War II, such that today the word describes, in a strangely endearing way, some of our greatest cultural heroes (Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise). Nunburg points out that the word has specificsemanticcontent – e.g., you might be an a-hole for cheating on your wife, but not for cheating on taxes.

The hosts take questions from the audience, and topics such as the relation ofclassto swearing (“vulgar” originally meaning “of the people”), the possibility of using a slur as a means forself-affirmation, and the question ofrelativity:诽谤只有在被认为是这样的时候才有意义吗?

• Roving Philosophical Reporter (skip to 6:05) -This report follows the story of a group of teenage girls who came up with new, somewhat rude meanings of common words – such as kiwi, mango, and banana – in order to talk about other people without their knowledge. The plan backfires, as meaning of the words get out, and they assume the same position as common swears.