I am pretty sure that any group which currently can be said to 'run a lot of this society' (meaning pretty much any current human society) is more likely to be encouraging profanity (unless it is running the analogous, and only epidermically opposite ploy) and any other form of dumbing down of expression.
Kyriakos - I think you just stepped into the exact trap suggested by the OP. That is, you intermingle style and content like there was no difference between them.
But content makes quality, not style.
I think the underlying problem is that there are ideals, which direct style, and there is the actual practice, the reality of the usage of the style.
The extremes of that ideal:
- In the left corner: Formal neutral langugage used to make nuanced and sophisticated arguments, as academic discousre
- In the right corner: Poor degenerates who blurt out unreflected primitive stuff, heavy use of dirty language
The extremes of its actual practice as I see it suggested by the OP:
- In the left corner: supposedly more 'sophisticated' style takes place in social environment were people are more formal, which means least honest, less direct, more scheming and distracting - so not actually better in its content, but yeah, I guess more convoluted. That is one way to be sophisticated. It is also one to be hollow in what you say and regarding the actual content - dumbed-down
- On the right corner: Dirty language as a marker of authenticity and honesty, because both coincides with motives you actually care to openly admit (like improving society as said in the OP) -> direct, intellectual honest and content-wise more valuable (though possibly less 'sophisticated' regarding its presentation)
Now regarding some criticism of the OP: I am troubled with the intentionalist theme of the OP. But I do see it happening at least to some extend.
To illustrate: If we for instance look at the Daily Show or Tonight with John Oliver, their content is usually of higher quality than the one of pundits who use no bad language, and even though it is a comedy show I think also often more reflected upon. But see I wouldn't want to say that they use bad language to be off-limits to those circles they oppose. Rather, that they just bad language because it is part of their theme of more or less saying whatever they want. Instead of just masquerading what they really are about by formal sophisticated narrations. And Of only acknowledging a view as legit when they actually think it is. Instead of being 'balanced" in a way that they just pay tribute to different sides so to shield themselves from exposing themselves to attacks.
