On the other hand, through the normalization of taboo words, one is compelled to express emphasis through more subtle and expressive means. Simultaneously, one explores and questions the dated and socially obsolete bases of these taboos: the alimentary (shit), sexual (fuck, cunt, cock), and derogatory (bitch). What may appear as overuse or misuse of conventional swears can therefore be seen as a socio-political statement -- in a culture where the underlying concepts have been demystified, why persist in their fetishization through supporting an apparent consensus that the words are taboo?
Certainly they may offend before the wrong audience, but what is the iconoclast if not someone daring enough to risk offending? You say that the individual who enjoys offending is not ready for society at large, and yet did not the greatest thinkers dare to offend and do we not now revere them for it: Socrates, forced to drink the hemlock, Galileo, excommunicated and shunned, Lenny Bruce, not invited to some of the best parties. Can we deny that these historic personages did not perversely enjoy the hostile reaction to their respective messages?
Further, the possibility of offense gives power to the shibboleth, and the swear becomes a tribal rite: the swearer says to the swearee, we recognize this word for what it is, our gnosis solidifies into the unity of shared experience. Watch the video I linked and question why David Simon put the dialogue: Fuck, fuck, fuck, motherfucker, fuck, fuck, ad nauseum into the mouths of two of his favored protagonists. I would posit that the two detectives are expressing their place in society, at once above and below it, as they exercise their craft accessing abilities and knowledge unknown and inaccessible to even their fellow detectives. The expletives become their secret language, at once kabbalistic and occult.