Although that letter is well written, I think the use of the phrases, "fuck it," and "a good wank," kind of make the parent post's point: our standard for acceptability and eloquence in language is decreasing.
As time passes what was once considered a vulgar expression (e.g., "it's" instead of "it is") becomes standard, and what was once a common expression becomes less and less used, and later it's considered archaic, and associated with culture and sophistication (because only highly educated people would still remember and use such phrases).
The net result is that what was written in a common speech hundreds of years ago may now sound unbelievably sophisticated and downright poetic.
However, in several hundred years, I'm sure teachers of English will still be decrying the decline of the English language. "Do you know what they said back in the golden days of the internet? They said 'Fuck it.' Now look at it and admire the sheer effectiveness of the expression, economically conveyed in just two words. Cannot find such eloquence these days," they will lament.
This is largely because more people are reading and writing than ever have in history [1]. Especially in ways that are broadly visible. Just because you have no written record of the boorish speech of the past does not mean it didn't happen, it just means only the very most literate ever got anything published in the permanent record.
Personally, I think a reduction in average civility (especially when that civility was often masking incredibly horrifying ideas) is an entirely reasonable price to pay for the rise of universal literacy.
Old school speech is also more boorish than you may think, between a combination of genteel ways of phrasing insults that everyone still knows what it means (see "diplo-speak" for a modern example), and phrasings whose connotations are now either lost, or certainly not viscerally understood.
I consider the fact that we still teach Shakespeare in high school to be proof positive that neither teacher nor student actually understand it... if the violence and sex jokes were understood in modern terms, schools would not teach it. (I'm not saying they would censor it per se, it might still be in the library, but it wouldn't be taught front & center.)
> I consider the fact that we still teach Shakespeare in high school to be proof positive that neither teacher nor student actually understand it... if the violence and sex jokes were understood in modern terms, schools would not teach it. (I'm not saying they would censor it per se, it might still be in the library, but it wouldn't be taught front & center.)
AFAICT, neither students nor teachers are generally particularly against having racy stuff in schools -- the people that are a vocal (though often small) group of parents and interested outsiders, and they tend to be selective in their objections in a way which reinforces the idea of "bad" = "new". I have no problem believing that students and teachers could understand Shakespeare quite well without the group that is usually the source of objections either (a) understanding it, or (b) finding that it fits the particular world-view they are trying to sell to object to it.
Well, there are definitely a bunch of things in Shakespeare plays that are subtle and contextual to the times enough that we've actually lost the sense of their vulgarity as well [1]. The common perception of Shakespeare as exclusively high-brow, when in reality it played to both an upper and lower class audience and that was probably a part of its appeal, does seem to be reinforced by the way it's taught in school.
"making the beast with two backs" or whatever in the beginning of Othello just struck my mind, and nearly all of Titus Andronicus is beyond decent. There's also quite a bit of awful stuff in The Merchant of Venice
Use of language that you personally don't happen to like doesn't make someone inarticulate. I don't happen to like the word "however" very much, but I understand it would be unreasonable to write somebody off for making judicious use of that word, because my personal predilections are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.
