Why is it that if someone dislikes swearing in some regard they're considered to be on a high horse? It seems like having some view points simply isn't allowed . . which I usually find amusing as those who are against people with view points like this are usually in support of some modern, disruptive cause. ;)
It kind of reminds me of in high school where the kids who studying were told effectively to get off their high horses and the others would proudly proclaim they will not do their homework as they please.
Disliking another's way of speaking, regardless of profanity, is generally considered a high horse. Someone who doesn't like the way slumdwellers speak for example. Or someone who doesn't like the way folks trained with clear diction speak.
If you dislike the way a person communicates - not the content, but the method - then you're of the opinion there's a better way they should be talking. Hence: high horse.
I think those are different. I say "y'all" because I grew up in the southern US, and we recognize the need for a proper second-person plural here. Not everybody likes that word, but I'm not saying it in order to annoy them.
On the other hand, the very thing that DEFINES a swear word is that everyone knows that it's offensive. To choose a word BECAUSE it's offensive, then demand that people not be offended by it, is silly.
I think they're on a high horse because it's a word that hurts literally no one. I think it's fine to dislike it, be my guest. There's certainly words I don't use just because I'm not fond of them; but once you start telling OTHER people they can't use a harmless word that hurts absolutely no one because of some sort of "standard", well, that strikes me as quite a high horse indeed.
It kind of reminds me of in high school where the kids who studying were told effectively to get off their high horses and the others would proudly proclaim they will not do their homework as they please.