It doesn’t take a great thinker or one of great insight to see that the words “this” and “shit” contain exactly the same letters just arranged differently resulting in different phonemes. Phonetically they look like this: [ðIs] and [ʃIt]. Nothing about the sounds contained within each of these words warrants the label of “profane” or unworthy of being spoken. To quote the late, great George Carlin “…it’s the context that counts. It’s the user. It’s the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent.” He is 100% right.
Furthermore, what is considered “bad” language changes over time. Does anyone know why we call it “white” meat and “dark” meat? It was to avoid the use of breast and thigh, which was considered “bad” or “offensive” language at the time. Is that a problem now? Not for a majority of English speakers.
Speaking of the avoidance of certain phrases/words, deciding instead to substitute them for a euphemism. If what I’m saying is to hold, that it is the intention or the idea being conveyed is what is important, then euphemisms are a fools errand. If everyone knows you mean ‘fuck’ when you say ‘fudge’ you are actually drawing more attention to the idea than you would by just saying ‘fuck’ for fuck sake. To quote the amazingly talented Tim Minchin: “F**k means ‘fuck’ more than ‘fuck’ means ‘fuck”. Point here being, that trying to cover it up by bleeping it out, replace letters with asterisks or silencing the speaker is having the direct opposite effect that such actions are aimed at achieving.