6 ms·

A. Why have we editorialized in the title? If the author thought "Fucking Your Way Out" was an appropriate title, it should be the title here on HN, should it n

A. Why have we editorialized in the title? If the author thought "Fucking Your Way Out" was an appropriate title, it should be the title here on HN, should it not? (I don't think the title is appropriate or elegant, and maybe there's a meta-policy on HN to avoid putting "fuck" on the home page, which there are good reasons to avoid, having to do with brand and overzealous filtering software and whatnot. But I think it's kind of misleading, especially for an essay like this one, to advertise one title and put another one on the essay itself!) B. If there is one fucking thing that will cause me to reconsider my personal policy of avoiding the use of the word "fuck" online, especially in public writing, it's the phrase "F-bomb", which is just fucking awful. If you're trying to avoid the word for the sake of young children, or for the sake of avoiding the emotional impact of a real "fuck", you obviously need to say "effing" (in speech) or "fscking" (in print) or any of the hundred thousand other classic euphemisms, because "F-bomb" is not a substitute for "fuck". It just doesn't work, grammatically. If, on the other hand, you're discussing the word from a literary standpoint, let me introduce you to a little concept called scare quotes: You can say "fuck" and not mean it! The safety is on! I think my real problem with "F-bomb" may be that it's obviously a word for conducting a meta-discussion of the word "fuck" in front of young children. Perhaps my reaction would be much the same if you addressed me in baby talk and ended every sentence by patting me on the head. I'm not convinced that such a word needs to exist – If the audience doesn't understand "fuck" well enough to safely read it, why are you discussing the word? But when you absolutely need such a word, try the simple phrase "the F-word". You will sound like a schoolmarm, but then again it's not as if you were going to avoid that.

mquander 15y ago
The HN title is ten times more descriptive than "Fucking Your Way Out." Nobody would have any idea what the article was about if he used that title, whereas his replacement title is succinct and accurate. You can quibble about whether it should say "fuck" or "F-bomb", but it's up to the submitter's discretion to use a good title, and his chosen one is far better than leaving it as the default, so I'm not inclined to complain too loudly. I also note that much of your ire should probably be directed at the author, who uses "F-bomb" as a euphemism many times in the article itself, and even heroically sneaks in the phrase "dropping some F-pepper" once (this is actually true.)
- ghurlman 15y ago
  I also simply took the text of the article author's tweet that linked the blog post.
robconery 15y ago
That was the what I tweeted when I wrote it - I think the submitter just used that text instead of my title (it wasn't myself who submitted it). RE F-bomb, I think it's sorta synonymous. Just another way of saying the word.
- eropple 15y ago
  Personally, I'm more offended by unnecessary (and arguably wrong) use of the reflexive pronoun than I am of the word fuck.
tptacek 15y ago
Presumably you've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ (Louis CK, NSFW, totally worth it though)
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  I should take down my whole complaint and replace it with this link. (Tragically, one can no longer assume that I've seen anything, so thanks for the link. Whatever happened to the version of me that actually watched TV?)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
lotharbot 15y ago
I'm quite fond of the term "F-bomb". It's an appropriate descriptor much of the time. A bomb produces a "sudden and violent release of energy", typically intended to destroy a target or to draw attention. Similarly, the word "fuck" is often used to intensify a destructive or dismissive sentiment, or to draw attention or produce shock. The emotional content the word "fuck" carries is (sometimes) the conversational analog to an explosive payload. It's useful for meta-discussions even among people who are comfortable using the term "fuck", because it conveys information about the intent and effects of usage. Likewise, the term "F-Pepper" (used in the article) conveys additional information that the scare-quoted "fuck" would not. If I say a guy lobbed a couple F-grenades into a political discussion I was having with a friend, you can infer some things about his intent. Part of effective swearing is knowing whether you're dropping a bomb or some pepper, and part of effective meta-discussion is being able to describe those differently. That said, I do find that some people use the term "F-bomb" in ridiculous ways. Similarly for S-bomb, C-bomb, B-bomb, and some others. Calling everything a bomb even if it has no bomb-like effects really cheapens the word and worsens the meta-discussion.

mquander 15y ago

The HN title is ten times more descriptive than "Fucking Your Way Out." Nobody would have any idea what the article was about if he used that title, whereas his replacement title is succinct and accurate. You can quibble about whether it should say "fuck" or "F-bomb", but it's up to the submitter's discretion to use a good title, and his chosen one is far better than leaving it as the default, so I'm not inclined to complain too loudly. I also note that much of your ire should probably be directed at the author, who uses "F-bomb" as a euphemism many times in the article itself, and even heroically sneaks in the phrase "dropping some F-pepper" once (this is actually true.)

ghurlman 15y ago
I also simply took the text of the article author's tweet that linked the blog post.

robconery 15y ago

That was the what I tweeted when I wrote it - I think the submitter just used that text instead of my title (it wasn't myself who submitted it). RE F-bomb, I think it's sorta synonymous. Just another way of saying the word.

eropple 15y ago
Personally, I'm more offended by unnecessary (and arguably wrong) use of the reflexive pronoun than I am of the word fuck.

tptacek 15y ago

Presumably you've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ (Louis CK, NSFW, totally worth it though)

mechanical_fish 15y ago
I should take down my whole complaint and replace it with this link. (Tragically, one can no longer assume that I've seen anything, so thanks for the link. Whatever happened to the version of me that actually watched TV?)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

lotharbot 15y ago

I'm quite fond of the term "F-bomb". It's an appropriate descriptor much of the time. A bomb produces a "sudden and violent release of energy", typically intended to destroy a target or to draw attention. Similarly, the word "fuck" is often used to intensify a destructive or dismissive sentiment, or to draw attention or produce shock. The emotional content the word "fuck" carries is (sometimes) the conversational analog to an explosive payload. It's useful for meta-discussions even among people who are comfortable using the term "fuck", because it conveys information about the intent and effects of usage. Likewise, the term "F-Pepper" (used in the article) conveys additional information that the scare-quoted "fuck" would not. If I say a guy lobbed a couple F-grenades into a political discussion I was having with a friend, you can infer some things about his intent. Part of effective swearing is knowing whether you're dropping a bomb or some pepper, and part of effective meta-discussion is being able to describe those differently. That said, I do find that some people use the term "F-bomb" in ridiculous ways. Similarly for S-bomb, C-bomb, B-bomb, and some others. Calling everything a bomb even if it has no bomb-like effects really cheapens the word and worsens the meta-discussion.