3 ms·

You can replace it with descriptive words: "This piece of software is as useful as wings on Shamu" "This piece of software makes me want to skewer needles up

by cscheid 15y ago

You can replace it with descriptive words: "This piece of software is as useful as wings on Shamu" "This piece of software makes me want to skewer needles up my thumbs for a relaxing break." etc. There is value in shock. The problem with profanity is that it it only shocks whoever is not used to reading it (and in public writing it's hard to tell who is and who is not).

burgerbrain 15y ago
I am unconvinced. Whales like to jump, surely Shamu would rather like to have wings, and the second is a great deal more distressing to me than just a silly little word could possibly be. I don't think either of these are an improvement upon the first at all. Judging by this entire tizzy HN has worked itself into, I'd say profanity doesn't run the risk of running out of "shock potential" anytime soon.
- __david__ 15y ago
  It'll shock people, but it's still a cheap shock. The 2 example the grandfather post gave weren't great, but I think that in itself is the issue--coming up with effective emotional charged speech without using profanity is difficult, but completely possible. It takes work! And I think that is what a lot of people here are saying--cussing is cheap and lazy. And so it's offensive not because the actual words are offensive, but because the writer is clearly not putting any effort into their writing.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I still do not understand how this argument works. Why is it that people only seem to be offended at mediocre vocabulary when 'profanity' is involved? If, as you state, emotionally charged speech without profanity is difficult, why should we become offended when people are unable to achieve it? I don't think anybody goes to technical talks to appreciate high grade word-smithing. I honestly believe this is an instance of generally rational people becoming offended for a reason they don't quite understand, and inventing a theory to explain the data.

by cscheid 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago

I am unconvinced. Whales like to jump, surely Shamu would rather like to have wings, and the second is a great deal more distressing to me than just a silly little word could possibly be. I don't think either of these are an improvement upon the first at all. Judging by this entire tizzy HN has worked itself into, I'd say profanity doesn't run the risk of running out of "shock potential" anytime soon.

__david__ 15y ago
It'll shock people, but it's still a cheap shock. The 2 example the grandfather post gave weren't great, but I think that in itself is the issue--coming up with effective emotional charged speech without using profanity is difficult, but completely possible. It takes work! And I think that is what a lot of people here are saying--cussing is cheap and lazy. And so it's offensive not because the actual words are offensive, but because the writer is clearly not putting any effort into their writing.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I still do not understand how this argument works. Why is it that people only seem to be offended at mediocre vocabulary when 'profanity' is involved? If, as you state, emotionally charged speech without profanity is difficult, why should we become offended when people are unable to achieve it? I don't think anybody goes to technical talks to appreciate high grade word-smithing. I honestly believe this is an instance of generally rational people becoming offended for a reason they don't quite understand, and inventing a theory to explain the data.