5 ms·

Male here. Most professionals will no longer bother to read an article with a headline that uses insulting, sexist words. If you worked for me and wrote that

by logjam 14y ago

Male here. Most professionals will no longer bother to read an article with a headline that uses insulting, sexist words. If you worked for me and wrote that title for an article about something we were working on, you wouldn't work for me any more. Period. Tech culture is moving away from childishness, and there were a large number of other words you could have used in your title. Go learn some.

peterwwillis 14y ago
Also male here. 5'6. Brown/blue/red hair. Skinny. I agree that these words have no place in a professional working environment. But I still read articles with bad words. (Actually, it's why I clicked on it in the first place!)
- Mz 14y ago
  I actually upvoted both of you -- I mean I upvoted your long list of swear words and point that they are intended to offend and also upvoted his point that they don't really have a place in a headline. I swear like a sailor IRL but I try to keep most of my online remarks pg-13-ish. It seems rude/ disrespectful and a good way to lose part of the audience to be unnecessarily crude. Just my take.
  - lbotos 14y ago
    I oftentimes volunteer at my local high school with the web development classes and always make it a point to direct the students to review alistapart as they have excellent articles. I've always assumed alistapart had editors that keep the content top notch and "accessible". I was surprised this morning to see this title was real. I'm not pretending like American high schoolers don't use this kind of language but seeing it in a highly respected "magazine" of sorts made me squirm. I'm glad I wasn't in a classroom this morning.
    - Mz 14y ago
      Yes, it is something I have thought about quite a lot and concluded that being too prissy tends to not have broad appeal but being unnecessarily crude is just stupid if you are trying to grow an audience. I have fantasies of doing a web comic at some point. Should that ever work out, the standard I have in mind is that it should be "Night Court"-esque in nature. In spite of frequently having "adult" themes it was implicit, not explicit, in nature. My 24 year old son has said that when he watched "Night Court" as a child, he thought Dan was some loser who talked a lot of crap but saw almost no action. When he saw the same show when he was older, he was surprised to realize that wasn't the case at all. Why was he even able to make the comparison? Because the show was acceptably "clean" that I did not hesitate to let a young child watch it. That translates to a much larger potential audience than the "adults only" material. Besides, I taught my sons from an early age that swearing was not "adult" behavior but was simply rude: http://www.kidslikemine.com/manners.shtml http://www.kidslikemine.com/manners.shtml
      - chc 14y ago
        And who defines swearing? You? Me? Marilyn Manson? I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that "douchebag" is particularly more rude than "stupid," which you apparently have no problem using. At least that's my impression from the way people tend to use it (and it seems to be pretty near ubiquitous with people my age and younger in the area where I live). pavel_lishin brought up a great example above: sucks. To most people under the age of 30, it is categorically not swearing. It is not even slightly naughty. It's informal in much the same way that "totally sweet" is, but it's not dirty. But many people older than that will insist that it's swearing. True story: Once, when I was working on my college paper a few years ago, we used "sucks" in a headline. The faculty adviser flagged the headline and questioned whether we wanted to use swearing there. Every single student there was baffled by what she meant.
        Mz 14y ago
        I think you missed my point somewhere. I swear quite a lot. But a lot of people are easily offended by words that wouldn't bother me. A standard some prostitutes use is to wait until their client tips their hand as to what sexually explicit words to use. Some men think "dick" is perfectly acceptable but "cock" is foul language. For other men, the reverse is true. So, yes, I think if your goal is to grow an audience, you are behaving stupidly if you do not stop and think about what kind of language will likely get negative reactions. I am aware that words like "retard" or "stupid" can be just as problematic as words like douchebag, cock, or dick. But in this instance, I think it conveys what I mean better than any other word I could use. I am not against the use of strong or loaded words on principle. I just think unnecessary use of such language is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. I can't imagine someone wanting to lose audience members or even risk losing them without good reason. I am guessing you didn't read my blog post on the topic. That might explain why I am baffled by your reaction. Take care.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ajross 14y ago
"Douchebag" is gendered, I guess. It's not clear to me that it's sexist. In common usage, it virtually always refers to a man. The actual relation to a "douche" is mostly vestigial. I think you have to let this one go. Fighting against linguistic churn as a proxy for "sexism" seems to me like it hurts more than it helps, as it feeds the "PC feminazi" meme. There are better fights to pick than this one.
- Rudism 14y ago
  There was an interesting (and timely) question on Quora about when the word douchebag entered common parlance, with some good answers given: http://www.quora.com/English-language/When-did-the-term-douchebag-enter-the-popular-parlance http://www.quora.com/English-language/When-did-the-term-douc... Seems like its use as a nickname/insult really exploded in the 70's and 80's. I'd tend to agree that tying the word to sexism is a bit of a stretch--it's probably just being used because it sounds like a naughty word, and anything more explicit or profane wouldn't get past the censors.
rickmb 14y ago
Another male here. I agree with the bad choice of the word "douchebag", which seems juvenile, but I disagree with it a) being sexist, and b) the general idea that swear words are somehow generically "childish" or "unprofessional". It's puritan approach to language, and largely an American issue. In fact, I would call that particular attitude "childish". There's nothing inherently wrong with swearing in an opinion piece.
pavel_lishin 14y ago
Professional male web developer here. One of the tickets in our tracker is titled "Appcache Sucks". My boss actually e-mailed me Jake's article with the e-mail subject, "Sounds like something Pavel would write." We use naughty words here at work, and nobody gets their undergarments in any sort of embedding of the circle into three-dimensional Euclidean space.
craigyk 14y ago
You know what's douchebaggy? It's the trend I've noticed where invariably someone says: Blah Blah Blah, I'm so professional, blah blah blah, I'm a boss|manager|startup founder|etc blah blah blah and I'd fire you for this. Edit: Seriously, the person with the potty-mouth might be an awesome developer and you'd be an idiot to not hire or fire them for being a little non-PC. The swearing at least indicates some level of passion for their work, which is most likely a good thing. Personally some of my best work was done on projects where I alternated between the occasional, but rare, out-loud 'fuck yeah!' and 'fuck you package x, why do you have to be this way?!'
- jmadsen 14y ago
  Swearing in a conversation is one thing; Not having the common sense not to publish something you took the time to sit and write & presumably reread and edit is another. Guess what? There are lots and lots and lots of awesome programmers out there. We don't have to chose the immature ones to work with.
  - craigyk 14y ago
    whose 'we'?. I'd rather work with someone a little colorful over someone who is dull, all other things being equal. I'd even rather work with someone who occasionally made me wince, or feel uncomfortable as long as they had offsetting high points. Odds are he'd probably regret the title later, all on his own, and really that's more than enough. Or maybe not- he based the title off his opening story, which I found amusing. Hardly a fireable offense, not even worth a reprimand really.
moldbug 14y ago
Neighbor, please. "Most professionals" live and work within ten miles of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw. If you worked for me and weren't comfortable with this kind of diversity, I'd cap your ass. Period. Tech culture keeping it realer every year. Throw down some rude JS or get your app-cache timed out. That's the way we live and die in the 415, neighbor!
jmadsen 14y ago
+1, although I don't think it is a sexist term. This is a professional site, for a (hopefully) mature, professional audience. Step 1: Grow up and learn to write mature, professional articles. I didn't bother to read it because of the headline.
- chc 14y ago
  Refusing to read something because you take affront at the writer's vocabulary is neither mature nor professional.
chc 14y ago
I don't think "douchebag" has a sexist connotation in most people's mental lexicon.
jwwest 14y ago
I think it's about time someone came up with a name for this, similar to Godin's Law. Perhaps the definition should be: "Once an article is published containing either edgy or profane language, a comment will inevitably derail the conversation to usage of profanity."

by logjam 14y ago

peterwwillis 14y ago

Also male here. 5'6. Brown/blue/red hair. Skinny. I agree that these words have no place in a professional working environment. But I still read articles with bad words. (Actually, it's why I clicked on it in the first place!)

Mz 14y ago
I actually upvoted both of you -- I mean I upvoted your long list of swear words and point that they are intended to offend and also upvoted his point that they don't really have a place in a headline. I swear like a sailor IRL but I try to keep most of my online remarks pg-13-ish. It seems rude/ disrespectful and a good way to lose part of the audience to be unnecessarily crude. Just my take.
- lbotos 14y ago
  I oftentimes volunteer at my local high school with the web development classes and always make it a point to direct the students to review alistapart as they have excellent articles. I've always assumed alistapart had editors that keep the content top notch and "accessible". I was surprised this morning to see this title was real. I'm not pretending like American high schoolers don't use this kind of language but seeing it in a highly respected "magazine" of sorts made me squirm. I'm glad I wasn't in a classroom this morning.
  - Mz 14y ago
    Yes, it is something I have thought about quite a lot and concluded that being too prissy tends to not have broad appeal but being unnecessarily crude is just stupid if you are trying to grow an audience. I have fantasies of doing a web comic at some point. Should that ever work out, the standard I have in mind is that it should be "Night Court"-esque in nature. In spite of frequently having "adult" themes it was implicit, not explicit, in nature. My 24 year old son has said that when he watched "Night Court" as a child, he thought Dan was some loser who talked a lot of crap but saw almost no action. When he saw the same show when he was older, he was surprised to realize that wasn't the case at all. Why was he even able to make the comparison? Because the show was acceptably "clean" that I did not hesitate to let a young child watch it. That translates to a much larger potential audience than the "adults only" material. Besides, I taught my sons from an early age that swearing was not "adult" behavior but was simply rude: http://www.kidslikemine.com/manners.shtml http://www.kidslikemine.com/manners.shtml
    - chc 14y ago
      And who defines swearing? You? Me? Marilyn Manson? I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that "douchebag" is particularly more rude than "stupid," which you apparently have no problem using. At least that's my impression from the way people tend to use it (and it seems to be pretty near ubiquitous with people my age and younger in the area where I live). pavel_lishin brought up a great example above: sucks. To most people under the age of 30, it is categorically not swearing. It is not even slightly naughty. It's informal in much the same way that "totally sweet" is, but it's not dirty. But many people older than that will insist that it's swearing. True story: Once, when I was working on my college paper a few years ago, we used "sucks" in a headline. The faculty adviser flagged the headline and questioned whether we wanted to use swearing there. Every single student there was baffled by what she meant.
      - Mz 14y ago
        I think you missed my point somewhere. I swear quite a lot. But a lot of people are easily offended by words that wouldn't bother me. A standard some prostitutes use is to wait until their client tips their hand as to what sexually explicit words to use. Some men think "dick" is perfectly acceptable but "cock" is foul language. For other men, the reverse is true. So, yes, I think if your goal is to grow an audience, you are behaving stupidly if you do not stop and think about what kind of language will likely get negative reactions. I am aware that words like "retard" or "stupid" can be just as problematic as words like douchebag, cock, or dick. But in this instance, I think it conveys what I mean better than any other word I could use. I am not against the use of strong or loaded words on principle. I just think unnecessary use of such language is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. I can't imagine someone wanting to lose audience members or even risk losing them without good reason. I am guessing you didn't read my blog post on the topic. That might explain why I am baffled by your reaction. Take care.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ajross 14y ago

"Douchebag" is gendered, I guess. It's not clear to me that it's sexist. In common usage, it virtually always refers to a man. The actual relation to a "douche" is mostly vestigial. I think you have to let this one go. Fighting against linguistic churn as a proxy for "sexism" seems to me like it hurts more than it helps, as it feeds the "PC feminazi" meme. There are better fights to pick than this one.

Rudism 14y ago
There was an interesting (and timely) question on Quora about when the word douchebag entered common parlance, with some good answers given: http://www.quora.com/English-language/When-did-the-term-douchebag-enter-the-popular-parlance http://www.quora.com/English-language/When-did-the-term-douc... Seems like its use as a nickname/insult really exploded in the 70's and 80's. I'd tend to agree that tying the word to sexism is a bit of a stretch--it's probably just being used because it sounds like a naughty word, and anything more explicit or profane wouldn't get past the censors.

rickmb 14y ago

Another male here. I agree with the bad choice of the word "douchebag", which seems juvenile, but I disagree with it a) being sexist, and b) the general idea that swear words are somehow generically "childish" or "unprofessional". It's puritan approach to language, and largely an American issue. In fact, I would call that particular attitude "childish". There's nothing inherently wrong with swearing in an opinion piece.

pavel_lishin 14y ago

Professional male web developer here. One of the tickets in our tracker is titled "Appcache Sucks". My boss actually e-mailed me Jake's article with the e-mail subject, "Sounds like something Pavel would write." We use naughty words here at work, and nobody gets their undergarments in any sort of embedding of the circle into three-dimensional Euclidean space.

craigyk 14y ago

You know what's douchebaggy? It's the trend I've noticed where invariably someone says: Blah Blah Blah, I'm so professional, blah blah blah, I'm a boss|manager|startup founder|etc blah blah blah and I'd fire you for this. Edit: Seriously, the person with the potty-mouth might be an awesome developer and you'd be an idiot to not hire or fire them for being a little non-PC. The swearing at least indicates some level of passion for their work, which is most likely a good thing. Personally some of my best work was done on projects where I alternated between the occasional, but rare, out-loud 'fuck yeah!' and 'fuck you package x, why do you have to be this way?!'

jmadsen 14y ago
Swearing in a conversation is one thing; Not having the common sense not to publish something you took the time to sit and write & presumably reread and edit is another. Guess what? There are lots and lots and lots of awesome programmers out there. We don't have to chose the immature ones to work with.
- craigyk 14y ago
  whose 'we'?. I'd rather work with someone a little colorful over someone who is dull, all other things being equal. I'd even rather work with someone who occasionally made me wince, or feel uncomfortable as long as they had offsetting high points. Odds are he'd probably regret the title later, all on his own, and really that's more than enough. Or maybe not- he based the title off his opening story, which I found amusing. Hardly a fireable offense, not even worth a reprimand really.

moldbug 14y ago

Neighbor, please. "Most professionals" live and work within ten miles of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw. If you worked for me and weren't comfortable with this kind of diversity, I'd cap your ass. Period. Tech culture keeping it realer every year. Throw down some rude JS or get your app-cache timed out. That's the way we live and die in the 415, neighbor!

jmadsen 14y ago

+1, although I don't think it is a sexist term. This is a professional site, for a (hopefully) mature, professional audience. Step 1: Grow up and learn to write mature, professional articles. I didn't bother to read it because of the headline.

chc 14y ago
Refusing to read something because you take affront at the writer's vocabulary is neither mature nor professional.

chc 14y ago

I don't think "douchebag" has a sexist connotation in most people's mental lexicon.

jwwest 14y ago

I think it's about time someone came up with a name for this, similar to Godin's Law. Perhaps the definition should be: "Once an article is published containing either edgy or profane language, a comment will inevitably derail the conversation to usage of profanity."