6 ms·

HN is not the world but a tiny microcosm. I am also not sure the profanity in the URL is responsible for the position. The HN title would have been enough if it

HN is not the world but a tiny microcosm. I am also not sure the profanity in the URL is responsible for the position. The HN title would have been enough if it is indeed the deciding factor of popularity. By using profanity he has shut out every kid trying to learn at school or a person at a library or business sitting behind a filter in order to pander to the programming "elite".

nknighthb 13y ago
I'd like to see a transcript Carlin's Seven Dirty Words embedded in every website. Acquiescing to puritanical fools merely encourages them.
- ars 13y ago
  I'm glad I don't live in your world. It sounds horrible.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    You mean the United Theocracies of America? You think any other English-speaking populace gasps in shock whenever someone dares utter the word "shit"?
    - ars 13y ago
      What, you think they don't have any words that cause outrage? I'm quite happy to let words retain their shock value without people like you trying to mainstream the words, and then be required to coin new ones. Golly used to be a really serious swear, now it's quaint and old fashioned. You think you are mainstreaming the words by making people OK with offensive words. (Not sure why you think that's such a laudable goal, but I guess it's your goal.) But that's not what actually happens. What actually happens is the word becomes less offensive in the first place.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        > I'm quite happy to let words retain their shock value without people like you trying to mainstream the words, and then be required to coin new ones. They're words. Why are you afraid of them? > Golly used to be a really serious swear, now it's quaint and old fashioned. What? Golly was never a "serious swear". That's why it existed in the first place -- because people were afraid of uttering a completely different word. > You think you are mainstreaming the words by making people OK with offensive words. This sentence is offensive. Far more offensive than "shit" has ever or will ever be. And not because any of its words are offensive, but because you presume to tell me what I think. And you are very, very wrong. The idea conveyed is offensive. The words used are irrelevant.
      - kevincrane 13y ago
        "Vacuum" and "fuck you" are essentially the exact same phrase when pronounced phonetically. Why is one banned from TV and one not? Why do we make a big deal about one or the other? It upsets me that I have to censor the words I say based on the age of people around me (people under 12 or over 60 tend to require extra thought). Personally I started to swear around 6th grade or age 12, so it clearly isn't a particularly advanced linguistic skill. I'd just love if people got over "bad words" and let words be words so we didn't have to worry about it.
        ars 13y ago
        The definition of a bad word is a word that is censored. As soon as you stop censoring the word it is no longer a bad word. So no one will be all that interested in saying it, and will invent a new bad word.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > The definition of a bad word is a word that is censored. Therefore, in rejecting the entire concept of censoring words, the concept of a "bad word" is necessarily abolished as well. This isn't about particular words, or a specific instance of censorship, it's about a principle.
  - modfodder 13y ago
    Doesn't sound nearly as horrible as the censored world you propose. That fucking shitty world would be hell. Carlin's Seven Dirty Words: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits This should be required reading alongside Shakespeare in high school. http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml
    - ars 13y ago
      A non-censored world would be much much worse - for you! In such a world you could say all those things - and no one would care, and you would be sad that you were not able to say anything offensive. Imagine a world where swear worlds did not even exist. That's the world you seem to want.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        > you would be sad that you were not able to say anything offensive How did you come by the ability to read others' minds and tell them how they think and feel?
        ars 13y ago
        > How did you come by the ability to read others' minds and tell them how they think and feel? About 10 years of practice. It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. Read my conversion with oblique63 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017261 Maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I already read it. There as here, your logic is bizarre and circular, your attitude defeatist, and your assumptions about other people arrogant and condescending.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
Volpe 13y ago
So because people filter the internet... we should self filter to get around it. That's an uncomfortable realisation for me. :-(
- ars 13y ago
  You are acting as if there is some positive value here. There's isn't. It's a completely unnecessary word. Argue about self filtering for things that are actually meaningful.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    Language is a man-made construct; words only carry as much meaning/importance/value/derision as they are given by society. If we don't like a word, sure we can try (futilely) banning/censoring it, but it'll only add more credence to the very meaning the pro-censorship camp is trying to censor it for, resulting in a Streisand Effect scenario [0]. If you let a word you don't like continue to evolve organically on the other hand, chances are that society will get bored with it (or it's old meaning), and eventually move on from it. So why not just let language take its course? The purpose of language is communication, and clearly the OP saw the word "shit" as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek synonym for "thing", so should we be annoyed at the concept of cheeky "things" as well? Here's a good rule to live by: "Context is just as important as Connotation in Communication". Clearly the context trumps whatever other connotations this 'naughty' word might have, so treat it as such. Who are we to judge another person's vernacular? It shouldn't be the case that we are held hostage by our own creations. So don't let language control you; use it in the best way you can so as to empower yourself instead. If you still have a problem with certain words, think of it like dealing with a bully: if you ignore him long enough, he will get bored and go away. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    - ars 13y ago
      You got it right in the first paragraph! And then drew the wrong conclusion. That is exactly why you should be for censorship - without it all those words will lose their meaning, and people will invent new ones. I don't see any need to invent new swear words, and I am against casual use of those words, because doing so leaves them to exist for the situations that warrants them. I don't want, nor need, to be "shocked" all the time. Not do I want to be so desensitized that it's impossible to shocked me. I like the happy middle.

nknighthb 13y ago

I'd like to see a transcript Carlin's Seven Dirty Words embedded in every website. Acquiescing to puritanical fools merely encourages them.

ars 13y ago
I'm glad I don't live in your world. It sounds horrible.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  You mean the United Theocracies of America? You think any other English-speaking populace gasps in shock whenever someone dares utter the word "shit"?
  - ars 13y ago
    What, you think they don't have any words that cause outrage? I'm quite happy to let words retain their shock value without people like you trying to mainstream the words, and then be required to coin new ones. Golly used to be a really serious swear, now it's quaint and old fashioned. You think you are mainstreaming the words by making people OK with offensive words. (Not sure why you think that's such a laudable goal, but I guess it's your goal.) But that's not what actually happens. What actually happens is the word becomes less offensive in the first place.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > I'm quite happy to let words retain their shock value without people like you trying to mainstream the words, and then be required to coin new ones. They're words. Why are you afraid of them? > Golly used to be a really serious swear, now it's quaint and old fashioned. What? Golly was never a "serious swear". That's why it existed in the first place -- because people were afraid of uttering a completely different word. > You think you are mainstreaming the words by making people OK with offensive words. This sentence is offensive. Far more offensive than "shit" has ever or will ever be. And not because any of its words are offensive, but because you presume to tell me what I think. And you are very, very wrong. The idea conveyed is offensive. The words used are irrelevant.
    - kevincrane 13y ago
      "Vacuum" and "fuck you" are essentially the exact same phrase when pronounced phonetically. Why is one banned from TV and one not? Why do we make a big deal about one or the other? It upsets me that I have to censor the words I say based on the age of people around me (people under 12 or over 60 tend to require extra thought). Personally I started to swear around 6th grade or age 12, so it clearly isn't a particularly advanced linguistic skill. I'd just love if people got over "bad words" and let words be words so we didn't have to worry about it.
      - ars 13y ago
        The definition of a bad word is a word that is censored. As soon as you stop censoring the word it is no longer a bad word. So no one will be all that interested in saying it, and will invent a new bad word.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > The definition of a bad word is a word that is censored. Therefore, in rejecting the entire concept of censoring words, the concept of a "bad word" is necessarily abolished as well. This isn't about particular words, or a specific instance of censorship, it's about a principle.
- modfodder 13y ago
  Doesn't sound nearly as horrible as the censored world you propose. That fucking shitty world would be hell. Carlin's Seven Dirty Words: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits This should be required reading alongside Shakespeare in high school. http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml
  - ars 13y ago
    A non-censored world would be much much worse - for you! In such a world you could say all those things - and no one would care, and you would be sad that you were not able to say anything offensive. Imagine a world where swear worlds did not even exist. That's the world you seem to want.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > you would be sad that you were not able to say anything offensive How did you come by the ability to read others' minds and tell them how they think and feel?
      - ars 13y ago
        > How did you come by the ability to read others' minds and tell them how they think and feel? About 10 years of practice. It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. Read my conversion with oblique63 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017261 Maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I already read it. There as here, your logic is bizarre and circular, your attitude defeatist, and your assumptions about other people arrogant and condescending.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

Volpe 13y ago

So because people filter the internet... we should self filter to get around it. That's an uncomfortable realisation for me. :-(

ars 13y ago
You are acting as if there is some positive value here. There's isn't. It's a completely unnecessary word. Argue about self filtering for things that are actually meaningful.
- oblique63 13y ago
  Language is a man-made construct; words only carry as much meaning/importance/value/derision as they are given by society. If we don't like a word, sure we can try (futilely) banning/censoring it, but it'll only add more credence to the very meaning the pro-censorship camp is trying to censor it for, resulting in a Streisand Effect scenario [0]. If you let a word you don't like continue to evolve organically on the other hand, chances are that society will get bored with it (or it's old meaning), and eventually move on from it. So why not just let language take its course? The purpose of language is communication, and clearly the OP saw the word "shit" as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek synonym for "thing", so should we be annoyed at the concept of cheeky "things" as well? Here's a good rule to live by: "Context is just as important as Connotation in Communication". Clearly the context trumps whatever other connotations this 'naughty' word might have, so treat it as such. Who are we to judge another person's vernacular? It shouldn't be the case that we are held hostage by our own creations. So don't let language control you; use it in the best way you can so as to empower yourself instead. If you still have a problem with certain words, think of it like dealing with a bully: if you ignore him long enough, he will get bored and go away. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
  - ars 13y ago
    You got it right in the first paragraph! And then drew the wrong conclusion. That is exactly why you should be for censorship - without it all those words will lose their meaning, and people will invent new ones. I don't see any need to invent new swear words, and I am against casual use of those words, because doing so leaves them to exist for the situations that warrants them. I don't want, nor need, to be "shocked" all the time. Not do I want to be so desensitized that it's impossible to shocked me. I like the happy middle.