3 ms·

Hold up, the reason I don't chew with my mouth open is that people don't want to see my chewed up food (basically pre-vomit). The reason why I do feel comforta

by Crito 13y ago

Hold up, the reason I don't chew with my mouth open is that people don't want to see my chewed up food (basically pre-vomit). The reason why I do feel comfortable swearing is because people actually don't have their feelings damaged or hurt by it. The reason I don't insult people is because people actually do have their feelings hurt by it. The reason I don't use misogynistic or racist language (this notably includes a few choice "swear words") is because people actually do have their feelings hurt by it. Three of these are rational taboos because people actually are bothered by them. The other is an irrational taboo, a relic that use to be rational but hasn't been for decades. Not using the word "fuck" is on the same level as wearing a tie to work, there is no remaining reason to do it outside of tradition. Not chewing with your mouth open, or not using misogynistic swear words, is more on the level of putting on underwear and pants before going to work. You do it for the benefit of others, not solely out of tradition.

dllthomas 13y ago
I have definitely known people actually bothered by cursing, though I have every expectation they are not as prevalent as they once were. I don't know quite what the prevalence is, and I don't know what portion of people need to be bothered by something for it to effect your default behavior. Obviously, if you're in a group you know to have individuals (or not) that are offended any behavior and you wish to avoid (or not) offending those individuals, act accordingly.
- Crito 13y ago
  The closest I have ever encountered to people being actually bothered by swearing is people who are bothered by children swearing. Teachers that are shocked that children casually use profanity in daily conversations between each other, and the like. Even then though, they aren't actually bothered by the word, but rather by the notion of a child using it. I would be disciplined as a child for saying that something was stupid or dumb, but it's not like those words bothered my parents. As an adult, when I talk to them I casually use profanity in a variety of cases, and so do they. Of course if I used profanity directed at them in an insulting manner, they would be upset (as would most people), but that is a reaction to an insult, not the words that were used for the insult.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Clearly, I know some people you don't know.
humanrebar 13y ago
Some people don't want to discuss sexual acts and bodily functions. Trite as they are, swear words generally refer to one of those things. But besides that, it really doesn't matter if the offense is irrational. It's irrational to freak out at people for one puff of second-hand smoke (assuming no allergies). That doesn't make it any less rude to smoke in peoples' faces. OK. How about this? Putting a not-germane political rant (Ron Paul, Tea Party, Occupy, ...take your pick) in the documentation of your library is also unprofessional. It doesn't hurt anyone, but it needlessly causes friction and annoys people for no real gain. It's not strictly wrong (in a moral or ethical sense), but it's certainly not professional.
- Crito 13y ago
  The word "fuck" evolved past "sexual acts and bodily functions" _centuries_ ago. Do you have the same objection of "screwing off"? I anticipate you claiming that you have objections to the phrase, but do you have the same magnitude of objections? Or is one worse than the other? Second hand smoke smells. That is an actual reason to not blow smoke into somebodies face, it isn't just tradition. Putting weird political rants into your documentation would presumably not serve a purpose. The word fuck, despite your disapproval of it, has versatile meaning and can be used in a variety of ways in general speech. If you want a political equivalent, it would be like referencing luddism in documentation. Luddism, originally referring to a specific political movement, has long since transcended its literal connotations. It would not be considered particularly bizarre to use the word "luddism" or "Luddite" in documentation. On the ridiculous notion of "unnecessary": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM#t=105 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM#t=105

by Crito 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

I have definitely known people actually bothered by cursing, though I have every expectation they are not as prevalent as they once were. I don't know quite what the prevalence is, and I don't know what portion of people need to be bothered by something for it to effect your default behavior. Obviously, if you're in a group you know to have individuals (or not) that are offended any behavior and you wish to avoid (or not) offending those individuals, act accordingly.

Crito 13y ago
The closest I have ever encountered to people being actually bothered by swearing is people who are bothered by children swearing. Teachers that are shocked that children casually use profanity in daily conversations between each other, and the like. Even then though, they aren't actually bothered by the word, but rather by the notion of a child using it. I would be disciplined as a child for saying that something was stupid or dumb, but it's not like those words bothered my parents. As an adult, when I talk to them I casually use profanity in a variety of cases, and so do they. Of course if I used profanity directed at them in an insulting manner, they would be upset (as would most people), but that is a reaction to an insult, not the words that were used for the insult.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Clearly, I know some people you don't know.

humanrebar 13y ago

Some people don't want to discuss sexual acts and bodily functions. Trite as they are, swear words generally refer to one of those things. But besides that, it really doesn't matter if the offense is irrational. It's irrational to freak out at people for one puff of second-hand smoke (assuming no allergies). That doesn't make it any less rude to smoke in peoples' faces. OK. How about this? Putting a not-germane political rant (Ron Paul, Tea Party, Occupy, ...take your pick) in the documentation of your library is also unprofessional. It doesn't hurt anyone, but it needlessly causes friction and annoys people for no real gain. It's not strictly wrong (in a moral or ethical sense), but it's certainly not professional.

Crito 13y ago
The word "fuck" evolved past "sexual acts and bodily functions" _centuries_ ago. Do you have the same objection of "screwing off"? I anticipate you claiming that you have objections to the phrase, but do you have the same magnitude of objections? Or is one worse than the other? Second hand smoke smells. That is an actual reason to not blow smoke into somebodies face, it isn't just tradition. Putting weird political rants into your documentation would presumably not serve a purpose. The word fuck, despite your disapproval of it, has versatile meaning and can be used in a variety of ways in general speech. If you want a political equivalent, it would be like referencing luddism in documentation. Luddism, originally referring to a specific political movement, has long since transcended its literal connotations. It would not be considered particularly bizarre to use the word "luddism" or "Luddite" in documentation. On the ridiculous notion of "unnecessary": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM#t=105 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM#t=105