3 ms·

I'm 25 and I think swearing is a perfect form of communication, not good or bad but a perfect one. If I say fuck blue ray, I am IMMEDIATELY in few words gettin

I'm 25 and I think swearing is a perfect form of communication, not good or bad but a perfect one. If I say fuck blue ray, I am IMMEDIATELY in few words getting the point accross that: a) I dislike blue ray. b) I am having an very negative emotional reaction to it and want to convey this fact. c) Has an immediate effect. Now just like any word it can be misused, however if you want the above 3 points conveyed then fuck is the perfect word to use.

scott_s 17y ago
And reason b) is why I would not expect to see that sentiment in a reasoned argument.
- pyre 17y ago
  And (of course) every piece of writing that is not a reasoned argument is rubbish.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I did not say that nor did I intend to imply it.
edw519 17y ago
Don't forget: d) Rather than thinking through what I have to say, I'd rather slip down to the lowest common denominator expression because it's easier, without regard to the large percentage of my audience that may be offended. e) For me, emotion trumps reason. f) Has an immediate effect, although not the one I might hope for. hn is a great place for technically minded people to share ideas on achieving success. Discarding x% of your audience for no apparent reason is hardly a perfect form of anything.
- unalone 17y ago
  As much as I agree with your points, I'm going to side with GMB here in saying that swears are useful in achieving certain things. I see both sides of the story: I'm a writer (and more than that, a stylist) by choice, but I'm also foulmouthed to a fault. There's a time and a place for each. Jason Scott, the writer in question, is known for using lots of swears to achieve an emotional effect, but he's excused for that by working really fucking hard on the projects he's chosen to care about. So for me, the context of who he is justifies his swearing, because I know where he's coming from. As for discarding audience: absolutely get rid of them if you want to! That's the choice of the writer. Maybe I don't want the sort of audience that still gets childjitters when I say the word shit in front of them. I had a professor last semester who told me he didn't approve of my describing another student's project idea as "fucked-up", because it conveyed a lack of respect for the idea. Fact was, the idea was disrespectable—but if I'd used that word, I'd have implied in my politeness some respect for the idea, when in fact I had none. Jason Scott isn't writing to give constructive criticism. He's writing because he thinks the idea of BluRay needs demolition. In the past, when he's critiqued things, he's shown a restraint of language; this deserved none. (I'll also respond to your manner of responding by saying that I find snarky sarcasm as much of a turn-off as you find my crude mouth, and that I'm much less likely to respect snark than I am swears.)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
- pyre 17y ago
  > Discarding x% of your audience for no apparent reason Not necessarily 'no apparent reason.' Maybe you just don't care if your audience is offended, because people that are so easily offended are people that you don't want as part of your audience. Granted we're talking about people and blogs here, not corporate/startup communications with the public/customers. If I start talking about my support of gay marriage I immediately offend x% of the population that view gay marriage as some sort of 'affront to God.' I am probably ok with this if I'm in support of something that offends them, but from a company/startup perspective, I probably don't want to talk about gay marriage if it will alienate potential customers and has nothing to do with my underlying business (e.g. it would be appropriate if my business was in selling gay marriage accessories or gay wedding planning services or something).

scott_s 17y ago

And reason b) is why I would not expect to see that sentiment in a reasoned argument.

pyre 17y ago
And (of course) every piece of writing that is not a reasoned argument is rubbish.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I did not say that nor did I intend to imply it.

edw519 17y ago

Don't forget: d) Rather than thinking through what I have to say, I'd rather slip down to the lowest common denominator expression because it's easier, without regard to the large percentage of my audience that may be offended. e) For me, emotion trumps reason. f) Has an immediate effect, although not the one I might hope for. hn is a great place for technically minded people to share ideas on achieving success. Discarding x% of your audience for no apparent reason is hardly a perfect form of anything.

unalone 17y ago
As much as I agree with your points, I'm going to side with GMB here in saying that swears are useful in achieving certain things. I see both sides of the story: I'm a writer (and more than that, a stylist) by choice, but I'm also foulmouthed to a fault. There's a time and a place for each. Jason Scott, the writer in question, is known for using lots of swears to achieve an emotional effect, but he's excused for that by working really fucking hard on the projects he's chosen to care about. So for me, the context of who he is justifies his swearing, because I know where he's coming from. As for discarding audience: absolutely get rid of them if you want to! That's the choice of the writer. Maybe I don't want the sort of audience that still gets childjitters when I say the word shit in front of them. I had a professor last semester who told me he didn't approve of my describing another student's project idea as "fucked-up", because it conveyed a lack of respect for the idea. Fact was, the idea was disrespectable—but if I'd used that word, I'd have implied in my politeness some respect for the idea, when in fact I had none. Jason Scott isn't writing to give constructive criticism. He's writing because he thinks the idea of BluRay needs demolition. In the past, when he's critiqued things, he's shown a restraint of language; this deserved none. (I'll also respond to your manner of responding by saying that I find snarky sarcasm as much of a turn-off as you find my crude mouth, and that I'm much less likely to respect snark than I am swears.)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
pyre 17y ago
> Discarding x% of your audience for no apparent reason Not necessarily 'no apparent reason.' Maybe you just don't care if your audience is offended, because people that are so easily offended are people that you don't want as part of your audience. Granted we're talking about people and blogs here, not corporate/startup communications with the public/customers. If I start talking about my support of gay marriage I immediately offend x% of the population that view gay marriage as some sort of 'affront to God.' I am probably ok with this if I'm in support of something that offends them, but from a company/startup perspective, I probably don't want to talk about gay marriage if it will alienate potential customers and has nothing to do with my underlying business (e.g. it would be appropriate if my business was in selling gay marriage accessories or gay wedding planning services or something).