agree with the sentiment but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message.. centuries of privacy rights are drained and drowning right now IMO
Actually vulgarity was invented (and has historically been used) to improve the weight of such messages. It works too:
"Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception." [1]
Can't argue with fucking science.
I don't disagree with you but that study seems like fucking bullshit.
Using the tactic you disagree with to drive your point home. Well played.
A calm well spoken person grabs a lot of positive attention with an F-bomb carefully dropped. The step out of character alerts people that something must be serious.
...
That report doesn't say what you want it to.
"Honesty" is not necessarily reality. Someone who is moved to high expressiveness is plausibly sincere, but they are not necessarily rational, reasonable, or correct.
Appealing to emotion works but it is still a cheap trick. If that's what we do here nowadays, well OK, but it's a loss.
No, that's a puritan misconception.
Not only is a powerful (and culturally significant) method (as opposed to some mere trick), it also has evolutionary and psysiological benefits.
Among tons of other things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing
You're thinking of blasphemy. "Vulgar" means "coarse" or "unrefined". It used to mean "concerning the common language", i.e. as spoken by ordinary people; not the literary language, or the legal language, or the clerical language.
Perhaps you should evaluate why you let mere words affect you so much.
Being vulgar (even if technically justified) weakens the message for many people, especially when the other party is very polite and professional in return. edit: I would prefer if people weren't like that, but that's just one of the many flaws that humans have. Trying to change that instead of acknowledging it and adapting is an exercise in frustration.
I'm not "affected by mere words", but I do prefer well worded arguments to mere expletives. And I'm not alone in that.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2006/sept...
As I said, it's not fair. I agree with you that it shouldn't be that way. But I also accept the fact that that's how things are, unfortunately. Life isn't fair.
Maybe someday humans will be better, but I think not. And this is getting off-tangent from dealing with the problem at hand.
A lot of the folks here on HN are responsible for the current reality of tech. A nice polite discussion is great but I want to express strong feelings and make people feel bad for their choices. And politely debating the merits of something does not do that.
Ironic. You just made it clear that you fully intended for these words to affect people strongly. The problem is that the second order effects are can vary and are out of your control.
Vulgarity is often just a verbal tic for the inarticulate. If this doesn't apply in your case, then you and your message will be disadvantaged by association.
It's all about knowing your audience. I'd like to think that HN readers don't need the carefully-placed emotion markers to get your message.
This is incorrect. Vulgarity is the strongest possible choice when evaluating one's choice of words for emotional impact. I don't know what makes otherwise intelligent folk so damn afraid of them but that is not a part of the world I understand.
Why would otherwise chaste people shout "FUCK!!" when they stub their toe? My mother, for example, is super conservative and would never cuss in polite company. But she has been known to let them slip in extreme circumstances, like stubbing her toe.
There is an overall thread amongst "polite" circles of emotional suppression: don't show anger, don't be negative, couch all your words in disgustingly flowery language, etc etc etc. I don't understand why this particularly disgusting aspect of Victorian prudery and toxic positivity have managed to last so long, but it has. And I'm doing what I can to smash it.
Because showing emotions to ones who are not interested in them often leads to net-negative outcomes?
If one person shows anger, people around feel threatened, and based on their nature respond with fear or anger. If people need to have a discussion to find some solution to the conflict, it is much better if they do not feel threatened.
Even if there is no conflict showing unwelcome emotions is like throwing garbage to neighbors' gardens. You would feel better, but then other need to deal with that.
Because in a moment of pain, people are emotional and inarticulate. Obviously.
Vulgarity serves many purposes, but the fact that the words can be used almost anywhere, in almost any grammatical form, makes them substitutes for the more specific expressions that they replace. "Vulgarity is often just a verbal tic for the inarticulate." (Emphasis added)
> Vulgarity is the strongest possible choice when evaluating one's choice of words for emotional impact.
It really isn't. And again, often the emotional impact you elicit is not the one you are looking for.
> I don't know what makes otherwise intelligent folk so damn afraid of them but that is not a part of the world I understand.
So, the thing is, I'm on your side on this. Magic words are stupid. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Yes some people have major visceral reactions against the magic words, (and FWIW your approach does zero to change that) but more importantly, poor word choice and self-identifying as an untrustworthy interlocutor destroys your message.
The people you communicate with have to trust you to not waste their time. People in the throes of emotional hostility might need psychological support, or medical attention, but they are not at the height of coherence. So readers might be attentive to your well-being, but they are devaluing your perspective on the situation because you have none.
I'm not afraid of vulgarity at all. I'm as vulgar as they come, in person -- but in written communication, the reader is not keeping up with your emotional flow like they do in person. Peppering in the carefully-placed "jolt" (this is not my reaction, but is your stated intention though this is not a quote) sends the message that writer and reader are not sharing the same conversation. It's distracting at fnord best.
> I don't understand why this particularly disgusting aspect of Victorian prudery and toxic positivity
This is a deeply simplistic take. I don't think you are in a position to label other peoples thoughts. I am not (and I don't generally associate with anyone who is) prudish, positive, polite, or repressed. Nothing against them, it's just not my social scene.
> And I'm doing what I can to smash it.
Smashing is for patriarchies, pumpkins, and web design. We're just talking about the W3C here.
My message here is that your message loses people with its laziness. You claim to think you're being impactful, but you are not. You might be categorizing yourself as a high-emotion-low-content sort of person, but if your message is worthwhile, that would be a bad thing. Intelligent people resist emotional persuasion, or at least try to.
Do with that message as thou wilt, it makes no difference to me. If you value effective communication, it's worth giving some thought. Audience is everything.
Not every statement is to be boiled down to intellectual delivery devoid of emotion. We're expressly humans, not computers.
The idea that "Intelligent people resist emotional persuasion, or at least try to." is for the consumer to apply, when and how they like.
Communication with vulgarity is not to make you emotional but to succinctly communicate the emotion of the poster.
Depending on your perceived relationship with the poster you may feel something yourself.
Similarly, if you are not the desired audience for this comment, you are free to move along with no further thought.
Exactly. And unless you have a bias toward agreement, or you are already spun up like the poster, a stranger's dissonant communication style is more likely to be alienating than persuasive.
And re: knowing one's audience, the consensus position seems to be that I do not, here and now. So I concede the issue, in this context at least! Alas. :)
Fuck 'em.