Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonahx | Hacker News Reader

this is a false dichotomy.

it's possible to be succint, harsh, and directly to the point without swearing or being abusive. for example, off the top of my head:

"stephen, this code is riddled with basic errors and is completely unacceptable. please fix a, b, and c immediately and know that if you make mistakes like this again, your contributions will no longer be welcome."

versus:

"stephen, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU??!?! seriously, a FUCKING JUNIOR DEV would not make mistakes like this. why are you wasting my time with this FUCKING BULLSHIT? FIX IT NOW OR YOU'RE FIRED!"

imagine in both cases the person writing to you has only a professional relationship (ie, is not a friend who has the type of relationship with you where the 2nd paragraph would be an establish, half-joking form of communication)

View on HN

I upvoted you and would like to add a reply to emphasize how correct I think this is.

honest open criticism != rude dick

It takes a little more work, because you have to think carefully about your words and calm down, but that action itself makes

a) the criticism more useful b) creates a frame where the criticism is more likely to be acted on and leave no resentment

Also, I believe that apologizing is something we should do more often. As in "I don't apologize for my behavior" is not as good a path as "I'm sorry I blew up, but I did have a point".

In my experience, the closer you are to action the more swearing (sales, press, front-line dev) and the polite stuff is more for the office bureaucrats who aren't critical to the success of the organization. There's something refreshingly blunt and urgent about the 2nd case.

(Edit: My experience includes Fortune 100 in consumer tech and finance)

to be clear, i'm not against swearing in all circumstances. in some relationships, in some circumstances, it's perfectly fine, but it's an implicitly negotiated rule that both parties understand. i'm thinking, eg, of most male friendships that go back a long way, but i could also see it between two sales guys who've been in the trenches together, etc.

the point is it's taken in a certain spirit, and you can't force people who don't know you well, or don't share that sensibility, to partake of that spirit.

even if you personally prefer that style, it's hard to argue that it's effective from a practical perspective. for the large majority of people, the first example is far more likely to actually get you your desired result than 2nd.

> There's something refreshingly blunt and urgent about the 2nd case.

In this scenario Stephen has been hired to write code/produce something, I'll go all-Marxist on this and say he was hired to produce plus-value. He was not hired to be sworn at, no matter how good or bad his code/work might be, and this is why swearing directly at people is unprofessional.

As an aside, I'm surprised at the people who say that swearing to other people's face is "manly" (or something of the sorts). In the part of the world that I live if you swear someone directly in the face you'd better be prepared for a physical fight or worse.

I totally agree. The second response came from a person who is pissed off. The first response came from an emotionless hollow corporate robot.

That's a false representation of how Torvalds behaves, since pretty much every time one of this "oo, he swore!" threads pops up, he also explains why he has problems. And it's never been half in all caps.

Actually, not really:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135628421403144&w=2

Please actually read the link you've just posted.

I think you need to read the email again. You failed to see his point.

You are trying to create uniformity and conformance, which is not in our nature. Some people are polite, others are not (Linus for example). The working environment of the kernel mailing list is public and subject to harsh language because it's run (rather successfully it could easily be concluded) with the philosophy that people should be able to express themselves.

i see his point, i just disagree with it. i said this in another comment, but your logic would apply equally well to physical abuse:

"you are trying to create uniformity and conformance, but people are different. some people are kind and patient with their children, others are explosive and sometimes beat them. some of those children grow up to be very successful and hit their children. who are you to tell people how to raise their children?"

to be clear, i am not saying linus's swearing in an email is even the same league as child abuse, but the logical argument above and the one you are making is the same.

honestly, it just seems like a clever piece of rhetoric to justify treating people any way you please. it reminds me of the evangelical christians here who are against gay marriage, and argue that they are the victims now because they can no longer preach against homosexuality in peace, and lobby for laws against it, what with all the liberal media painting them as monsters and not respecting their rights to express their own religious beliefs

Exactly, you can save time, be understood about what is wrong, and not have to "criticism sandwich" everything. You just shouldn't be rude.

Personally I would much rather receive the second feedback as it does not contain a threat.

edited. the point i was making was to express the same content in two different styles.

@jonax - I know your intention, but I don't think you can do that. Calmly stated threat is alway more real and chiling. You'd be better of with removing threat from both forms.

But IIRC Linus did threaten the offending committer in the last rude email.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com