That's a good thing. While it's got some irritating side effects, the overall idea is getting rid of bullshit attitudes towards one another. Swearing is a part of language. There's nothing wrong with its being used.
Off topic: it's so refreshing to come here (HN) and read a reply that isn't some kind of verbal attack towards me for the opinion I presented. I thank you for that, for stating your opinion with insights without attacking me.
(Excepting politeness, of course. I consider that to be an important component.)
I'd like to visit Japan and see what the culture there's like. I'd like to visit anywhere that's not the US, for that matter, but Japan's the place that I've heard is radically different in nearly every way.
The polite attitude sometimes blocks on getting things done. They have a very hard time openly disagreeing. Instead they would state their position over and over. Ask you for your thoughts and if they do no match, repeat the process.
This is what makes Westerners great IMO. They take a position, scream about it, and action on it. The Japanese will be stuck in a planning committee and not get things done.
Of course this is just generalizations. Just seems in general that Japanese are polite spectators and Westerners are rowdy spectators that are more likely run on to the field to make a change.
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.
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.
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.)
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).
What do I mean by "unnecessary"? When it doesn't communicate any information. Example from the essay:
They’re fucking breaking the functionality of shit just because they can and you’re fine with this?
"Fucking" and "shit" don't impart any information. The following is a better version of the sentence because it communicates the same amount of information with less words:
They’re breaking functionality just because they can and you’re fine with this?
Calling something "bullshit" on the other hand, communicates information since "bullshit" is a concept we are all familiar with. There are alternatives - "bullcrap" or just "bull" - but that just invites the reader to think "They mean 'bullshit' but don't want to say 'shit.'"
On the other hand, using harsh words rarely has power. If someone you've never heard curse before calls something "bullshit," you'll take notice. This only works, though, if you swear so rarely that people take note that when you do, it has meaning.
In other words, swearing casually removes the power of swearing.
Yes. Which is why we need stronger swear words than ever now. I propose "kruftonic." Nice and consonant-y for your stronger swearing needs.
So I think I'm agreeing with you here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/28/david-mi...
excerpt:
Is saying "fuck" offensive?
That's not the same as asking: "Is 'fuck' a rude word?" Everyone accepts it's a rude word - it would hardly be used if it weren't. The disagreement is about whether using it (and other swearing, but "fuck" is the Gaza Strip here) is an offensive act.
I don't think it is. I don't think it matters a shit, damn or piss if someone says "fuck" or how many times they say it. My friends and colleagues unthinkingly use it all the time and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't resulted in the poisoning of their souls or their becoming unable to express themselves because of the effect of linguistic inflation.