Live data from Hacker News

Why swearing is good for you

qz.com

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#91
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's a weird one. Why a broom-handle? Nobody knows. Doesn't matter. "Con comme un manche" is stronger than "idiot like a handle" might first seem. Bête is idiot whereas con is etymologically equivalent to cunt . Semantically, however, it conveys something closer to fucking retard . "Asshat", maybe? Too funny. There's nothing funny about having to deal with a con . Edit: tangentially related, but [0] this prank c…

Unfortunately, I don't speak French, so I wondered whether there was a translation of the video. As it turns out, YouTube has automatic sub-titling, and even automatic translation of sub-titles, from French into various languages - fortunately including English. But the text it produced, while entertaining in its own Dadaist way, was obscure and unhelpful. I guess machine translation still has a ways to go, particula…

Haha there's no way you can subtitle Corsicans!

I think this will, unfortunately, remain comprehensible only to Frenchman!

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#92
post #38

My username checks out. Fuckin' oath swearing is good for you. I'm British, raised by an ex-military Grandfather turned Civvy Engineer who ate his cornflakes with a side of profanity and then I. As a young adult, I moved to Australia. I swear alot. Even for fucking Australians. It's the perfect stress release mechanism. 'Why the fuck doesn't that work? Why the fuck DOES that work?'

Well, 'fuck' is a linguistic universal joint - it's probably the most flexible word in the language.

As demonstrated by Bunk & McNulty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lElf7D-An8

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#93
post #12

I find it funny an article on swearing is going to be discussed on a site where the general users will deride you and hold you as unprofessional for swearing on it. Perhaps we should have an article on the healing power of humour next.

We could test the bullshit assumption right here.

Well this comment wasn't down-voted, so it IS possible to swear. (When appropriate of course)

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#94
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an oath, isn't it? So literally, at least, it is swearing.

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a5PmrLq_700b.jpg (Or that would be, if it even was an oath. But "Oh my god" is NOT an oath. "On my God", or "In the name of my god" would be that).

Oh, really? I thought it was the "_my_ God" part that was swearing an oath.

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#95
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a5PmrLq_700b.jpg (Or that would be, if it even was an oath. But "Oh my god" is NOT an oath. "On my God", or "In the name of my god" would be that).

Oh, really? I thought it was the "_my_ God" part that was swearing an oath.

Not every phrase with "my god" in it is an oath.

Unless if you swear (promise to do something) to your god (or on your god's name).

OMG is not that different from "oh man!" in use. It's for surprise. How does "swearing an oath" would be related to being surprised?

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#96
post #77
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I similarly think it should be impossible for a word to offend someone. I think it's possible for meaning to offend and really only if you respect the person enough to provide some weight to that meaning. Sure, it's usually not the word, but the meaning ("intent"). But seriously, if some stranger comes and tells you "fuck off idiot", e.g. in the supermarket isle, then you wont be offended, because you don't "respec…

I'll probably be scared of that level of aggression without other interaction, but not offended? Anyone is welcome to call me a "rancid sack of mould covered dick cheese" if they really want to - but unless i care about their opinion, it's unlikely to offend

>I'll probably be scared of that level of aggression without other interaction, but not offended?

Why focus on the "other interaction" part? It's totally orthogonal to the point I was making. There could have BEEN other interaction, e.g. you might have blocked his cart in the supermarket aisle, or whatever.

The question is not if it was justified or remotely provoked response or not, but whether the receiver would be offended.

>but unless i care about their opinion, it's unlikely to offend

I doubt that really works that way in practice.

E.g. you're out and someone starts swearing at you, for whatever reason, and calling you various things in public. Sure, you could ignore it if it was just some crazy homeless person or something like that, but I doubt you'd ignore it if it was some other normal looking person.

Of course you could always say "yeah, I got angry, but that's because in this particular instance I cared about their opinion".

And how about them publicly calling e.g. you daughter names or something? You still wouldn't mind because you "don't care about their opinion"?

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#97
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? I thought it was the "_my_ God" part that was swearing an oath.

Not every phrase with "my god" in it is an oath. Unless if you swear (promise to do something) to your god (or on your god's name). OMG is not that different from "oh man!" in use. It's for surprise. How does "swearing an oath" would be related to being surprised?

I see "Oh, _my_ God" as a statement of allegiance, as opposed to just, say, "Oh, God."

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#98
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every phrase with "my god" in it is an oath. Unless if you swear (promise to do something) to your god (or on your god's name). OMG is not that different from "oh man!" in use. It's for surprise. How does "swearing an oath" would be related to being surprised?

I see "Oh, _my_ God" as a statement of allegiance, as opposed to just, say, "Oh, God."

I see. I see it more as kind of call (in a "vocative case").

In the sense that you find something surprising, and ask for your God (as when you fear something, etc).

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#99
post #74
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first of those is about insulting people, not about swearing . The second and third say you shouldn't say bad things, but don't say what counts as bad. To get "no swearing" from them you already need to have decided that swearing counts as "defiling" or "unwholesome". (Definitely forbidden in the Bible: "taking God's name in vain", though it's not 100% clear exactly what that covers. Also, passing judgement on ot…

> The first of those is about insulting people, not about swearing. Yes, but one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people. Swearing when you hit your thumb with the hammer while nailing is not really that interesting a use case, nor are moral codes much concerned with that. > The second and third say you shouldn't say bad things, but don't say what counts as bad. I guess those are implied, as people of the er…

> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people

Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be to express brief but intense emotion (your thumb/hammer case, but note that similar uses can convey surprise, awe, etc. as well as pain or annoyance), to add emphasis ("shit, that thing's fucking huge", "of course he can afford it -- this is Bill bloody Gates we're talking about", etc.), and to express disapproval ("don't buy that phone, it's a piece of shit").

The last of those can be used to insult ("you arsehole!") but perhaps I move in particularly civilized circles because it's quite rare and almost always applied to people who aren't present (politicians, leaders of predatory businesses, etc.) which you'll notice is the opposite of one thing the insults Jesus is talking about have in common.

Swearing can also be used as an expression of fairly pure hostility ("fuck you"). Again, maybe my friends and colleagues are unusually nice because in my experience this is rare and essentially never meant seriously (perhaps the commonest use is to mean something like "the proposal you have just made is obviously unreasonable and I think you know that as well as I do").

When I hear people object to swearing on religious grounds (which, admittedly, is not very often) they are never objecting only to insults and expressions of hostility and, e.g., objections to swearing on television are never concerned only with such cases.

> I guess those are implied, as people of the era would know anyway

OK, so tell me what you know about the moral norms surrounding language use in the 1st-century Roman-occupied Middle East, and how that enables you to know that saying "shit" or "fuck" today is the equivalent of what Jesus and St Paul were talking about.

> in all societies for millennia

That's a very sweeping claim. I suppose it could be true by definition (i.e., call something "swearing" only if it is commonly regarded as defiling and unwholesome) but then the difficult thing is to establish the link between whatever uses of language Jesus and St Paul regarded as "defiling and unwholesome" and what we call swearing today.

The most promising approach for you, I think, would be to say that the general principle they were aiming at was something like "if some kind of language use is widely regarded by those around you as immoral, don't do it". I can see St Paul taking that line (cf. the business about eating food that's been "offered to idols") but it seems to me exactly not the sort of thing Jesus ever says.

Re: Why swearing is good for you

#100
post #99
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first of those is about insulting people, not about swearing. Yes, but one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people. Swearing when you hit your thumb with the hammer while nailing is not really that interesting a use case, nor are moral codes much concerned with that. > The second and third say you shouldn't say bad things, but don't say what counts as bad. I guess those are implied, as people of the er…

> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be to express brief but intense emotion (your thumb/hammer case, but note that similar uses can convey surprise, awe, etc. as well as pain or annoyance), to add emphasis ("shit, that thing's fucking huge ", "of course he can afford it -- this is Bill bloody Gates…

> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people

>Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be to express brief but intense emotion (your thumb/hammer case, but note that similar uses can convey surprise, awe, etc. as well as pain or annoyance), to add emphasis ("shit, that thing's fucking huge", "of course he can afford it -- this is Bill bloody Gates we're talking about", etc.), and to express disapproval ("don't buy that phone, it's a piece of shit").

Hence, "one of the main cases", not just the sole one. Besides, the latter case "it's a piece of shit" is still for insulting, just not a person but a product/company. It's not a critique or neutral disapproval, it's a dis.

>The last of those can be used to insult ("you arsehole!") but perhaps I move in particularly civilized circles because it's quite rare and almost always applied to people who aren't present (politicians, leaders of predatory businesses, etc.)

Not so sure about "civilized circles" -- except if we're talking about full California/Whole Foods/sandals and candlesticks kind of civilized. In my experience, you'll find those insults every day in any kind of circle, from the upper echelons of banking and Wall Street (heck, especially there), to truck drivers.

>When I hear people object to swearing on religious grounds (which, admittedly, is not very often) they are never objecting only to insults and expressions of hostility and, e.g., objections to swearing on television are never concerned only with such cases.

Perhaps, but they emphasized such cases, not merely hitting your thumb cases.

>OK, so tell me what you know about the moral norms surrounding language use in the 1st-century Roman-occupied Middle East, and how that enables you to know that saying "shit" or "fuck" today is the equivalent of what Jesus and St Paul were talking about.

Quite a lot. Reading history books can do that to a person.

I'm not even sure what you're asking though. Jesus explicitly mentioned some expressions that are exact equivalents of today's swear words ("idiot", "jerk", etc). Of course not all of them, but we can easily extrapolate the others.

Besides, we have lists of what's considered swearing, rules against swearing etc in Ancient Greece, Ancient Roman Empire, the Byzantium, China, Medieval Europe, etc. Maybe read a tome on the history of profanity and swearing and the cultural norms around them? There are several, both regional and all-around surveys.

Here's a recent one in English: https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sh-Brief-History-Swearing/dp/019...

>but it seems to me exactly not the sort of thing Jesus ever says

What do you mean? Jesus explicitly says in Matthew: "who calls his brother an idiot" will be condemned etc.

Post reply on HN