Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Profanity works

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Profanity works

#51

Post by time_management »

jamesbritt wrote: post #34
nickb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most comedians who swear... Well, and then there's guys like Carlin and Hicks and Pryor and Rock who swear a lot and yet are the funniest people on planet.

Absolutely. But I'm skeptical that most comedians are like Carlin and Hicks and Pryor and Rock. For every Carlin who could craft the use of "fuck", there are three who think "motherfucker" is a hot-wire to the funny bone.

Although I don't see much use for the word in comedy, "m-----f-----" is way more transgressive and ugly than "fuck", because of the connection with rape and incest. To call an enemy a "m~" is to accuse him of incest, hitting on one of humanity's oldest taboos. To describe oneself as a "badass m~" is, often, to threaten seduction or rape against others' mothers-- in other words, to dress oneself as a dangerous and indiscriminate sociopath.

It's probably one of the most intrinsically ugly words in the language. Racial slurs are ugly because of what they represent-- hideous and unacceptable attitudes held against innocent people, based in prejudice and ignorance-- but not on account of composition, because they're usually atomic words. These words become extremely offensive once one knows their meanings, but beforehand hold no special currency. By contrast, "M~" is a compound of two well-known and fairly innocuous words-- one completely acceptable, one edgy but mostly inoffensive-- that instantly makes the skin of even most liberal people crawl, even before its semantic subtleties are explored.

Re: Profanity works

#52

Post by aaronblohowiak »

swombat wrote: post #44
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your number one as reiterating what I was saying, not disagreeing. A personal code of conduct is not "a load of crap." It has a limited but useful role in framing and shaping behavior. Like any system of guidance, it exists to provide the default and usual path. Each programming language culture has its own code of conduct, encouraging some behavior and discouraging other behavior, that stems from the culture's…

Your original statement: Exceptional circumstances do not invalidate codes of conduct. This statement clearly defines a "code of conduct" as a rigid set of rules that should always apply. Now you say: [a code of conduct] has a limited but useful role in framing and shaping behavior. That contradicts the previous statement. I'm glad you changed your mind, but why not admit you did? Within the context of word choice, b…

When did I "clearly defines a 'code of conduct' as a rigid set of rules that should always apply" ? As qqq pointed out in his or her first comment on my statement, I make the case for infrequency, not prohibition. In my next reply, I affirm that. How did I change my mind?

How did I come off as having a 'sense of superiority'? Please inform me so that I can avoid doing the same in the future.

I always get principle and principal confused, thanks for clarifying.

Re: Profanity works

#53

Post by username2 »

Are there any cussers that are not offended by anything? What offends someone who swears? Does telling you to not use profanities offend you? Are you obscene because you are offended?

Re: Profanity works

#54

Post by blurry »

Hey, whatever happened to DNFTT?

"Profanity Works" is a perfect example of trolling (controversial and irrelevant message in an online community, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or disrupting normal on-topic discussion).

Why are we biting? Is the obvious trollness obscured by the fact that it comes from 37Signals?

Re: Profanity works

#55

Post by qqq »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #52
swombat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your original statement: Exceptional circumstances do not invalidate codes of conduct. This statement clearly defines a "code of conduct" as a rigid set of rules that should always apply. Now you say: [a code of conduct] has a limited but useful role in framing and shaping behavior. That contradicts the previous statement. I'm glad you changed your mind, but why not admit you did? Within the context of word choice, b…

When did I "clearly defines a 'code of conduct' as a rigid set of rules that should always apply" ? As qqq pointed out in his or her first comment on my statement, I make the case for infrequency, not prohibition. In my next reply, I affirm that. How did I change my mind? How did I come off as having a 'sense of superiority'? Please inform me so that I can avoid doing the same in the future. I always get principle an…

> How did I come off as having a 'sense of superiority'? Please inform me so that I can avoid doing the same in the future.

By saying that your way of being raised -- not to swear -- was "right".

Re: Profanity works

#56

Post by thomasswift »

johnyzee wrote: post #38
nickb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most comedians who swear... Well, and then there's guys like Carlin and Hicks and Pryor and Rock who swear a lot and yet are the funniest people on planet.

I see your Carlin and raise you Jerry Seinfeld. In ten years of making probably the funniest TV ever I think he said 'hell' a couple of times and that's about it.

except for the one where he has the swearing problem towards the kid. and the one where elaine and george utter swears under their breath towards jerry. I get your point, but those are great episodes too.

Re: Profanity works

#57

Post by mattmaroon »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #41
mattmaroon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hard to come up with any better rationalization than "because I said so" for why "fornicate" is alright to say and "fuck" isn't. I've yet to hear one.

Apparently, you fail to understand the difference between denotation and connotation.

I think you fail to understand the difference between morals and arbitrary distinctions.
Post reply on HN