121–130 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not consistently mutually exclusive. I consider Linux awful, but that doesn't mean I'd advise us to migrate to Windows Server.
So... you badmouth Linux, in a thread about politeness, and you don't even have anything positive to say about anything? That's some delicious irony.
As an Australian I’m disappointed in the lack of the key word ‘cunt’ in the graph. Unless perhaps it’s zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... you badmouth Linux, in a thread about politeness, and you don't even have anything positive to say about anything? That's some delicious irony.
Maybe you thinking that false positive remarks are a necessary part to politeness is your real issue with it? Ironic in its own way, although at this point I'm just consumed by the despair.
Saying that you think Linux is awful without saying why is just... vacuous. It's pointless complaining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd. No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.
> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response. I completely disagree. It is a lot more absurd. Language is not a priori. It must be learned. It requires both a speaker and a listener. Both must understand the meaning of the spoken word as well as other factors of communication, including tone and body language, in order to interpret and und…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you thinking that false positive remarks are a necessary part to politeness is your real issue with it? Ironic in its own way, although at this point I'm just consumed by the despair.
No, but I do think that generic badmouthing adds nothing to the discussion. Saying that you think Linux is awful without saying why is just... vacuous. It's pointless complaining.
> awful without saying why
Why would I need to elaborate? You expressed that a lot of people hold it in high regard, I expressed I don't. That was exactly the extent I wanted to address it and I think it's a perfectly reasonable stopping point. I don't need to explain myself about my own impressions. To the extent it was relevant, I played along and that's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vulgarity is a crutch used by those without the ability to communicate effectively. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sig...
You should really read the literature you try to post. From the abstract of the study the article cites (~and the article itself implies agreement with~): "Overall the findings suggest that, with the exception of female-sex-related slurs, taboo expressives and general pejoratives comprise the core of the category of taboo words while slurs tend to occupy the periphery, *and the ability to generate taboo language is n…
And then there's the academics, surgeons, and nuclear physicists who use quite a bit of profanity (especially the surgeons!) and teach their kids that profanity is a linguistic tool that is often super effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I contend that you are slipping in the words "respectful" and "professional" and assuming the benefit of their positive connotations without an argument that simply omitting the occasional well-placed curse is indeed "professional". I think so-called "professional" speech - which I'd call bland and often ineffective speech - is professional in the same way that a suit and tie is professional. It's a uniform to ensure…
> is professional in the same way that a suit and tie is professional. It's a uniform to ensure nobody stands out, and the corporation can absorb everybody's personality, like flour incorporated into bread dough. White bread, no seeds. I take you also strongly believe then that when I waltz up to work in some random hoodie, sweatpants and running shoes, that's actually some bespoke eloquent expression of self, full o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response. I completely disagree. It is a lot more absurd. Language is not a priori. It must be learned. It requires both a speaker and a listener. Both must understand the meaning of the spoken word as well as other factors of communication, including tone and body language, in order to interpret and und…
You describe it as a religious belief. Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? The rationality of religion aside, belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.
Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system."
> belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence.
- I don't "believe" that there are people with religious beliefs. I observe that to be the case.
- I never described "belief that there are people with religious beliefs" as irrational.
I think your point might be that, because there are people with irrational beliefs out there we must appease them? Or something?
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational.
We were talking about language and communication and the absurdity that there is a such thing as an arbitrary sequence of phones or characters that would cause anyone exposed to that to be offended. All I was saying is that such a belief is unfounded. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.
Theory: the shift towards lesser swearwords is a sign of corporatization, making the linux source a soulless bland hellscape of confirmity.
I have never worked on a big corporation. But I find interesting about corporations forbidding swearwords in code. I mean, the people responsible for forbidding swearwords rarely read code. And if they read code with any frequency and are somewhat proficient at it, most likely they have their own list of swearwords. Also we should look to add more keywords to programming languages that trigger naïve filters. I'm all…
Theory: the shift towards lesser swearwords is a sign of corporatization, making the linux source a soulless bland hellscape of confirmity.
I have never worked on a big corporation. But I find interesting about corporations forbidding swearwords in code. I mean, the people responsible for forbidding swearwords rarely read code. And if they read code with any frequency and are somewhat proficient at it, most likely they have their own list of swearwords. Also we should look to add more keywords to programming languages that trigger naïve filters. I'm all…
There's just no good reason for swear words to be committed. You want to swear about the code, do it in a chat room or something.