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

Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

vidarholen.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#271

Post by tags2k »

anonbanker wrote: post #258
sophacles wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. You are making the assumption that laughing is always voluntary, and only to communicate that you find something amusing. Both parts of that are false - for example many people will laugh instinctively as part of a fight flight response when the perceive danger from others to communicate "hey im with you and not scared, don't hurt me more". People who hate veing tickled because they feel defenseless will st…

Imagine being so humorless as to purport that laughing at a joke is somehow equivalent to a form of torture.

Imagine imagining things.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#272

Post by lmm »

paulddraper wrote: post #270
lmm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response. Disagree. The fact that voluntary communication works is somewhat miraculous, sure. But the idea that a reader could be made to experience something unpleasant against their will by mere words is far stranger. Obviously unpleasant meanings can be conveyed through words, but the idea that the wo…

These words convey unpleasant/distasteful/crude meanings. I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. “Fag” the British slang vs “fag” the American one. — I should also note — I fear the pedantry is warranted — that words have not only literal meanings but equally important connotation. For example, racial slurs refer literally to the race, but also connotate a certain emotion/persp…

> I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning.

If you're objecting to the very presence of the word then you're objecting to the word itself rather than the meaning being conveyed. There's a huge difference between e.g. describing a slur versus directing it at an individual, and just counting the number of times the slur is written obliterates that distinction.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#273

Post by ben_w »

lmm wrote: post #272
paulddraper wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These words convey unpleasant/distasteful/crude meanings. I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. “Fag” the British slang vs “fag” the American one. — I should also note — I fear the pedantry is warranted — that words have not only literal meanings but equally important connotation. For example, racial slurs refer literally to the race, but also connotate a certain emotion/persp…

> I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. If you're objecting to the very presence of the word then you're objecting to the word itself rather than the meaning being conveyed. There's a huge difference between e.g. describing a slur versus directing it at an individual, and just counting the number of times the slur is written obliterates that distinction.

When the problem is the induced experience, the literal glyphs or soundwaves that do this are relevant precisely because they are what currently induces the mental experiences; that the words and symbols are themselves arbitrarily mapped to the meanings they induce, does not change what they in fact currently do induce.

If I were to point to some misbehaving members of some group today and say they were "naughty", this would not induce the same experience as it would have in Shakespeare's time, where that word meant "worthless". One can object to the latter and not the former, precisely because which word pulls the metaphorical lever on which mental experience, changes between those situations.

The question "is moderating such language is a good idea or not?" is a separate one to this.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#274

Post by paulddraper »

lmm wrote: post #272
paulddraper wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These words convey unpleasant/distasteful/crude meanings. I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. “Fag” the British slang vs “fag” the American one. — I should also note — I fear the pedantry is warranted — that words have not only literal meanings but equally important connotation. For example, racial slurs refer literally to the race, but also connotate a certain emotion/persp…

> I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. If you're objecting to the very presence of the word then you're objecting to the word itself rather than the meaning being conveyed. There's a huge difference between e.g. describing a slur versus directing it at an individual, and just counting the number of times the slur is written obliterates that distinction.

Dictionaries must include the words of course -- there is no conceivable substitute given their purpose.

Citing that as a counterexample is weak.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#275

Post by lmm »

ben_w wrote: post #273
lmm wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not sure why you think it’s the sound itself rather than the word/meaning. If you're objecting to the very presence of the word then you're objecting to the word itself rather than the meaning being conveyed. There's a huge difference between e.g. describing a slur versus directing it at an individual, and just counting the number of times the slur is written obliterates that distinction.

When the problem is the induced experience, the literal glyphs or soundwaves that do this are relevant precisely because they are what currently induces the mental experiences; that the words and symbols are themselves arbitrarily mapped to the meanings they induce, does not change what they in fact currently do induce. If I were to point to some misbehaving members of some group today and say they were "naughty", th…

> One can object to the latter and not the former, precisely because which word pulls the metaphorical lever on which mental experience, changes between those situations.

One can - but not by just grepping for the character string and plotting a graph of the counts.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#276

Post by ben_w »

lmm wrote: post #275
ben_w wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the problem is the induced experience, the literal glyphs or soundwaves that do this are relevant precisely because they are what currently induces the mental experiences; that the words and symbols are themselves arbitrarily mapped to the meanings they induce, does not change what they in fact currently do induce. If I were to point to some misbehaving members of some group today and say they were "naughty", th…

> One can object to the latter and not the former, precisely because which word pulls the metaphorical lever on which mental experience, changes between those situations. One can - but not by just grepping for the character string and plotting a graph of the counts.

Indeed. As others in the replies have pointed out, the word "retard" in particular here is suffering from… I was going to say the Scunthorpe effect, but it's a different problem even though it is still automated.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#277

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

paulddraper wrote: post #268
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In music, a gradual slowing uses the internationally-understood Italian term "ritardando", which is abbreviated as "rit." or "ritard.", which often leads to chuckles by less-mature musicians and diverts precious rehearsal or recording studio time. I've learned to always say the full word "ritardando".

Huh I’ve only seen rit., not ritard.

The abbreviation you will most commonly see written is "rit." The abbreviation you will most common hear verbally is "ritard."

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#278

Post by sophacles »

anonbanker wrote: post #258
sophacles wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. You are making the assumption that laughing is always voluntary, and only to communicate that you find something amusing. Both parts of that are false - for example many people will laugh instinctively as part of a fight flight response when the perceive danger from others to communicate "hey im with you and not scared, don't hurt me more". People who hate veing tickled because they feel defenseless will st…

Imagine being so humorless as to purport that laughing at a joke is somehow equivalent to a form of torture.

You must be one of those people who have decided they're charming and funny, without realizing that people only chuckle at your "jokes" because they are worried about what you'll do when they tell you to stop making them uncomfortable.
Post reply on HN