The American people need to know exactly what wrongs their government is committing. If their job is to spy on innocent people anywhere, then their job is morally wrong.
Oh, and "Everybody's doing it!" is not an excuse.
and I do not expect a citizen of the US to reveal our sources and methods of intelligence gathering.
Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation.
It is not that I do not understand what you mean, but I am talking about the 'disease' that our authoritarian society as a whole is afflicted with. What creates this need to worry about whether or not people use 'swear words' in workplaces? The irrational ideas and the cultural brainwashing that I've been criticizing all along. And yet so many people seem incapable of questioning the ideas their society has placed onto them.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
You do realize the TSA is a government organization, right? The government can't come in and start patting people down or forcing them through invasive scanners; it violates the fourth amendment.
Don't like it? fly you're own plane.
I like how people always give out these stupid 'solutions' in response to criticism of rights violations. Hint: It's not even remotely plausible for a normal person to own a plane.
But yeah, let's apply this same logic to everything. Don't want your civil liberties to be suspended in an entire city? Just move out of the city; there are other places to live, after all!
Don't want your rights violated by the US government? Fuck off and live in another country, unpatriotic scum.
The existence of 'alternatives' is irrelevant; the government has no legitimate authority to violate your constitutional rights, and it cannot decide to just remove them in certain areas. It's the same damn reason that free speech zones are unconstitutional.
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes.
Because it's your own god damn property. It's not like you're fucking with someone else's property.
I don't understand how applying them is not stealing.
Simple: You're not taking anything, and despise what Microsoft thinks about changing some data in the registry to 'fool' them, Microsoft still voluntarily sends you updates.
Decreasing the size of the army would be a good thing, as we're spending far too much fucking money on it. He didn't do a very good job of that, though.
He also sucks at getting rid of the unconstitutional spying. Though, in fairness, he's a scumbag and never really wanted to get rid of it to begin with.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore.
Literally? But that's utterly subjective.
If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to.
I don't think anything of them, and I never really have. I don't think anything of other words I rarely hear, either. It's just a person's style, so I don't really care.
A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
The sooner all these fools are desensitized to the words and stop whining about it, the better. At least, I would think it's better.
but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb.
Yes, it seems inadequate... to you. If using that word on those occasions is someone's style, then so be it.
No offense but this is a dead give-away to me: you have poor social skills.
That's completely subjective. In fact, I'm surprised at the number of people who have no idea what it means for something to be subjective.
Where do I have "poor social skills"? I actually get along with everyone in my workplace because it's more to my liking. No one there cares who uses 'bad words' and who doesn't. No one is shallow enough to care.
So it depends 100% on your environment. Move to another country and you may find that *you* have "poor social skills" in that environment.
And if having 'good' social means mindlessly letting others control something as basic as my use of language, then I don't want 'good' social skills; keep them away from me.
Certainly there are some people are very touchy but usually people who grind up against this issue tend not to be very sensitive to their social environments.
Do you have proof of that? Looks like another arbitrary standard that Slashdot intellectuals invented in order to make their posts look more valid.
* if you work in academic or non-profit they can be a significant power-block and can be quite intolerant as a group but I've never seen this in the private sector... usually 'your type' are the jerks there.
While in my workplace, someone who gets all whiny about 'swear words' would be considered the jerk. Do you see how the environment matters?
You do realize that your reply had nothing to do with mine, and didn't debunk a thing, right? That's because you didn't actually respond to my real argument. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but I'm getting tired of fake 'nerds' roaming about on Slashdot. Damn, and there are almost no True Scotsman left.
To do otherwise is irrational.
Using a particular word is no more or less irrational than using other words.
You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in?
No, it very much depends on who's causing the problems. The people reacting to the naked pictures are causing the problem. So I don't think naked pictures are the problem, which is why I don't think they should be treated as special.
There is no hypocrisy in my position.
Still ducking.
Still ducking.
"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.
It was true at that time, too.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.
Such hypocrisy. To call me a hypocrite when you're a hypocrite yourself! Therefore, all of your arguments are 100% incorrect.
Man, you should work for Fox News.
By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases
He took a picture, and she consented. She later decided she didn't want him to have the pictures anymore. I object to getting rid of the pictures retroactively, especially since they're stored on his equipment.
Well, okay. But I know plenty of people who don't give a fuck if someone uses swear words, and I know plenty more exist, so it's far from just me.
The world is moving forward in some ways. Atheists are less afraid to 'come out.' It's becoming less popular to have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It might one day become less popular to believe that certain words are inherently bad. Or maybe the 'bad' words will just change.
There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.
When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution.
I guarantee, I can communicate with my fellow workers, and yet they feel no need to try to control my language, or claim that some words are objectively 'bad'.
It seems I'm lucky to be in a non-hostile work environment, huh?
It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.
Lots of things people say have no useful meaning. Most of it is just filler.
Swear words do have useful meaning, depending on what you mean by "useful"; you're being extremely vague, here! Is showing emotion not useful? Is adding emphasis not useful? What is "useful"?
And you're kidding yourself. In a grand majority of cases, people just have a childish hatred of certain words. I don't know why you're trying to claim the opposite. The fact that television shows have to censor these words or face penalties, and the fact that people are sometimes hit by fines for using them, etc. all demonstrates this. It very much is about control and being offended.
The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem.
Define "crass language" in a non-subjective way.
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science.
If you want to get technical, it is a "science." But that's a really low bar. I guess I should say it's almost always bad science.
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
Also, you are once again equating using certain words with not being "productive" at communicating, but you've never justified this. Also, "pleasant" is subjective.
Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences.
Wow, you're a genius. You're not doing much in the way of justifying all this widespread irrationality, though.
I sure am glad my workplace doesn't have people like you, just as you may be glad yours probably doesn't have people like me.
So you meant to say you "avoid" having your picture taken or that you "discourage" people from taking your picture. Not that you don't allow it. You have a valid point to make, but by choosing your words poorly you muddle and diminish it.
Yes, now you understand.
IF you are willing for photos of you to be on the internet, but not photos of you naked or engaged in sex acts (with fat chicks), YET you say there should be no distinction for other people, then you are a hypocrite. It's not hard.
As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.
And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.
1) Are you saying that the government should never be involved in any issue regarding privacy whatsoever? 2) Are you saying that naked pictures or pictures of explicit sex acts should be treated in all cases exactly the same as any other picture?
1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists. 2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.
I'm old fashioned in that I think the word means what the dictionary says it means: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Most other dictionary definitions are fine too.
Okay. Then there was no confusion on my part. That is what I meant by "directly contradict."
I didn't say his post was ideal, however you dismissed the entire concept of using a valid hypothetical situation to point out the hypocrisy of someone's statements.
No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.
You don't need to explicitly say "bad." The implication is that in many situations these words are considered "vulgar," or "inappropriate." Yes, I know. That's the sort of irrational nonsense I'm criticizing, so I'm well aware it exists.
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations.
Indeed. I think you'd find my workplace is far different. We don't hire irrational people who think some words are inherently 'bad', or whatever.
Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult).
"professional" is subjective.
What's unacceptable and uncomfortable to me is when others try to control other people's language, and deny them the opportunity to speak casually. What a stressful, hostile work environment.
If you're so understanding of 'diversity', then realize it works both ways.
You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.
No, I live in reality, and I realize that zero tolerance policies are almost always dumb, with the exception of having zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. All this effort to avoid offending people is in itself offensive to me, but that doesn't stop people from being morons, now does it?
You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.
What about the oversensitive, controlling people who feel that they can control other people's language? They're being coddled more than anyone. People who just want to be themselves and speak comfortably are denied something so basic, because of irrational prejudices against certain words.
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords
Fortunately, I did not mention you. At least, not in the sentences you quoted. Looks like the straw man is yours.
and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them.
But because others are offended by them.
Modern school mathematics education is poor
Indeed, but that still doesn't mean they have the aptitude to understand such concepts.
They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.
Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.
I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit.
I'm too old to go for this, "Go with the status quo because... it's the status quo, man!" bullshit.
but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong.
Then, rather than focusing on me or vague things like "communication," please make an actual attempt to justify why it is rational to have a hatred of certain words.
In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.
The ability to communicate is a basic skill you'll need just about everywhere.
But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things.
I don't have an "inability"; just a lack of desire.
Also, your overwhelming focus on promoting the inability to survive in the real world if other people are allowed to use words you don't like is a good signal of your inability to use basic logic. You seem quite controlling. Either that, or you're defending an irrational authoritarian status quo.
And while we're stating arbitrary nonsense without proof, the fact that you said "on on" proves that you're unable to do anything complex.
So yeah, do you have any proof that the inability to "chose" one's words does indeed mean that you're unable to do other, seemingly irrelevant, things? Or did you just arbitrarily decide that it is so, and state your opinion as a fact without a shred of evidence?
At any rate, no one has offered a valid justification for controlling other people's language. They've either attacked me, made baseless statements, or muttered something about how human communication is complex. No actual justification for why the hatred of certain words isn't irrational.
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short.
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge.
No, it's not. No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction.
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "fuck" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "shit" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
You could apply it anything. But maybe you knew that and it's irrelevant.
At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...
You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.
I can't fathom why anyone would think it's objectively "polite" to not hire someone merely because of your irrational hatred towards certain words. This is like religious fundamentalism; utterly irrational. Such bigotry, this desire to control others' language at such a basic level.
they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Besides being a non sequitur, do you really not see the problem with such arbitrary, irrational nonsense? Many of our problems are caused because lots of employers are idiotic bigots, like the ones you're defending now.
I honestly don't see why anyone on Slashdot, a site that's supposedly for nerds, would cheer on such authoritarian, irrational garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
The American people need to know exactly what wrongs their government is committing. If their job is to spy on innocent people anywhere, then their job is morally wrong.
Oh, and "Everybody's doing it!" is not an excuse.
and I do not expect a citizen of the US to reveal our sources and methods of intelligence gathering.
I expect anyone with principles to do that.
Well, I'm just saying we need to spend less. Even if we spent a lot less than what we do, we'd still be spending more than everyone else.
And innovating is perfectly fine, of course, as long as people's rights aren't violated in exchange for this 'safety.'
That is exactly what the AC said
Then I confirmed what he said. What's your point?
Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation.
It is not that I do not understand what you mean, but I am talking about the 'disease' that our authoritarian society as a whole is afflicted with. What creates this need to worry about whether or not people use 'swear words' in workplaces? The irrational ideas and the cultural brainwashing that I've been criticizing all along. And yet so many people seem incapable of questioning the ideas their society has placed onto them.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
As I said, cultural indoctrination.
You do realize the TSA is a government organization, right? The government can't come in and start patting people down or forcing them through invasive scanners; it violates the fourth amendment.
Don't like it? fly you're own plane.
I like how people always give out these stupid 'solutions' in response to criticism of rights violations. Hint: It's not even remotely plausible for a normal person to own a plane.
But yeah, let's apply this same logic to everything. Don't want your civil liberties to be suspended in an entire city? Just move out of the city; there are other places to live, after all!
Don't want your rights violated by the US government? Fuck off and live in another country, unpatriotic scum.
The existence of 'alternatives' is irrelevant; the government has no legitimate authority to violate your constitutional rights, and it cannot decide to just remove them in certain areas. It's the same damn reason that free speech zones are unconstitutional.
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes.
Because it's your own god damn property. It's not like you're fucking with someone else's property.
I don't understand how applying them is not stealing.
Simple: You're not taking anything, and despise what Microsoft thinks about changing some data in the registry to 'fool' them, Microsoft still voluntarily sends you updates.
Nope. I just don't like spending ludicrous amounts of money unnecessarily, and strong-arming every other country. The warmongering has to stop.
Do note that I did not suggest that we should get rid of the army.
Grudge or no grudge, the TSA inherently violates people's fundamental liberties. They are just thugs.
Decreasing the size of the army would be a good thing, as we're spending far too much fucking money on it. He didn't do a very good job of that, though.
He also sucks at getting rid of the unconstitutional spying. Though, in fairness, he's a scumbag and never really wanted to get rid of it to begin with.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore.
Literally? But that's utterly subjective.
If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to.
I don't think anything of them, and I never really have. I don't think anything of other words I rarely hear, either. It's just a person's style, so I don't really care.
A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
The sooner all these fools are desensitized to the words and stop whining about it, the better. At least, I would think it's better.
but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb.
Yes, it seems inadequate... to you. If using that word on those occasions is someone's style, then so be it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is illegal, considering how broken our 'justice' system is.
If editing some data on your own equipment is all it takes to get Microsoft to give you service, and that's illegal, then something is indeed wrong.
No offense but this is a dead give-away to me: you have poor social skills.
That's completely subjective. In fact, I'm surprised at the number of people who have no idea what it means for something to be subjective.
Where do I have "poor social skills"? I actually get along with everyone in my workplace because it's more to my liking. No one there cares who uses 'bad words' and who doesn't. No one is shallow enough to care.
So it depends 100% on your environment. Move to another country and you may find that *you* have "poor social skills" in that environment.
And if having 'good' social means mindlessly letting others control something as basic as my use of language, then I don't want 'good' social skills; keep them away from me.
Certainly there are some people are very touchy but usually people who grind up against this issue tend not to be very sensitive to their social environments.
Do you have proof of that? Looks like another arbitrary standard that Slashdot intellectuals invented in order to make their posts look more valid.
* if you work in academic or non-profit they can be a significant power-block and can be quite intolerant as a group but I've never seen this in the private sector... usually 'your type' are the jerks there.
While in my workplace, someone who gets all whiny about 'swear words' would be considered the jerk. Do you see how the environment matters?
You do realize that your reply had nothing to do with mine, and didn't debunk a thing, right? That's because you didn't actually respond to my real argument. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but I'm getting tired of fake 'nerds' roaming about on Slashdot. Damn, and there are almost no True Scotsman left.
To do otherwise is irrational.
Using a particular word is no more or less irrational than using other words.
You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in?
No, it very much depends on who's causing the problems. The people reacting to the naked pictures are causing the problem. So I don't think naked pictures are the problem, which is why I don't think they should be treated as special.
There is no hypocrisy in my position.
Still ducking.
Still ducking.
"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.
It was true at that time, too.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.
Such hypocrisy. To call me a hypocrite when you're a hypocrite yourself! Therefore, all of your arguments are 100% incorrect.
Man, you should work for Fox News.
By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases
He took a picture, and she consented. She later decided she didn't want him to have the pictures anymore. I object to getting rid of the pictures retroactively, especially since they're stored on his equipment.
What is not to understand?
Well, okay. But I know plenty of people who don't give a fuck if someone uses swear words, and I know plenty more exist, so it's far from just me.
The world is moving forward in some ways. Atheists are less afraid to 'come out.' It's becoming less popular to have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It might one day become less popular to believe that certain words are inherently bad. Or maybe the 'bad' words will just change.
There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.
When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution.
I guarantee, I can communicate with my fellow workers, and yet they feel no need to try to control my language, or claim that some words are objectively 'bad'.
It seems I'm lucky to be in a non-hostile work environment, huh?
It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
That's not how change happens.
The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.
Lots of things people say have no useful meaning. Most of it is just filler.
Swear words do have useful meaning, depending on what you mean by "useful"; you're being extremely vague, here! Is showing emotion not useful? Is adding emphasis not useful? What is "useful"?
And you're kidding yourself. In a grand majority of cases, people just have a childish hatred of certain words. I don't know why you're trying to claim the opposite. The fact that television shows have to censor these words or face penalties, and the fact that people are sometimes hit by fines for using them, etc. all demonstrates this. It very much is about control and being offended.
The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem.
Define "crass language" in a non-subjective way.
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science.
If you want to get technical, it is a "science." But that's a really low bar. I guess I should say it's almost always bad science.
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
Also, you are once again equating using certain words with not being "productive" at communicating, but you've never justified this. Also, "pleasant" is subjective.
Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences.
Wow, you're a genius. You're not doing much in the way of justifying all this widespread irrationality, though.
I sure am glad my workplace doesn't have people like you, just as you may be glad yours probably doesn't have people like me.
Indeed. That's the sort of thing I'm criticizing. The idea that certain words are inherently 'bad'. I'm aware that lots of people believe that.
So you meant to say you "avoid" having your picture taken or that you "discourage" people from taking your picture. Not that you don't allow it. You have a valid point to make, but by choosing your words poorly you muddle and diminish it.
Yes, now you understand.
IF you are willing for photos of you to be on the internet, but not photos of you naked or engaged in sex acts (with fat chicks), YET you say there should be no distinction for other people, then you are a hypocrite. It's not hard.
As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.
And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.
1) Are you saying that the government should never be involved in any issue regarding privacy whatsoever?
2) Are you saying that naked pictures or pictures of explicit sex acts should be treated in all cases exactly the same as any other picture?
1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists.
2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.
I'm old fashioned in that I think the word means what the dictionary says it means: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Most other dictionary definitions are fine too.
Okay. Then there was no confusion on my part. That is what I meant by "directly contradict."
I didn't say his post was ideal, however you dismissed the entire concept of using a valid hypothetical situation to point out the hypocrisy of someone's statements.
No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.
You don't need to explicitly say "bad." The implication is that in many situations these words are considered "vulgar," or "inappropriate." Yes, I know. That's the sort of irrational nonsense I'm criticizing, so I'm well aware it exists.
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations.
Indeed. I think you'd find my workplace is far different. We don't hire irrational people who think some words are inherently 'bad', or whatever.
Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult).
"professional" is subjective.
What's unacceptable and uncomfortable to me is when others try to control other people's language, and deny them the opportunity to speak casually. What a stressful, hostile work environment.
If you're so understanding of 'diversity', then realize it works both ways.
You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.
No, I live in reality, and I realize that zero tolerance policies are almost always dumb, with the exception of having zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. All this effort to avoid offending people is in itself offensive to me, but that doesn't stop people from being morons, now does it?
You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.
What about the oversensitive, controlling people who feel that they can control other people's language? They're being coddled more than anyone. People who just want to be themselves and speak comfortably are denied something so basic, because of irrational prejudices against certain words.
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords
Fortunately, I did not mention you. At least, not in the sentences you quoted. Looks like the straw man is yours.
and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them.
But because others are offended by them.
Modern school mathematics education is poor
Indeed, but that still doesn't mean they have the aptitude to understand such concepts.
They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.
Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.
I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit.
I'm too old to go for this, "Go with the status quo because... it's the status quo, man!" bullshit.
but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong.
Then, rather than focusing on me or vague things like "communication," please make an actual attempt to justify why it is rational to have a hatred of certain words.
In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.
The ability to communicate is a basic skill you'll need just about everywhere.
But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.
The word "shit" can be used for many things. It is you who doesn't understand human language. Not every use is an insult.
Furthermore, it's utterly subjective. No word is inherently 'bad,' and any claims to the contrary are religious nonsense.
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things.
I don't have an "inability"; just a lack of desire.
Also, your overwhelming focus on promoting the inability to survive in the real world if other people are allowed to use words you don't like is a good signal of your inability to use basic logic. You seem quite controlling. Either that, or you're defending an irrational authoritarian status quo.
And while we're stating arbitrary nonsense without proof, the fact that you said "on on" proves that you're unable to do anything complex.
So yeah, do you have any proof that the inability to "chose" one's words does indeed mean that you're unable to do other, seemingly irrelevant, things? Or did you just arbitrarily decide that it is so, and state your opinion as a fact without a shred of evidence?
At any rate, no one has offered a valid justification for controlling other people's language. They've either attacked me, made baseless statements, or muttered something about how human communication is complex. No actual justification for why the hatred of certain words isn't irrational.
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short.
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge.
No, it's not. No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction.
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "fuck" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "shit" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
You could apply it anything. But maybe you knew that and it's irrelevant.
At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...
You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.
I can't fathom why anyone would think it's objectively "polite" to not hire someone merely because of your irrational hatred towards certain words. This is like religious fundamentalism; utterly irrational. Such bigotry, this desire to control others' language at such a basic level.
they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Besides being a non sequitur, do you really not see the problem with such arbitrary, irrational nonsense? Many of our problems are caused because lots of employers are idiotic bigots, like the ones you're defending now.
I honestly don't see why anyone on Slashdot, a site that's supposedly for nerds, would cheer on such authoritarian, irrational garbage.