7 ms·

I strongly disagree with the notion that swearing is a very strong tool for communication. In the conversations I'm a part of the in the real world I hear profa

I strongly disagree with the notion that swearing is a very strong tool for communication. In the conversations I'm a part of the in the real world I hear profanity used as a completely meaningless filler word. In my opinion, in today's popular culture profanity doesn't hold much weight at all as an effective tool for communication. While profanity is often used by people who are communicating something passionate and emotional, it is used just as often in a completely flippant and emotionally detached manner. For people who are offended by profanity it may evoke a negative emotional response but I find for people who are comfortable with profanity, it carries very little weight or meaning except for the fact that the speaker couldn't be bothered to come up with a more meaningful word to use. I will acknowledge that because most of society is so lazy in their use of language, there is a strong relationship between a person who is communicating passionately and the frequency of profanity usage. This is why movie writers so often lace passages of emotionally intense dialog with profanity because it reflects what we hear in the real world. I however find that relationship to be one directional. The use of a profanity doesn't imply any kind of emotion in of itself because of how prevalent flippant usage of profanity is. I'm aware that is a personal perspective and I may not be in the majority with these views.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
barrkel 15y ago
Swearing isn't a strong tool for communication, and the TFA is not arguing in favour of that proposition. You're arguing against somewhat of a straw man there. Zach's point is different. It's about making a connection, establishing commonality and empathy at a human level. Carefully chosen profanity can be a branding tool; it can establish commonality with a certain group of people, and depending on when it's used, empathy too. Just about all of us swear when we accidentally hurt ourselves, for example; if we were acting that out and didn't swear (no matter how mildly), we'd seem more fake somehow, like we were pretending to be invincible or something. And Zach has his "brand", it comes fairly easily to him, more easily than other approaches. If it turns off people who don't have that in common, that's OK. And that connection is what in turn makes richer communication possible than dry exposition.
- travisfischer 15y ago
  My reaction was to the very first line of the piece. "Swearing is a strong tool. It can be a particularly strong tool during presentations." I get that Zach believes he is building a connection and empathy by using profanity. My argument is the same there as well. I personally believe that profanity doesn't work well as a tool for creating personal connections and empathy either. There is a group of people that thinks: "Oh man! he used the f-word in his public talk. He's so passionate and edgy. I feel connected to his disregard for old-fashioned professionalism." I would suspect the group of people that think along those lines is rather small. I would also suspect that even for those people that feel a connection, the net result of the use of that profanity in their overall take-away from the talk is a tiny positive.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    I think it's more subtle - and more simple - than that. When someone uses an inoffensive professional tone, they sound fake. Like the way a salesperson or a teacher is fake, when you meet them in those roles, rather than in a social setting of equals. This barrier of "professionalism" is exactly what the careful use of profanity is trying to puncture. It's not the only way to puncture it; and not everyone is comfortable with puncturing it, or having it punctured. But it may be worth it for the people who prefer the closer connection. Professionalism, almost by definition, implies distance. Your emphasis on it actually convinces me that profanity is even more useful in presentations than I thought it was; I very seldom use profanity except in the company of people I know very well, but having had this exchange with you (combined with TFA) I may use it when I next give a talk.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

barrkel 15y ago

Swearing isn't a strong tool for communication, and the TFA is not arguing in favour of that proposition. You're arguing against somewhat of a straw man there. Zach's point is different. It's about making a connection, establishing commonality and empathy at a human level. Carefully chosen profanity can be a branding tool; it can establish commonality with a certain group of people, and depending on when it's used, empathy too. Just about all of us swear when we accidentally hurt ourselves, for example; if we were acting that out and didn't swear (no matter how mildly), we'd seem more fake somehow, like we were pretending to be invincible or something. And Zach has his "brand", it comes fairly easily to him, more easily than other approaches. If it turns off people who don't have that in common, that's OK. And that connection is what in turn makes richer communication possible than dry exposition.

travisfischer 15y ago
My reaction was to the very first line of the piece. "Swearing is a strong tool. It can be a particularly strong tool during presentations." I get that Zach believes he is building a connection and empathy by using profanity. My argument is the same there as well. I personally believe that profanity doesn't work well as a tool for creating personal connections and empathy either. There is a group of people that thinks: "Oh man! he used the f-word in his public talk. He's so passionate and edgy. I feel connected to his disregard for old-fashioned professionalism." I would suspect the group of people that think along those lines is rather small. I would also suspect that even for those people that feel a connection, the net result of the use of that profanity in their overall take-away from the talk is a tiny positive.
- barrkel 15y ago
  I think it's more subtle - and more simple - than that. When someone uses an inoffensive professional tone, they sound fake. Like the way a salesperson or a teacher is fake, when you meet them in those roles, rather than in a social setting of equals. This barrier of "professionalism" is exactly what the careful use of profanity is trying to puncture. It's not the only way to puncture it; and not everyone is comfortable with puncturing it, or having it punctured. But it may be worth it for the people who prefer the closer connection. Professionalism, almost by definition, implies distance. Your emphasis on it actually convinces me that profanity is even more useful in presentations than I thought it was; I very seldom use profanity except in the company of people I know very well, but having had this exchange with you (combined with TFA) I may use it when I next give a talk.