>It doesn't matter whether there are other meanings. The fact remains that there is a single meaning which is understandably deeply upsetting to some people.
People getting upset by mere words (not even uttered against them) are hardly worth a hackers time.
Also notice how you, the oh-so-sensitive to the "emotions of strangers" and the "meanings that upset people", called him "an asshole" (for merely suggesting the use of a word). Way to go for tolerance.
People can get upset by words for a variety of reasons. Should they make an effort to handle their emotions better? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't also make an effort avoid language which might upset people.
And perhaps I'm being hypocritical by insulting people, but I get angry when I see people with this ignorant "Not my problem" attitude to offensive language, and communication in general.
Communication is a two way street. If your messages are not being received as you'd like, is it so absurd to suggest that you consider changing what you say before criticising how others listen?
>People can get upset by words for a variety of reasons. Should they make an effort to handle their emotions better? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't also make an effort avoid language which might upset people.
Well, I'll take any effort needed to avoid language that might upset people -- except the kind of people that are upset by language.
Those I'll take any effort needed to upset them.
I mean, I would not use words that might hurt a regular person or somebody who is actually sensitive to them because of their state/past/gender/color/etc.
But I would very much use all the words that annoy the kind of people who get annoyed by words all the time, ie. the PC crowd. I'm with this Carlin and Lenny Bruce guy on this one.
Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere, but if you don't think there are people who are "actually sensitive" to this particular use of language, then you are sorely mistaken.
> People getting upset by mere words (not even uttered against them) are hardly worth a hackers time.
Rape is a trigger word unlike most other words.
I for one don't sensor myself around my friends, I tend to cross the line, all the time. My friends see me in context smiling or laughing, I know most of their life stories. It's safe to push the limits of hyperbole.
Here we have little/no context. Someone sees the word and they think of something horrible, the place, the person, the smells. All the things that are blocked out on and every day basis.
So why not avoid the word? Just to be kind to a stranger.
People getting upset by mere words (not even uttered against them) are hardly worth a hackers time.
Get over yourself. Taking on the title of hacker isn't some prestigious achievement, it's a self-aggrandizing social signal for tech hipsters. Beyond that, every caliber of individual can be upset by 'mere words', including yourself.
>Taking on the title of hacker isn't some prestigious achievement, it's a self-aggrandizing social signal for tech hipsters.
This forum is called "Hacker's news" for a reason. And that reason predates "tech hipsters" by 40+ years. It's not an achievement, I'll give you that. But it IS a culture, and that culture doesn't take self-censorship and puritan values very well...
>Beyond that, every caliber of individual can be upset by 'mere words', including yourself.
Being upset when some words are targeted at you or at people you do not think deserve such treatment is normal. It's being upset just because of the use of words that's prudish and bad.
"that reason predates "tech hipsters" by 40+ years"
"it IS a culture, and that culture doesn't take self-censorship and puritan values very well..."
These days, the title of 'hacker' is akin to the title 'patriot': everybody knows what a real one looks like and they're all too happy to monkey patch their own arbitrary components into the definition. Last I heard, there is no general stance regarding self-censorship in the hacker community.
Also, I think its an impressive type conversion for you to cast what is commonly described as overzealous liberalism to puritanical religiosity. There is nothing puritanical about respecting the sensitivities of sexual assault victims.
>Also, I think its an impressive type conversion for you to cast what is commonly described as overzealous liberalism to puritanical religiosity.
Well, I don't consider it that impressive.
Political correctness is just one method the liberals found to maintain the puritanical religiosity of their past. Just the secullar side to the same coin.
You cannot get puritanism out that easily, you just divert it from religious thinking to other endeavours.
We have the same kind of conversions in Europe too -- not to mention that it's a kind of well discussed topic in literature and psychology.
When those words can cause traumatic flashbacks for certain people, I think it is absolutely justified to be upset by their usage, regardless of how they are "targeted". This is not about "puritan values" it's about making an effort understanding the emotions of trauma victims.
Are you saying that coldtea is a tech hipster desperately signalling for the purpose of self-aggrandizement? How kind. Is a direct insult to a real person more civil than a fantasy assault on an inanimate object? Because I'm not sure of the rules.
Dismissing people as hardly worth a hacker's time is pretty self-aggrandizing, yes. Invoking a nebulous definition of hacker as a guideline for appropriate behavior is about as hip as it gets; following a trend for the sake of its title.
People getting upset by mere words (not even uttered against them) are hardly worth a hackers time.
Also notice how you, the oh-so-sensitive to the "emotions of strangers" and the "meanings that upset people", called him "an asshole" (for merely suggesting the use of a word). Way to go for tolerance.