undefined

points

[-]

> An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.

I think you guys complaining about provocative title and not not the substance of what is said, is what people are taking issue with.

If I didn't know better, I would honestly think it is concern trolling.

> I think it's a bit distasteful, and would prefer to participate in a community that doesn't routinely use that kind of langauge.

The entire point is that it is provocative and hyperbolic to make a statement. Often to make a statement you have to act outside what is considered polite norms and ruffle the feathers.

If Sam had given this a nice polite title (as per your preference), not as many people would have taken notice of it.

by afandian3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I hope you can take on trust that this is a genuine, exploration of the original point about language. And FTR I have a very low opinion of MS and have had since the late 90s.

There are usually all kinds of twists and turns in a HN discussion. And it's not like we're discussing the background colour or something far off-topic, the title is a pretty noticeable part of the article. I don't think it should be verboten to discuss these things.

I agree that transgressive speech is an important tool, and tone policing is generally bad news.

To each their own.

by JollySharp03 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> I hope you can take on trust that this is a genuine, exploration of the original point about language.

I find it hard believe that any discussion like this is genuine and I am deeply suspicious of people that complain about hyperbolic and provocative language.

Moreover, I think complaining about it like people have is here is verging on being ridiculous tbh.

Again if I didn't know better (i.e. I don't think this is happen) I would actually think it deliberate to run interference.

by arowthway7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I don't think it's fair to expect people to autocensor based on ill-defined, circular notions of taste and appropriateness, at least not in edge cases where these notions clearly vary from person to person. If the reasoning is something like "an abuse victim might read this and feel bad" or "a stupid person might confuse social license for edginess with license for being a bad person", then that's a discussion we can have.

by blenderob8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.

I don't understand how HN's news guidelines apply to a blogger writing an article on their own blog. The controversial language was found in the article. It wasn't found in the thread you're replying to.