Swearing in the Workplace: To Restrict or Not to Restrict?

[JaredJames]

Are you joking. The entire thread turned to PTSD, harassment, and how people feel when someone swears around them. If this thread had anything to do with "disliking" something, then there would be no thread. I dislike religious icons, but there's a guy with a big Ichthys on his cubicle wall. I dislike the smell of burnt popcorn and the woman at the end of the row has not figured out how to pop it without burning it in the last 4 years.

Jared, this thread is not about disliking something. It's about irrational reactions to certain words (whether you agree with those reactions or not).

Now... about your source.

(Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear Link to original paper available there)

I have never denied swearing for pain relief, however one of the reports I'm working through is very clear in that it is not the word that causes the pain relief - if you have a word that you treat the same as a profanity, it can achieve the same desired effect.

Now, as before, my source is regarding swearing in a discussion, which is far more relevant to the workplace we're discussing than a report on pain relief. Like i said, I want a source that shows swearing improves speech. If it cannot be shown swearing improves or has no effect on your speech then there is no rational / logical reason to use it.

 

[FlexGunship]

Unless you can show me a source that indicates a positive effect (pf guidelines and all that) I'm not really interested in anecdote and opinion.

Actually, I'm not done with your nonsense post. You are literally talking about a truncation of language; removing a subset of words from language so that the thoughts associated with them can no longer be expressed.

Why should someone need to cite sources that free thought and speech are good? You've made it so abstract and wishy-washy that it's almost impossible to carry a discussion on this topic. Who decides which words and ideas should be removed from the human concept catalog?

What if I decide to use a new word to replace f*ck but I explain to everyone it has precisely the same meaning? Is that okay to use then? Or is it okay until everyone starts using it, then we have to pick a new word?

 

[FlexGunship]

Like i said, I want a source that shows swearing improves speech.

And I want a source that red is the best color. This is absurd. Even if it strongly degrades speech you don't have an argument against it!

 

[Jack21222]

I have never denied swearing for pain relief, however one of the reports I'm working through is very clear in that it is not the word that causes the pain relief - if you have a word that you treat the same as a profanity, it can achieve the same desired effect.

Now, as before, my source is regarding swearing in a discussion, which is far more relevant to the workplace we're discussing than a report on pain relief. Like i said, I want a source that shows swearing improves speech.

You've never defined "improves." You say you're not interested in opinions, but "improves" is a subjective thing.

Profanity makes it easier to express oneself. I can say in one word what it might take you 10 words to describe. This is so blindingly obvious that I doubt a study has been done. My definition of "improves" is "ease of communication."

 

[FlexGunship]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19)

There. It has nothing to do with "improvement".

 

[JaredJames]

And I want a source that red is the best color. This is absurd. Even if it strongly degrades speech you don't have an argument against it!

As per the study i posted, I'm talking about perception of the person you're talking to. So in that sense I've outlined what improves means.

 

[JaredJames]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19
(Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19)

There. It has nothing to do with "improvement".

Quote that to your HR department when they tell you swearing isn't allowed and listen to how hard they laugh you out of the building.

 

[FlexGunship]

Quote that to your HR department when they tell you swearing isn't allowed and listen to how hard they laugh you out of the building.

Would you, honestly, accept that argument from me? If you gave me a quote, and I simply said: "yeah, that's pretty unimportant" and completely ignored its content? Think back in all of the other threads, would you have let anyone else ever get away with that? Shame on you; you're not an intellectual, you're a contrarian.

 

[JaredJames]

Actually flex, you can argue what you like about freedom of speech, but YOUR op is about the workplace and if that quote doesn't apply there, what use is it?

Like I said, HR wouldn't give it the time of day.

So would I be right in thinking your argument is that you should be allowed to swear at work, regardless of company policy?

 

[nismaratwork]

I have never denied swearing for pain relief, however one of the reports I'm working through is very clear in that it is not the word that causes the pain relief - if you have a word that you treat the same as a profanity, it can achieve the same desired effect.

Now, as before, my source is regarding swearing in a discussion, which is far more relevant to the workplace we're discussing than a report on pain relief. Like i said, I want a source that shows swearing improves speech. If it cannot be shown swearing improves or has no effect on your speech then there is no rational / logical reason to use it.

Yeah... and that should tell you that the word itself isn't important: everyone understands what you're saying, and you know what you're thinking. Retraining yourself to reflexively think or say, "sugar" is literally meaningless unless you're trying to make sugar a swear. Langauge is only meaningful when (most) of us agree on what words mean, and what connotations they carry. It's for this reason that I suspect you wouldn't want me to curse, even in languages that you don't understand, or just using a cipher?

If I'm communicating the sentiment: "Hostility/Anger/Hate/Aggression"... it doesn't matter what word or gesture I choose to use if it manages to communicate that meaning to the other person. As Hurkyl points out, it doesn't require cursing, and in fact it is often far more scathing without it, I'd add. That's not the point...

You have yet to explain what is "bad" about a swear, and in the face of their persistence in all language and cultures for at least millenia, that's a HUGE hurdle.

I'm sorry, but so far all I'm getting from you is that some words are intrinsically bad, but that the sentiment behind them isn't. You're not arguing for restraint, or even civility... just polite form. You HAVE argued that you personally dislike them, and that you're an exceptionally calm man, but for the rest of the bell curve of humanity...

Whats all this fear BS? Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I fear it.

Now, I have shown a source that indicates profanity having a negative effect on speech, I'm working through two others now. Unless you can show me a source that indicates a positive effect (pf guidelines and all that) I'm not really interested in anecdote and opinion.

Apeiron has been arguing from a neurological point of view, that there is a reflexive reaction based on (at least one) paper. I think Flex has a good point about the fact that some people are raised to fear far more common things than swears, and we don't bat an eye.

Flex: What WOULD your HR department say?... in the context of your OP, and not what the thread has become, the only thing that matters at work, is what work will allow. If your company is fine with casual swearing, then this is an issue for this woman to take up with the company. If this WOULD be an HR issue, then while ~95% of this thread would still be left unresolved, that one point would be that YOU would be the one who would have to take it up with HR.

Lets just clear this detail up so we can move on with what the thread became less than 5 minutes after you made it (and no fault of yours), which is that some people don't like "curse-words", and some think they might be capable of turning into a kind of verbal assault.

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, I'm ignoring the rest for now, I just want to put a few things I've noted thus far:

We have two sides here, one is that the perception of those around you is irrelevant and it is purely how you intend the word to be heard and then we have the other side which is that perception of those around you does matter and that how you mean the word is only valid to the point of the person you are directly addressing.

Now, I'm curious as to why people feel the perceptions of those around you is irrelevant? Mainly because I'm thinking along the lines of words have a meaning to people, if that person is not party to the conversation and over hears a word that they dislike, they won't understand the use and will take it as a negative.

The study I posted defines perception and the associated terms (improvement etc) very well. It shows that when using profanity in a discussion it has no positive impact on your speech. Now this applies to a workplace certainly. You can give all the rights regarding free speech you like, but those will not have an impact on your speech so far as a positive / negative effect goes. The key with the study is that it is referring to how people perceive what you are saying along with your credibility, it doesn't care for using one word instead of ten.

Now you can argue regarding the meaning / irrational reactions of these words all you want, but in today's society, there is a reason presidents and prime ministers don't swear in debates - it lowers the tone of what they are saying and diminishes public opinion of them.

We are all aware of the negativity associated with these words and to try and deny they have this image is ridiculous.

 

[FlexGunship]

Actually flex, you can argue what you like about freedom of speech, but YOUR op is about the workplace and if that quote doesn't apply there, what use is it?

Like I said, HR wouldn't give it the time of day.

So would I be right in thinking your argument is that you should be allowed to swear at work, regardless of company policy?

IV. POLICY

A. Definition – Harassment includes, but is not limited to, the actions of any person that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Examples of prohibited harassment include, but are not limited to:

•Written or spoken derogatory terms about an individual’s race, sex, age, or other protected characteristics outline above
• Slurs, epithets, unwelcome jokes
• Any other unwelcome conduct/behavior or attitude directed at a person because of a particular protected characteristic (i.e. sex, race, age, etc.)​

For your approval; there is no further mention of language except for "explicitly sexual language" in the sexual harassment portion. But I don't think calling a machine a "piece of sh*t" or calling an individual a "f*cking moron" qualifies for sexual harassment by any standard.

 

[nismaratwork]

I disagree, but I don't feel there is anything more to say... I could quote previous posts in this thread as responses, line for line, to yours... but why? You're asserting things like, "lowering the tone"... and you're smart enough to know the nearly ROTE response would be: "responding to pressure and political opportunism". Beyond that your argument is sufficiently vague and unaddressed as to be meaningless; your logic is circular and based in assumptions verified by your gut and social norms of a very small area of the world and slice of time.

I don't see that this is particularly fruitful debate given that it's just come down to position statements.

 

[JaredJames]

For your approval; there is no further mention of language except for "explicitly sexual language" in the sexual harassment portion. But I don't think calling a machine a "piece of sh*t" or calling an individual a "f*cking moron" qualifies for sexual harassment by any standard.

Note the key part of the text quoted:

Examples of prohibited harassment include, but are not limited to

Now that to me, implies there's more (elsewhere) relating to the specifics or it's a case of discretion on the part of HR with decisions falling to their 'expert judgement'.

Calling someone a "f*cking moron" can certainly be considered harassment, and I believe that even under the law that kind of speak can cause you problems.

 

[nismaratwork]

For your approval; there is no further mention of language except for "explicitly sexual language" in the sexual harassment portion. But I don't think calling a machine a "piece of sh*t" or calling an individual a "f*cking moron" qualifies for sexual harassment by any standard.

Well, moron could be badly construed, but you'd need to be relatively bright to realize its roots are medical and not just insulting. If swearing at the copier isn't against your company's policy, that part of the debate is over unless this individual can move her issue forward.

 

[JaredJames]

I disagree, but I don't feel there is anything more to say... I could quote previous posts in this thread as responses, line for line, to yours... but why? You're asserting things like, "lowering the tone"... and you're smart enough to know the nearly ROTE response would be: "responding to pressure and political opportunism". Beyond that your argument is sufficiently vague and unaddressed as to be meaningless; your logic is circular and based in assumptions verified by your gut and social norms of a very small area of the world and slice of time.

I don't see that this is particularly fruitful debate given that it's just come down to position statements.

If swearing helped your speech, why don't politicians use it? Why don't you walk into an interview launch into it? Why don't doctors drop it in their conversations with patients?

At this point in time, society doesn't look upon swearing as a good thing. To use it, can be seen to degrade your position. As previously, you can be arrested in the UK for swearing - so there is obviously enough concern around it warrant restrictions on it - even if they are only sociological. On this basis, any attempt to rationalise its use in the workplace is pointless.

 

[FlexGunship]

Calling someone a "f*cking moron" can certainly be considered harassment, and I believe that even under the law that kind of speak can cause you problems.

In the U.S. we are free to offend, and you are free to be offended.

Disgusting? Absolutely! But 100% protected by the U.S. constitution. Freedom of assembly, and freedom to spout any ignorant bullsh!t you want!

Oh, excuse me... "freedom to spout any ignorant malarkey you want!"

 

[nismaratwork]

Note the key part of the text quoted:


Now that to me, implies there's more (elsewhere) relating to the specifics or it's a case of discretion on the part of HR with decisions falling to their 'expert judgement'.

Calling someone a "******* moron" can certainly be considered harassment, and I believe that even under the law that kind of speak can cause you problems.

If I called someone a blank moron, I'd be fired, so for me that's not an issue. By the same token, if you heard the talk that isn't actually swearing, "Circling The Drain, ******* The Bed, GOK," is COMMON in hospitals, but not unless you're a nurse or a doctor. Again, this is about respecting your environment... you still have made no case against SWEARS.

Oh, and unless he called this woman that insult... no... absolutely nothing legal, and from her reaction that seems unlikely. That, and I just don't see Flex doing that. Harassment is a pattern, not an event unless that event is extreme; bringing legal action over being called a "******* Moron", is likely to have you branded as one and charged for a spurious suit.

A LOOOOT of companies would fire you for that however, but not Flex's apparently.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, moron could be badly construed, but you'd need to be relatively bright to realize its roots are medical and not just insulting. If swearing at the copier isn't against your company's policy, that part of the debate is over unless this individual can move her issue forward.

Well as per my previous post, "are not limited to" are a keep part of that document.

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh, and unless he called this woman that insult...

Ha ha... it's a guy...

EDIT: I should be clear. I don't think many of the guys in my group swear as an insult. Usually it's in reference to a machine, a controller component, or a situation.

 

[JaredJames]

you still have made no case against SWEARS.

I have given you a study which shows that swearing in a discussion has no positive impact on your speech. That is a start to show it shouldn't be used in the one circumstance of a discussion.

Now, passive swearing, not so sure about. It comes down to sociology and psychology more than anything. Could be rather subjective, but then there are still laws that deal with it.

I could end up with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order if I stand in the street swearing. I'm curious if the US has a similar system regarding anti-social behaviour (not just swearing).

 

[nismaratwork]

If swearing helped your speech, why don't politicians use it?Why don't you walk into an interview launch into it? Why don't doctors drop it in their conversations with patients?

At this point in time, society doesn't look upon swearing as a good thing. To use it, can be seen to degrade your position. As previously, you can be arrested in the UK for swearing - so there is obviously enough concern around it warrant restrictions on it - even if they are only sociological. On this basis, any attempt to rationalise its use in the workplace is pointless.

You're not making the case that it "doesn't help" anymore Jared... it's waaaay too late for that. You've argued that ills are added by swearing; that's a view that some have, and you have, but it's just that; a view. I'm sorry, but while I often see eye to eye with you, this isn't one of those times. By the same token, I'm not getting into a rhetorical fight either, because for me, this issue isn't worth it.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have given you a study which shows that swearing in a discussion has no positive impact on your speech. That is a start to show it shouldn't be used in the one circumstance of a discussion.

Now, passive swearing, not so sure about. It comes down to sociology and psychology more than anything. Could be rather subjective, but then there are still laws that deal with it.

I could end up with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order if I stand in the street swearing. I'm curious if the US has a similar system regarding anti-social behaviour (not just swearing).

You are pitting one very limited statistical-survey-study against the persistence of something present in human communication for millenia, and all studies are not created equally. How can you possibly explain its persistence across all cultures and languages if there is no benefit? Just a thought.

NONE of that matters because... you're making a case why swearing in some circumstances doesn't HELP... that's not the same as making a case for the WORDS being bad as opposed to the sentiment you choose to convey.

 

[JaredJames]

How can you possibly explain its persistence across all cultures and languages if there is no benefit? Just a thought.

Why has something remained that has no benefit?

Hmm, could it be the same reason homeopathy (in its various forms) and other non-sense things seem to persist over time, even though they provide no benefit? Perhaps because there is a perceived benefit?

NONE of that matters because... you're making a case why swearing in some circumstances doesn't HELP... that's not the same as making a case for the WORDS being bad as opposed to the sentiment you choose to convey.

Earlier I noted the difference in two arguments here, one is that other peoples perception doesn't matter and the other is that it does.

We can all agree, correct or not, swears have a negative connotation attached to them - in todays society (which really is all that matters here - it's like trying to argue that you should be allowed to beat a student because corporal punishment was acceptable 40 years ago - you have to look at current social issues, whether you do or don't agree with them).

 

[nismaratwork]

Why has something remained that has no benefit?

Hmm, could it be the same reason homeopathy (in its various forms) and other non-sense things seem to persist over time, even though they provide no benefit? Perhaps because there is a perceived benefit?

Homeopathy is universal to all languages and cultures, and has been for millenia? Wait... no it isn't. Come on man, I don't want to play games like this.

Earlier I noted the difference in two arguments here, one is that other peoples perception doesn't matter and the other is that it does.

We can all agree, correct or not, swears have a negative connotation attached to them - in todays society (which really is all that matters here - it's like trying to argue that you should be allowed to beat a student because corporal punishment was acceptable 40 years ago - you have to look at current social issues, whether you do or don't agree with them).

This is a place for discussion... if not here, where?

 

[JaredJames]

Homeopathy is universal to all languages and cultures, and has been for millenia? Wait... no it isn't. Come on man, I don't want to play games like this.

Note: "in its various forms". Every culture has its own medicines - some of which are no better than homeopathy - and yet they stick around.

Something sticking around does not imply a benefit (in today's world we should know that better than ever).

This is a place for discussion... if not here, where?

I don't understand?

Are you saying these words don't have a negative connotation attached to them?

Today's culture is that these words are frowned upon - could be totally subjective - people take them in an offensive manner.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whoa... turn on CNN or... anything. Egypt is... wow. Perspective, I think it may give a bit of perspective.

 

[Hurkyl]

Good, then you got my point, and I think the converse holds true.

And you would be wrong, by the very definition of the word "curse".

That is the linguistic equivalent of, "If a tree falls in the woods.." It's a curse because it was obscene and offense, so it's a curse."

You're not making any sense. You're arguing against the very premise of your hypothetical:

Alice says a litany of curses

If Alice wasn't cursing in your hypothetical, then you shouldn't have said she was. Or are you just pulling a Humpty Dumpty and using "curse" to mean what you want it to mean, and just forgot to tell me what you meant?

 

[nismaratwork]

And you would be wrong, by the very definition of the word "curse".

You're not making any sense. You're arguing against the very premise of your hypothetical:

If Alice wasn't cursing in your hypothetical, then you shouldn't have said she was. Or are you just pulling a Humpty Dumpty and using "curse" to mean what you want it to mean, and just forgot to tell me what you meant?

Your entire argument is circular and semantic; only through that lens and your own personal bias does my argument become contradictory. Frankly, from what I can see you're just trying to regress the conversation. I don't blame you for it, but I'm not impressed or engaged either. Nothing you've said couldn't be addressed by re-reading this thread; it comes down to a bias you revealed in your earlier and less calculated posts. Taint...

Sorry, I just can't take this seriously... a group of grown men and women, all educated (I hope) who are debating a matter of taste, with the best "evidence" being that swearing isn't a "plus".

I know, I've said it before, and given a sufficient density I may be attracted again, but for now this is a matryoshka doll of word games about "naughty words".edit: Sorry... You're a mentor... in SCIENCE right? So, that means you know that words are not fixed concepts even within a single dialect of a language. Yet... your initial argument is to rely on "the definition of the word curse". Taken to the absurd, you're arguing for the parthenogenesis of naughty words, instead of the complex feedback mechanism that it really is.

 

[Hurkyl]

Actually, I'm not done with your nonsense post. You are literally talking about a truncation of language; removing a subset of words from language so that the thoughts associated with them can no longer be expressed.

Going back to the situation in the opening post -- are you asserting that the office is an appropriate place for expressing profane thoughts?

 

[Proton Soup]

you can get away with some pretty profane talk as long as you shellac it in a veneer of multisyllabicism.

 

[nismaratwork]

you can get away with some pretty profane talk as long as you shellac it in a veneer of multisyllabicism.

Yep... doesn't seem to be making a dent here though... you see, there are MAGIC words that are chosen by us, but have power over us! It's not that saying, "I'll pray for you" in a snide voice isn't just as, or more offensive than, "**** you!", or the hypocrisy of what words are "swears" (the language of the common folk...). Frankly, what's most absurd is that someone who is a mentor on (arguably) the best science forum on the net in the last few years... thinks that saying, "Oh sugar", is somehow better than the obvious normal choice. Really... it's not a leap, it's a pratfall over a hurdle into "dung".

Oh, and is anyone going to address the issue: if you swear in a language that nobody here understands... is it OK? (I don't mean on PF, I mean in theory, since people seem to like to take little edits of posts).

 

[nismaratwork]

Going back to the situation in the opening post -- are you asserting that the office is an appropriate place for expressing profane thoughts?

The opening post, and everything since makes it clear that what's right in the office is what the office decides is right, much as with a website, or any other private gathering or industry.

So... it's not a matter of opinion; either something will happen as a result, and prove Flex wrong, or not, and he'll be right... until the policy changes... or the language... or "community standards".

By the way Hurkyl, how are those axioms I asked about yesterday coming? You just went away and then, when you came back... it's as though you'd forgotten.

My heart... it ah breaks.

 

[JaredJames]

I just decided to check the definition for profanity, it is:

1. The condition or quality of being profane.
2.a. Abusive, vulgar, or irreverent language.
2.b. The use of such language.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/profanity

Given the this is the theme and title of this thread, doesn't that tell you why it shouldn't be acceptable in the workplace? The OP called it profanity, I don't see how you can form an argument for it being acceptable given the very definition of their own description.

The only way I can see something of an argument being formed is to put it under vulgar only, in which case it may work.

 

[Evo]

Can't think of a better place to close, thanks jared.