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

[Hurkyl]

"It was F*****G awesome!" You want to deny me that last one for no good reason. I consider myself pretty well-read, but I cannot find a suitable replacement for that word in that context. No other word in the English language carries enough of a punch to express my feelings properly.

Just what feelings are you trying to convey that it is not enough to say "awesome" with great enthusiasm, or to use modifiers like "really" or "incredibly", or to heap on adjective after adjective such as "It was awesome! Incredible! Amazing!"

If you were to say that to me, you would not have conveyed any additional feelings about the concert beyond your positive opinion and your tone and body language while delivering the words. The only thing your use of ******* adds is to let me know you are the sort of person who prefers to swear gratuitously.

And TBH, I would generally find "It was ******* awesome" to be much less of a recommendation than a mere "It was awesome".

 

[apeiron]

You're right, but unless she has a major pre-existing condition (PTSD for instance), a history of abuse, etc... MOST swearing in the workplace is brief and expletive (response to pain), or in the context of an "intensifier" to quote Jared. What's the emotional pairing there... I mean, it's like sticking mice into a Skinner box and expect them to learn something without actually OPERATING the box.

I'd add, if she wanted to express a concern about a hostile workplace, or a feeling of threat, etc... there are people to report that to. A mass-email doesn't exactly shout, "I'm traumatized, spare me..."... it's what one person thinks is a call to her version of decency.

Most swearing probably does meet the social norms of the group involved. This may be a case of a clash of norms (religion-based, sex-based, class-based, whatever). But it still seems that free speech arguments ought to take neurobiology into account if you want practical principles tied to the real world rather than over-simplistic principles justified by imaginary worlds.

Now this other person may actually not be emotionally bothered by swearwords and just be seeking to impose her cognitive framework on the situation, such as a set of religious beliefs.

You might then argue that either such an imposition should be resisted (as the workplace has the right to its own collectively emergent societal norms). Or that in the interests of politeness - tolerance of multiple norms in multicultural society - the workplace should try honestly to accommodate this person's intellectual framework.

But if the response is genuinely limbic, then this does shift the practical balance. It doesn't mean jumping all the way over to the other person's side as the workers may in general also claim they are limbically required to swear - who can help expressive vocalisations? But this is why some posters say they swear and apologise. And why they also defend their swearing as it does mean they are acting in an "relaxed" unguarded way, rather than a self-censoring and formal way, as they would have to in a job interview.

So when it comes to free speech, I am still arguing here that it makes good practical sense to take into account the neurobiology of speech (and emotional response) so far as it is an actual factor.

Is it a large factor? Perhaps not huge as mostly people do learn to match their speech to the occasion. But here is a case where there is a problem and this could be a key factor not being taken sufficiently into account.

 

[nismaratwork]

Or it could be an attempt to politely inform people you don't like it before taking things further and it becoming an official matter.

If the case did end up going further with HR, I'd like to see you use the arguments made here in an attempt to win it.

Oh, I'd be slaughtered! Then again, I don't think most workplaces are the models of logical systems, especially around HR. If this is how she's trying to set her case up, she's getting bad legal advice unless the swearing is gender-based.

Obviously that's ANOTHER issue... there are swears, and there are SLURS. The latter ARE an expression of an inability or unwillingness to continue meaningful interaction.

 

[JaredJames]

The use of profanity when discussing something, trying to be persuasive:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...z8MQd&usg=AFQjCNFUf31-j6EQbOHsJ3AqQhLPbu8-dg"

The study looks at using profanity when trying to be persuasive, the conclusions here are (it's pdf have to type them):
1) For females, sexual was most persuasive and religious was least.
2) The person using profanity is perceived to be less credible.
3) For females, sexual was less persuasive and religious was most. Although overall persuasiveness.
4) Nobody became more persuasive using profanity than they were without it.
5) Women suffered less in the way of credibility loss than males.

So basically, by using profanity in a discussion you can expect to lose credibility and you will find no benefit in your own persuasiveness.

 

[nismaratwork]

Most swearing probably does meet the social norms of the group involved. This may be a case of a clash of norms (religion-based, sex-based, class-based, whatever). But it still seems that free speech arguments ought to take neurobiology into account if you want practical principles tied to the real world rather than over-simplistic principles justified by imaginary worlds.

Now this other person may actually not be emotionally bothered by swearwords and just be seeking to impose her cognitive framework on the situation, such as a set of religious beliefs.

You might then argue that either such an imposition should be resisted (as the workplace has the right to its own collectively emergent societal norms). Or that in the interests of politeness - tolerance of multiple norms in multicultural society - the workplace should try honestly to accommodate this person's intellectual framework.

But if the response is genuinely limbic, then this does shift the practical balance. It doesn't mean jumping all the way over to the other person's side as the workers may in general also claim they are limbically required to swear - who can help expressive vocalisations? But this is why some posters say they swear and apologise. And why they also defend their swearing as it does mean they are acting in an "relaxed" unguarded way, rather than a self-censoring and formal way, as they would have to in a job interview.

So when it comes to free speech, I am still arguing here that it makes good practical sense to take into account the neurobiology of speech (and emotional response) so far as it is an actual factor.

Is it a large factor? Perhaps not huge as mostly people do learn to match their speech to the occasion. But here is a case where there is a problem and this could be a key factor not being taken sufficiently into account.

I would say that, for better or worse, hearing swears is a part of life for a grown woman or man. If she is so impaired by words, then like an irrational fear of anything, she should seek treatment. You don't shoot the neighbor's dog because you're afraid of dogs... you seek help. If your neighbor's dog is vicious of course, that's a different issue.

So, if someone uses a curse that is loaded with deprecating implications about some group (gender, race), I'd say that's a slur, not a swear.

Here's one problem: this forum doesn't allow cursing, even in the context of academic examination. Needless to say, this isn't going to change, nor should it given the point of the site and the need for ad revenue and a family friendly air. On the other hand, we're not able to talk about words that degrade a person in general, or words which rely on group-hatred to load them with meaning.

Yes, we could PM, but then we might as well not be on a forum. So, while the forum does what it needs to, it does this because of the prevailing culture, right? Well, that culture is restricting our ability to have a full discussion here about this subject.

The point of language is not to be minimalist, but expressive. We can be aware of, and care for those members of our society who need it, but otherwise it's just a social issue.

As I said to Jared, if it's a no-swear zone, I try not to swear. Adaptability works both ways however, and the reality is that "vulgarity" is often defined as, "the curses used by whatever passes for the 'lower class'" So, most of our curses are germanic or dutch in origin (low english), as opposed to French.

Is it because French can't say **** as well as the Dutch or German? No... it's because those words were made dirty by people trying to separate based on language. You see it today in the, "if you can't think of another way of expressing yourself" straw man... and it's old. As long as humans have a neurological reaction that leads to "BLEGH" curse in their head... or that sentiment, it will find it's way into language.

We GIVE words this power with every tiny act of personal and mass cowardice, and as a way, even here... of trying to get a handle on who is of what, "quality". The title of Penn & Tellers TV show to that.

 

[nismaratwork]

The use of profanity when discussing something, trying to be persuasive:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...z8MQd&usg=AFQjCNFUf31-j6EQbOHsJ3AqQhLPbu8-dg"

The study looks at using profanity when trying to be persuasive, the conclusions here are (it's pdf have to type them):
1) For females, sexual was most persuasive and religious was least.
2) The person using profanity is perceived to be less credible.
3) For females, sexual was less persuasive and religious was most. Although overall persuasiveness.
4) Nobody became more persuasive using profanity than they were without it.
5) Women suffered less in the way of credibility loss than males.

So basically, by using profanity in a discussion you can expect to lose credibility and you will find no benefit in your own persuasiveness.

Unless you're trying to impress people who swear a lot, in which case telling them you're angry at them to the point of pee-anger... is going to lose out. You're building in a bias as to who you WANT to talk to, because of HOW they talk. It's not a bad general rule, but when you fail to apply it responsibly you get problems.


I'd add... curses targeting gender, race, etc... are slurs. They may be swears too, but they fall under a further subset that really is pathetic.

Anyway, I for one don't try to charm ladies with my proficiency at cursing, anymore than I'd expect rambling to most people about the physics and engineering content of this site would make me more persuasive. Frankly, from personal experience, most people seem to prefer hearing a swear to a lecture on why the BB wouldn't haven been, "an explosion in space", but an "expansion OF space."

Oh, and when I'm alone and just stubbed my toe, it's cathartic... I'm not trying to persuade ANYTHING. See Lamaze...

 

[JaredJames]

Unless you're trying to impress people who swear a lot, in which case telling them you're angry at them to the point of pee-anger... is going to lose out. You're building in a bias as to who you WANT to talk to, because of HOW they talk. It's not a bad general rule, but when you fail to apply it responsibly you get problems.

Not sure where this bias stuff came from.

I'd add... curses targeting gender, race, etc... are slurs. They may be swears too, but they fall under a further subset that really is pathetic.

Again, this isn't under the realms of the paper.

Anyway, I for one don't try to charm ladies with my proficiency at cursing, anymore than I'd expect rambling to most people about the physics and engineering content of this site would make me more persuasive.

I agree there, so does the paper.

Frankly, from personal experience, most people seem to prefer hearing a swear to a lecture on why the BB wouldn't haven been, "an explosion in space", but an "expansion OF space."

I'm not entirely sure what this is in regards to the paper either.

I addressed a specific example (do you know how difficult it is to find papers on this matter?). The paper addresses using profanity in discussion, specifically when trying to be persuasive. It shows it doesn't work to improve and can even have a negative effect. This particular example does apply in a work place scenario. And so far is the only real substance that's been put into this thread.

Oh, and when I'm alone and just stubbed my toe, it's cathartic... I'm not trying to persuade ANYTHING. See Lamaze...

I'm currently on a document which discusses swearing and it's ability to relieve pain, I'll try to get that up soon. Still, nothing to do with the paper.

Peed off = p*ssed off. Just a 'polite' way of putting it.

 

[rootX]

He may be building a case for harassment.

I would believe this is likely the case. In case of workplace harassment, that is the first step: confronting the harasser.

just ask him. i suspect it is because he's very religious.

I wouldn't ever swear or talk evil in front of a religious employee .

 

[JaredJames]

I wouldn't ever swear or talk evil in front of a religious employee .

Talking evil for some people can be saying something truly horrific like "homosexuality is ok".

 

[Hurkyl]

As long as humans have a neurological reaction that leads to "BLEGH" curse in their head... or that sentiment, it will find it's way into language.

Oh, and when I'm alone and just stubbed my toe, it's cathartic... I'm not trying to persuade ANYTHING. See Lamaze...

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

I don't believe onomatopoeia like "Ow!" or "Aah!" are uncommon exclamations in response to stubbing one's toe. You are likely to hear me follow up with repeated utterances of "Pain! Pain! Agony!" and possibly more "Ow!" mixed in, but uttered more as a word than as a noise.

 

[rootX]

Talking evil for some people can be saying something truly horrific like "homosexuality is ok".

Sure.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not sure where this bias stuff came from.


Again, this isn't under the realms of the paper.


I agree there, so does the paper.


I'm not entirely sure what this is in regards to the paper either.

I addressed a specific example (do you know how difficult it is to find papers on this matter?). The paper addresses using profanity in discussion, specifically when trying to be persuasive. It shows it doesn't work to improve and can even have a negative effect. This particular example does apply in a work place scenario. And so far is the only real substance that's been put into this thread.


I'm currently on a document which discusses swearing and it's ability to relieve pain, I'll try to get that up soon. Still, nothing to do with the paper.

Peed off = p*ssed off. Just a 'polite' way of putting it.

re: bold: And when someone says, "N Word" what is that then? When you say peed off, I know now that you're not kidding. Your INTENT and tone matters, not a curse. If you look at DanP and I in the gun thread, as we "part"... I'd say that's pretty hostile on both sides... no curses though.

I think we each got the point however..."I'll pray for you" in the "bite me" sense.

I'd add, when I began to make Muslim friends, I learned that you do NOT say, "son of a *****" even in the way that Americans greet each other. Even, "son of a gun"... it was just a matter of showing respect for their families. To them, that was hurtful and offensive, so I respect that.. and I don't talk like a jocular Texan rancher either.

My point is that we should focus on the content, not the delivery.

After all, look at the paper... what OTHER things can you talk about that would turn women off? Maybe the issue is a preoccupation with cursing as sexual innuendo, and then as pressure... again, situational.

Look...

If a rapist is in court, and has just been convicted, he screams the "c" word at a woman on the jury. I think we'd all have a VERY visceral reaction to that word alone, and when you add the context it's chilling.

Flex is in the workplace, and he's chatting at the "watercooler... he remarks that he had the best ******* burrito last night. OK, not he most decorous delivery, but so what? No hostility, no group is being targeted, the curse itself doesn't demean women for instance, by its very nature.

If you call someone a bastard in the wrong part of the world, you'll pray you'd just sworn at them. One you separate swears from slurs, you're left with the verbal equivalent of smiles and emoticons. Nobody seems to respect them either, yet they're ubiquitous for their ability to convey context that normal language alone lacks.

 

[apeiron]

I would say that, for better or worse, hearing swears is a part of life for a grown woman or man. If she is so impaired by words, then like an irrational fear of anything, she should seek treatment...

...We GIVE words this power with every tiny act of personal and mass cowardice,.

This is rhetoric rather than argument now. You want to say that I am irrational and cowardly if I see neurobiological justifications for constraints on swearing.

So yes, you agree by implication I am having an unavoidable emotional reaction. But it is the "wrong one", an illegitimate one. So one that you don't need to regard.

But I am arguing at a level below this. If there is an unavoidable emotional reaction that is part of expressive speech, then this does raise the legitimate issue of where we should draw the line. Is it rational or irrational to object. Brave or cowardly to have sent out an email of complaint?

You have to actually make the argument now one way or the other, rather than just employ emotionally-charged language to produce a rhetorical conclusion.

I can easily agree with most of what you otherwise say here about the reality of swearing. In practice, it is no big deal as we are all fairly world-wise and multicultural. And from that point of view, this complaining worker could be considered overly-parochial.

But that does not get away from the deeper story - which is always the actually interesting one to me. It is telling the human brain still betrays its underpining of "centres" for expressive vocalisation. And that free speech philosophical debates appear not to have dealt with this bit of neurobiological knowledge in an explicit way.

If you thought the free speech debate is a done deal, then this says not. Unless you can brush it under the carpet by calling it irrational, cowardly and other emotional terms of abuse.

 

[nismaratwork]

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

I don't believe onomatopoeia like "Ow!" or "Aah!" are uncommon exclamations in response to stubbing one's toe. You are likely to hear me follow up with repeated utterances of "Pain! Pain! Agony!" and possibly more "Ow!" mixed in, but uttered more as a word than as a noise.

If Bob says, "Ow, Ah! Owie wowie heck! Oh no, oh heck!" (real quote from me once, needle stick, but around juveniles)... with few exceptions bob is expressing:

Pain. Dismay. Fear. Distress.

If Alice says a litany of curses... it's the same thing. Pain, fear, distress, dismay.

What makes one manner of expression better than another, especially when what is a swear changes all the time?

There is an instinct to let go of an emotional outburst with common content... the dressing doesn't matter. I'd add, to claim that I'm saying there's an instinct to anything except grunting and pointing is just to show what you have and have no read. I did make a case a while ago about the origin of rude gestures in the lexicon of communication.

Are you a filthy beast when you order chicken "breast", which at one time was a taboo thing to say? Will we be wrong to say X, Y, or Z "taboo" word today, which tomorrow is meaningless?

If so, it's not the words, or sounds: it's the context and the meaning behind them, and how you communicate that. If you communicate, "go to hell" with a speech or a gesture, the result is stil, "go to hell".

 

[Evo]

So, I got a very passive aggressive note from a fellow employee, not directed towards me specifically since it was in an e-mail to everyone in the group, saying: "I think less use of profanity in the office would be appropriate."

We all swear in different degrees (except for this guy)... even our mutual manager gets fairly profane. This is the first time he's expressed displeasure. I am very much opposed to restriction of speech at work.

I was thinking of replying with "If you think you have a workable set of rules..."

Any thoughts forum?

EDIT: Also considering making a joke about how "painful" it is to work here, and providing this as a reference: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear).

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is rhetoric rather than argument now. You want to say that I am irrational and cowardly if I see neurobiological justifications for constraints on swearing.

So yes, you agree by implication I am having an unavoidable emotional reaction. But it is the "wrong one", an illegitimate one. So one that you don't need to regard.

But I am arguing at a level below this. If there is an unavoidable emotional reaction that is part of expressive speech, then this does raise the legitimate issue of where we should draw the line. Is it rational or irrational to object. Brave or cowardly to have sent out an email of complaint?

You have to actually make the argument now one way or the other, rather than just employ emotionally-charged language to produce a rhetorical conclusion.

I can easily agree with most of what you otherwise say here about the reality of swearing. In practice, it is no big deal as we are all fairly world-wise and multicultural. And from that point of view, this complaining worker could be considered overly-parochial.

But that does not get away from the deeper story - which is always the actually interesting one to me. It is telling the human brain still betrays its underpining of "centres" for expressive vocalisation. And that free speech philosophical debates appear not to have dealt with this bit of neurobiological knowledge in an explicit way.

If you thought the free speech debate is a done deal, then this says not. Unless you can brush it under the carpet by calling it irrational, cowardly and other emotional terms of abuse.

No, anymore than people need to be held responsible for the abnormal psychology of any other type. Should we all be compelled to kill spiders because we work with an arachnophobe? All we KNOW, is that swearing evokes an emotional reaction... so what? Why isn't that a good thing... in fact, isn't that the point? You wanted to convey an extreme emotion, and you have; that some are emotionally reactive to ANY such displays (children of abuse especially) should inform our MANNERS, not our RULES and LAWS.

You make a case in my view, for a new kind of therapy and treatment, NOT another eggshell to walk on.

 

[nismaratwork]

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

At my company, any use of verbiage that makes anyone else uncomfortable is terms for immediate dismissal. Our company slogan, plastered on walls everywhere is "Not here, not ever". And we're one of the nation's top employers. So Flex, got to say sorry, you're wrong.

Evo: That just means your policies are different, not better, or worse. You said it: it's on the walls... you signed up for the job, and agreed to the rules.

We sign up here, and we can't swear... fair enough. Neither argue against cursing, they just describe the reaction people have to the possibility of lawsuits and loss of advertising.

Frankly, I don't swear a lot, but when I do, I MEAN it. I'm sure as hell not going to lose my job over it, any more than I'd walk up to a co-worker and tell them that they had a nice rear.

That doesn't mean I don't want to hear that from my honey... or that it's BAD... it's context.


BTW... "that makes anyone else uncomfortable". So, if I curse in a language that nobody knows at your company, with a smile on my face and a spring in my step... nobody is uncomfortable, and all is well.

By the same token I assume that sending an email to my boss saying, "you're dead!" is going to land me in jail. So... where's the curse issue? It just sounds like a need for more secrecy and discretion, and that's how you get, "old boy clubs".

 

[JaredJames]

re: bold: And when someone says, "N Word" what is that then? When you say peed off, I know now that you're not kidding. Your INTENT and tone matters, not a curse. If you look at DanP and I in the gun thread, as we "part"... I'd say that's pretty hostile on both sides... no curses though.

I think we each got the point however..."I'll pray for you" in the "bite me" sense.

Huh? I only used it there because I couldn't be arsed to type "p*****" (or any derivation to prevent filters going off). It wasn't meant to be seen as peed, but p*ssed. Shorthand if you will, not an attempt to be polite, no hidden intent. Looking at it now, I wished I'd just stuck with the usual.

My point is that we should focus on the content, not the delivery.

Which is what the paper does, and it shows the content does impact on the listeners perception of what you are saying - badly. We are dealing with a discussion / debate style affair only within the paper (seriously, getting papers on this ain't easy so I'm working with what I've got).

Everything past this point has nothing to do with the paper. We've seen how far debates go when we only have opinions flying about, so now I'm trying to source some research on the subject. All the stuff below isn't relevant to the context of the paper and so I don't know if you meant it in response to the paper or not.

After all, look at the paper... what OTHER things can you talk about that would turn women off? Maybe the issue is a preoccupation with cursing as sexual innuendo, and then as pressure... again, situational.

Look...

If a rapist is in court, and has just been convicted, he screams the "c" word at a woman on the jury. I think we'd all have a VERY visceral reaction to that word alone, and when you add the context it's chilling.

Flex is in the workplace, and he's chatting at the "watercooler... he remarks that he had the best ******* burrito last night. OK, not he most decorous delivery, but so what? No hostility, no group is being targeted, the curse itself doesn't demean women for instance, by its very nature.

If you call someone a bastard in the wrong part of the world, you'll pray you'd just sworn at them. One you separate swears from slurs, you're left with the verbal equivalent of smiles and emoticons. Nobody seems to respect them either, yet they're ubiquitous for their ability to convey context that normal language alone lacks.

 

[apeiron]

No, anymore than people need to be held responsible for the abnormal psychology of any other type.

Again, where is the line between normal and abnormal here? My argument was that it is evolutionarily normal to respond to expressive vocalisations. And just as normal to become habituated to them if they are not actual threats of course. Possibly abnormal to be oversensitised to them - or possibly not, depending on circumstances.

If swearing aggressively is being read as an aural assault by this worker, then the lack of an adequate response on the part of the workplace would quite rationally be read as reinforcing the aggressive impact. The longer the swearing is allowed to continue, the greater the perceived threat.

Do rights come without responsibilities when it comes to speech? But I think we are only talking about where to draw the line, not where the line should be drawn.

Like you probably, I would in fact draw the line pretty liberally (and I live in a society that does too - even newsreaders here say crap, bugger and piss-poor without bothering the population). But this was a question about the dynamics of a particular workplace. And I simply wanted to draw attention to a missing ingredient in the debate.

 

[Jack21222]

And TBH, I would generally find "It was ******* awesome" to be much less of a recommendation than a mere "It was awesome".

I believe you're one of the only speakers of the English language on this planet who feels that way. Everybody else seems to know that the f-word is used as an intensifier.

 

[JaredJames]

I believe you're one of the only speakers of the English language on this planet who feels that way. Everybody else seems to know that the f-word is used as an intensifier.

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

 

[nismaratwork]

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

You see, I find the opposite: I swear most at those who wouldn't understand or stand for a more detailed or eloquent response. You adapt to be polite, and you adapt to be rude... you adapt, and respect your environment at all times.

 

[nismaratwork]

Huh? I only used it there because I couldn't be arsed to type "p*****" (or any derivation to prevent filters going off). It wasn't meant to be seen as peed, but p*ssed. Shorthand if you will, not an attempt to be polite, no hidden intent. Looking at it now, I wished I'd just stuck with the usual.


Which is what the paper does, and it shows the content does impact on the listeners perception of what you are saying - badly. We are dealing with a discussion / debate style affair only within the paper (seriously, getting papers on this ain't easy so I'm working with what I've got).

Everything past this point has nothing to do with the paper. We've seen how far debates go when we only have opinions flying about, so now I'm trying to source some research on the subject. All the stuff below isn't relevant to the context of the paper and so I don't know if you meant it in response to the paper or not.

re: bold: I hear you, I'm not having luck finding much to put up against your paper either. I completely accept and believe that you meant the other word... it really does make more sense. My point is that being polite can mean swearing along with someone, or it can mean refraining from those words you don't consider swears around some people.

I'm advocating respect for the people around you, assuming that respect is mutual, and often when it isn't. That really has nothing to do with swearing, or language. How I express racism doesn't matter next to the RACISM. How I express love is second to how well the recipient of my expression understands my love.

The words are the Enola Gay, and a separate entity from the bomb.

 

[JaredJames]

those who wouldn't understand

So these people would be in the category of "the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive".

All you did was switch it around to you swearing not them. It's the same underlying issue though, not the opposite.

or stand for a more detailed or eloquent response.

Again, generally as above but then I'm not dumbing down for anyone.

I have a fairly consistent attitude towards everyone. I treat everyone the same. I don't care if you stand in front of me and swear like a trooper, I won't return the favour.

 

[apeiron]

There isn't a swearing instinct.

An instinct to make an exclamation of some sort I can believe, but not everybody is raised to use vulgarity reflexively.

I don't believe onomatopoeia like "Ow!" or "Aah!" are uncommon exclamations in response to stubbing one's toe. You are likely to hear me follow up with repeated utterances of "Pain! Pain! Agony!" and possibly more "Ow!" mixed in, but uttered more as a word than as a noise.

I would always use the vulgar alternatives in such circumstances. This is precisely because they are maximally aggressive and threatening. I would be blaming the rock for its malicious act and making it clear I am ready for all out war if it doesn't back off immediately.

Going ow and aah is what the helpless victim of such an assault would say . These are the kinds of expressive vocalisations intended to evoke sympathy from others.

It may indeed be silly to shout F**** C**** at a rock. But it does go directly to the particular nature of the emotional response. And so in turn to the possibly legitimate feelings of the worker in the OP.

 

[JaredJames]

I would be blaming the rock for its malicious act and making it clear I am ready for all out war if it doesn't back off immediately.

I tried to 'deck a brick pillar' once when walking home drunk because it shoved me onto the floor.

It may indeed be silly to shout F**** C**** at a rock. But it does go directly to the particular nature of the emotional response. And so in turn to the possibly legitimate feelings of the worker in the OP.

It's not the words themselves, it's what they do in your mind that helps the pain. For different people the words can be different. In some, "ow" and "ah" can do it. (It's in the paper I'm working through now.)

 

[Jack21222]

Glad I mentioned the word intensifier now...

Actually, I'm with Hurkyl. I'd find a response without a swear (using the correct language) to be of no difference than someone who adds the swear as a flourish. For me personally, the swear simply indicates a persons inability to be suitably descriptive.

Hurkyl did NOT say there's no difference. Hurkyl said he'd find the description with the swear LESS of a recommendation. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

 

[Hurkyl]

If Bob says, "Ow, Ah! Owie wowie heck! Oh no, oh heck!" (real quote from me once, needle stick, but around juveniles)... with few exceptions bob is expressing:

Pain. Dismay. Fear. Distress.

If Alice says a litany of curses... it's the same thing. Pain, fear, distress, dismay.

What makes one manner of expression better than another, especially when what is a swear changes all the time?

Only the denotation is the same; Alice connotes an offense through her choice of words, Bob does not.

Alice may not have intended an offense, but that doesn't change the fact she uttered one.


Eve violently flails about when she gets hurt. It's still the same thing -- pain, fear, distress, dismay. Would you have us pretend Eve isn't being violent just as you would have us pretend Alice isn't being offensive?

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, where is the line between normal and abnormal here? My argument was that it is evolutionarily normal to respond to expressive vocalisations. And just as normal to become habituated to them if they are not actual threats of course. Possibly abnormal to be oversensitised to them - or possibly not, depending on circumstances.

OK, I'm with you. When someone is extremely angry to the point of losing it, I'd love a little verbal warning. I also bolded, "aggressively", because you added that... nowhere in flex's story have I heard about someone swearing "Aggressively".

If swearing aggressively is being read as an aural assault by this worker, then the lack of an adequate response on the part of the workplace would quite rationally be read as reinforcing the aggressive impact. The longer the swearing is allowed to continue, the greater the perceived threat.

That is entirely situational, which is why HR exists. If someone is knows that X person hates to hear Y word, and you make it your mission to shove Y in X's face as often as possible... you're assaulting them verbally. You could do the same by just saying, "hey man, you know how much I respect you? Some kind of wizard, that's what you are... smarter than god and twice and bright!" They're going to get the sarcasm I hope, and when they boil that sentiment down, it's the intent behind a hostile, "**** you!".

Again, the case is made here that specific words have power that we give them, and that we need to reinforce that power by buying into this superstition around words. Neurologically, GREAT... you SHOULD react to hostility, or extreme joy. If you react in a manner that deviates from DSM and EU norms to the point of "Clinical Significance", then you need help. If the content of conversations that don't involve, concern or are directed at you disturb you to the point of perceived assault, that is a clinically significant symptom of PTSD.

Do rights come without responsibilities when it comes to speech? But I think we are only talking about where to draw the line, not where the line should be drawn.

There is no line here, just a shifting and undulating barrier that retreats, then advances, then retreats again. If you're invoking the neurological response again, I'll say again: if it's clinically significant that person needs help. If not, then deal with it directly, or through the company.

Like you probably, I would in fact draw the line pretty liberally (and I live in a society that does too - even newsreaders here say crap, bugger and piss-poor without bothering the population). But this was a question about the dynamics of a particular workplace. And I simply wanted to draw attention to a missing ingredient in the debate.

Oh, I have no delusion that we're somehow separated by a vast gulf of sensibilities here: I get it, you don't debate at half speed, and I like that. By all means, defend and make your point vigorously, and independently of your own sensibilities; I respect hat.

Personally, the "N" and "C" words make me cringe. No rhyme or reason... just a reaction. I respect and love women, and I hate racism and bigotry. If a comic is trying to find the "edge" with those words, and they're genuinely funny and making a point? I'm not cringing anymore, but only in that context.

In this workplace, a mass-mailing is a passive-aggressive act, rather than the appropriate response: confronting the people bothering you, or going to HR so they do their job and confront them for you. There is something to be said, not just for acceptance, but just plain TOLERANCE; if it's not (insert Asimov RULES) then by all means... tolerate it. I tolerate body odor from some, and ugliness.

Humans have quite a reaction to ugly people, and feel stressed and uncomfortable around initially around those who are obviously disabled. Some never get over that discomfort. I don't think a spike on an EEG, or a suffused region of the brain = perceived assault and trauma... I think it's just that curses are the closest we have (next to touching) to limbic-limbic contact. So, it's more intense than less emotionally charged language, for good and ill.

 

[JaredJames]

Hurkyl did NOT say there's no difference. Hurkyl said he'd find the description with the swear LESS of a recommendation. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Using the f-word in the context I mentioned (with the concert), IS being suitably descriptive. I can't understand how you believe LIMITING one's vocabulary makes one more descriptive. I argue that it's more descriptive to USE the words we have available. There's no reason to arbitrarily handicap your language in general. It doesn't make you a better person to work with a smaller vocabulary.

Limiting vocab? He added a number of words in the example without the swear in comparison to the one with. How is that limiting your vocabulary?

If I find "It was amazingly brilliant" a good recommendation and "It was f****** brilliant" less so, how does that make less sense? More vocab in the first - two beautifully descriptive, innocent words instead of one that may cause offence.

Choosing an alternative is not limiting your vocabulary in any way. It is simply choosing to use something else.