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

[nismaratwork]

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?

I would be concerned that Evo isn't acting in a manner consistent with an adult of her age, gender, and background, and I'd be concerned.

Lets back up however... you said, "she uttered one"... an offense. You just opened up the world of, when is an offense offensive, and when does it STOP? How do words move up and down that scale, and if not through feedback and use...?

I'd say she uttered a word that carried the same feeling we all have when we feel pain, and in combination with gestures and flailing, Bob might TAKE offense (if he's utterly unaware of the situation), but there's nothing special and offensive about a pattern of utterances. If you can formulate an axiom for that however, I'm all ears, but I think you'll find it always comes down to the listener and context.

The ATTEMPT to formulate universal rules around profanity is just a means of limiting your expression... and I could care less. I've made my point, the history of language as a means of separating classes is there along with which words are now, "offensive".

So no Hurkyl, unless you can somehow support the idea that offense originates in the word... not the intent OR the listener... you've made one of the few factually incorrect statements here.

 

[apeiron]

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.

Is it stretching a point to say there is still a latent aggressive intent here? - ie: you really better agree with me about the awesome-ness. That is how it comes across to my ears anyway. It intensifies the assertive tone. And in some cultures, that is pretty rude.

Awesome is of course a fabuously fatuous term, used so reflexively it usually equates to "quite good" in practice. So no surprised if it has to be intensified by expletives.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

Do you have any doubt in your mind that I could, given a chance, deeply offend a number of people here without cursing... and I believe I already have. I would rather live in a world where we care for those who need help, and when it comes to expression we aren't so quick to judge based on old notions of proper language.

Unless you're saying that having the option to say BOTH phrases is somehow not more options that just the "polite' version?

My argument, in essence, boils down to this: would you rather have Winston Churchill or Oscar Wilde try and offend you without curses, or would you rather they call you a **** and move on? Nothing has changed... they still feel the way they feel, it's just a matter of your awareness of that.

I prefer to know how people feel, and where they stand; artificially polite language shows a preoccupation with image over substance in my view, sending its own negative signal.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

It's because you are not just asserting the concert was awesome in an intense manner -- you are modifying the meaning by adding the taint of profanity. While I can easily imagine some would disagree, I find that much less appealing than a pure expression of joy.

There is a secondary aspect -- you convey an attitude of casual obscenity, which has a mild implication that your tastes are quite misaligned with mine.

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.

He didn't say "more descriptive", he said "suitably descriptive". It doesn't help to be "more descriptive" if your choice of descriptive words don't match the description you are trying to convey.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's because you are not just asserting the concert was awesome in an intense manner -- you are modifying the meaning by adding the taint of profanity. While I can easily imagine some would disagree, I find that much less appealing than a pure expression of joy.

There is a secondary aspect -- you convey an attitude of casual obscenity, which has a mild implication that your tastes are quite misaligned with mine.

"taint of profanity". Social taint because of class-standards? Taint of rudeness? Taint of idiocy? What?

As for less appealing... I agree, but that's a decent self-reinforcing reason that most leave a concert saying, "that was great!", and not, "That was ******* awesome!". By the same token, if the lead trombone was drunk. the cellist was palsied, and the conductor was on acid... maybe you don't want to waste time describing anything... you just say, "that was pure "doo-doo" "

Your assumption that taste and profanity somehow align in a predictable way is unproven and highly personal... really it just says what you think of apeiron based on what he's said. To me, it says you value form over function in language for reasons you're yet to explain or demonstrate other than an allusion to a taint, and an appeal to aesthetics.

 

[nismaratwork]

He didn't say "more descriptive", he said "suitably descriptive". It doesn't help to be "more descriptive" if your choice of descriptive words don't match the description you are trying to convey.

You have an axiom for suitability?... EXCELLENT. We can file this under "taint", and you're on your way to really leaving solid ground behind.

 

[Hurkyl]

Quite a demonstration that one need not curse to be offensive. But then, nobody claimed otherwise.

"taint of profanity". Social taint because of class-standards? Taint of rudeness? Taint of idiocy? What?

Taint, noun: "a contaminating mark or influence". Also, verb: "to touch or affect slightly with something bad" -- a synonym of contaminate that emphasizes the loss of purity. (reference, www.m-w.com)

Such as when describing a profanity as a modifier, thus influencing the meaning of a word to include the profane / offensive nature of the profanity.

Your assumption that taste and profanity somehow align in a predictable way is unproven and highly personal...

If nothing else, I would expect a decent correlation between the casual usage of profanity and the tolerance/preference for gratuitous use of profanity by others.

 

[Hurkyl]

I would be concerned that Evo isn't acting in a manner consistent with an adult of her age, gender, and background, and I'd be concerned.

(Eve is the person who traditionally eavesdrops on Alice and Bob's conversations)

Lets back up however... you said, "she uttered one"... an offense. You just opened up the world of, when is an offense offensive, and when does it STOP? How do words move up and down that scale, and if not through feedback and use...?

You said she uttered a curse. If her utterance wasn't somehow profane, obscene, or otherwise offensive, then it wouldn't be a curse.

I'd say she uttered a word that carried the same feeling we all have when we feel pain, and in combination with gestures and flailing, Bob might TAKE offense (if he's utterly unaware of the situation),

If I get hit in the face by someone flailing about in pain, I don't think I could take it any other way than feeling that I've been hit in the face.

So no Hurkyl, unless you can somehow support the idea that offense originates in the word...

While I am quote familiar with the notion

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

I am also quite aware that words have established meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate very effectively.

Even if Eve didn't mean to hurt me by flailing around, that doesn't stop me from being hurt.

 

[caffenta]

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.

I'd say this is true at pretty much every company. I can't believe this thread even exists. Is this even an issue? Restriction of speech at work? Try that at your exit interview. See if it gets you hired back.

If you're around like-minded coworkers, it's fine to swear, but as a general rule? Right...

 

[nismaratwork]

Quite a demonstration that one need not curse to be offensive. But then, nobody claimed otherwise.

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

Taint, noun: "a contaminating mark or influence". Also, verb: "to touch or affect slightly with something bad" -- a synonym of contaminate that emphasizes the loss of purity. (reference, www.m-w.com)

Such as when describing a profanity as a modifier, thus influencing the meaning of a word to include the profane / offensive nature of the profanity.

You could just as easily say, "the taint of the lower class," and you'd be in place in this country not that long ago. The reality of course, is that (a la "Good Will Hunting"), you tend to find a lot of cursing (as well as, "um", and "like") amongst less educated people raised in areas that are less affluent than those lucky few of us. Beyond that, what purity is being lost, and what is it being TAINTED, or "contaminated" with?... and don't just circle back and say profanity.

Is it the taint of: Ignorance? Stupidity? Poor Langauge Skills? A Temper? What conclusion will you reach about someone who curses, "like a sailor," while someone with a smile and a kind word goes about telling you politely to go to hell? Then again, I suppose the world needs aesthetes.

If nothing else, I would expect a decent correlation between the casual usage of profanity and the tolerance/preference for gratuitous use of profanity by others.

So what? I'd say polite language tend to have the same effect, but I still haven't made a case for either. Once again, as with all forms of communication, this is a matter of taste, situation, and respect for your environment, including the people in it. Beyond that...


I'll buy that, but that just goes to show that it's like any linguistic phenomenon, and as its subject to rapid and gradual changes. It ALSO goes back to the point that the usual people who are "messed", and curse casually as a part of speech... tend to be less educated. So yes, obviously linguistic trends like profanity would naturally build, peak, and then new words would come to replace them. We've enshrined at least Carlin's Seven "dirty words" (and there was a bright man who swore casually) and all that does is reduce the impact of those words and drive the creation of neologistic curses.

 

[nismaratwork]

(Eve is the person who traditionally eavesdrops on Alice and Bob's conversations)

OK, that's good to know. I'll stick to convention.

You said she uttered a curse. If her utterance wasn't somehow profane, obscene, or otherwise offensive, then it wouldn't be a 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."

Daddy Hurkyl, if that logic is a closed loop, where do baby curses come from?

If I get hit in the face by someone flailing about in pain, I don't think I could take it any other way than feeling that I've been hit in the face.

I agree, so it then comes down to how you express a universal experience we can't describe with words. We can communicate through out body language (flailing, tears... I like to fill my pants to the brim just to add a sense of desperation...) the content of our words, and the fact that we choose at that moment to use whichever words are currently considered "taboo". We have taboo words of varying degrees in part, for that reason... or maybe the first really distinct, "Ooga!" that started going around the caves was having an effect on the young cave-boys an cave-girls was the first curse? I get the strong feeling whatever it was, someone else took offense because of the emotionally evocative nature of the exclamation... and some people don't like that kind of thing at all.

While I am quote familiar with the notion

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

I am also quite aware that words have established meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate very effectively.

Even if Eve didn't mean to hurt me by flailing around, that doesn't stop me from being hurt.

No... I'm not saying that you can reverse the process of imbuing a word with meaning "lone ranger" style. I'm not saying that you could smile and curse and Evo, and she should get the hint that, hey, it's just Hurkyl being Hurkyl!

What I'm saying is that your argument presupposes, at a basic level, an objective negative quality to curses, which are words. I'm not trying to dance on the head of a pin with, "I'm the cock of the walk, but don't watch me whip out my... chicken." In fact, that just supports the point I'm making. There CAN be a taint of rudeness, or of disrespect, or contempt, but that is loaded into words for rapid use. While they are widely considered meaningful, they ARE meaningful because they accurately communicate the underlying feeling.

It's how you express those feelings that matters, and not the style you choose. You shouldn't rip Evo using polite language, and you if she takes offense, you shouldn't compliment her with a curse. That is about mutual respect and communication, and goes to your point about being hurt. Yours is a case for respect, and to make that clear through language... fair enough, but that isn't a case to damn all curses, just a reason to not NEED or WANT to curse.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

And not everybody is raised to fear vulgarity reflexively!

I mean, seriously, you can't see your own socio-cognitive bias here?! It's almost staggeringly obvious.

 

[FlexGunship]

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 don't you see how easily your house of cards falls? What if a family raises their child to fear certain colors? Or fear the phrase "Safety glasses." That's exactly what we're talking about here, is an irrational fear of certain sounds and ideas.

We're not talking about racial slurs, gender slurs, or anything of the sort... just profanity.

 

[JaredJames]

And not everybody is raised to fear vulgarity reflexively!

I mean, seriously, you can't see your own socio-cognitive bias here?! It's almost staggeringly obvious.

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

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.

"Swearing is such a common response to pain that there has to be an underlying reason why we do it," says psychologist Richard Stephens of Keele University in England, who led the study. And indeed, the findings point to one possible benefit: "I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear," he adds.

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

 

[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.