We had a discussion about the original blog post over on IRC.
I'm not going to tone down my talks (unless it's inappropriate for the audience) but I normally won't include it in a slide. There's a difference for me verbally and putting it down "on paper".
I want people to pass around my slide decks. A slide deck full of vulgarity is probably not going to get passed around. However I probably cussed like a sailor during the same presentation.
Zach Holman (the author of this post) uploaded his slides for a talk he gave at a Ruby conference a couple of weeks ago. Some people, including Scott Hanselman, complained about talks including profanities (especifically the word "fucking" in a slide).
hi, Zach, I "cumming" love your article. What a "dick" argument you're having here. So awesome. Please don't ride on high horse and interpret my message wrongly. Like "very" or "awesome", I'm just "raping" to stress my point. So "cumming" cool, uh? We're so "cumming" alike in our expressions.
Mr. Holman has a lot of growing up to do. Don't swear in a professional conversation, specially in front of an audience. It's unbecoming of yourself and an insult to the listener who took the time out of their day to listen.
The English language is full of a lot of words (over a quarter million, in fact). When somebody says "this is f-ing useless" in a presentation, I think it is lazy. Somewhere in those hundreds of thousands of words are words that express the what and why of the afore mentioned frustration; and that person had the time to look them up before the presentation.
It isn't necessarily the swearing, but the stupidity of using the word. A person may as well say "This software is acrylic useless" The swear word used has absolutely no place in the sentence, the definition of the word is what makes it useful, not the "shock" value.
Indeed, the problem is that the f-word, in your example, is a purposefully vague adjective to add shock value without working hard to captivate the audience and add meaning. "Lazy" was a great word for that.
Take the phrase: "This piece of software is fucking useless". What word would you replace "fucking" with that conveys the same emotion, despair and rage that the word has in that sentence?
I'm not a native speaker so my vocabulary is pretty limited, but I don't remember coming across a word that would help me express that feeling.
"This piece of software is as useful as wings on Shamu"
"This piece of software makes me want to skewer needles up my thumbs for a relaxing break."
etc. There is value in shock. The problem with profanity is that it it only shocks whoever is not used to reading it (and in public writing it's hard to tell who is and who is not).
Whales like to jump, surely Shamu would rather like to have wings, and the second is a great deal more distressing to me than just a silly little word could possibly be. I don't think either of these are an improvement upon the first at all.
Judging by this entire tizzy HN has worked itself into, I'd say profanity doesn't run the risk of running out of "shock potential" anytime soon.
It'll shock people, but it's still a cheap shock. The 2 example the grandfather post gave weren't great, but I think that in itself is the issue--coming up with effective emotional charged speech without using profanity is difficult, but completely possible. It takes work! And I think that is what a lot of people here are saying--cussing is cheap and lazy. And so it's offensive not because the actual words are offensive, but because the writer is clearly not putting any effort into their writing.
I still do not understand how this argument works. Why is it that people only seem to be offended at mediocre vocabulary when 'profanity' is involved? If, as you state, emotionally charged speech without profanity is difficult, why should we become offended when people are unable to achieve it? I don't think anybody goes to technical talks to appreciate high grade word-smithing.
I honestly believe this is an instance of generally rational people becoming offended for a reason they don't quite understand, and inventing a theory to explain the data.
Image what "This piece of software is fucking useless" would sound like if it was read out by Stephen Hawking's speech yoke, 'fuck' doesn't emphasize anything, the inflections and tone of your voice do. A charismatic person could convey far more emotion by dramatically saying "This piece of software...it's useless! It's...useless!!" than a dull person who says 'fuck' with a monotone voice would.
I'd start with just leaving the word out. "This piece of software is useless." will most likely convey your point. Perhaps, if you wished to ramp up the emphasis, you could say that "this piece of software is totally useless." I also like the word "profoundly" for extra emphasis.
Unless you register offense when people use unimaginative vocabulary in their presentations in the general case, then I do not believe that this is really your primary concern with so called 'profanity'
Lots of things can be an expression of strong emotion...but swearing is often an expression of frustration. It's not professional, it's not cool, and in the wrong context it's childish. I swear every day, in the right contexts.
Regardless of how it is often used (and I would disagree with your assertion in this case), if you're not using it as an expression of frustration in the presentation, it's completely fine.
It's unambiguous that you're enthusiastic about node.js, it's ambiguous about whether you're able to express it well or not without cursing and are therefore frustrated.
There really must be some sort of cultural difference here. If I heard that phrase in a presentation and the presenter wasn't displaying signs of agitation, it would never cross my mind that they might be frustrated. And if they were displaying signs of agitation, I would likely suspect them of being frustrated regardless of the words used.
I can't answer for jsavimbi, but I think it insults the audience because it takes the easy way out. It would be like not proofreading your slides and showing up with typos or txt abbrs rather than well-thought out phrases.
Swearing works in private conversation for the same reason that other slang and spoken shortcuts work, and it works in casual written conversation for the same reason that abbreviations, shorthand, and inattention to capitalization, spelling, and punctuation work: there's no real expectation of quality. Sure it's lazy and shows a lack of caring, but if a friend is shooting me an email to ask if I'm up for Thai tonight, I don't expect her to proofread and capitalize before sending. That's an appropriate amount of effort for the situation.
If you're putting that much effort into a presentation to someone you hope will give you money, however, that's just plain rude.
(Some folks, and I suspect this is true for HN commenters at a much higher proportion than it is true for the general population, prefer to spend the time on all communication, regardless of formality or venue, to make it decent. I believe this is a good habit to cultivate, but I don't insist upon it in others).
It's an insult to pepper your audience with profanity when they took the time out of their day to pay attention to what you had to share. It shows that you did not take the time to properly prepare and present your arguments. It shows that you are immature. It shows that you have a complete and total disregard for even the most basic of social forums. And it shows that Mr. Holman is so self-absorbed that when confronted with what in polite society is considered ill-mannered and poorly timed swearing in a presentation, he doubled down and bereft of supervision decided to lecture the audience even further as to why he was entitled to swear at them.
In a time of crisis, some swearing is appropriate to convey urgency to the listener. At a nerd meetup? Hardly.
(The first part of your comment I have responded to above)
I think that a lot what you are describing is heavily dependent upon the culture of the participants. Certainly in my culture "total disregard for even the most basic of social forums." would be a gross exaggeration and the rest of your comment would likely be perceived as far more insulting than the casual non-aggressive use of 'profanity'.
You'd be better served editing your other comment for grammar instead of debating the necessity and appropriateness of using profanity to convey emotion at a tech talk.
Excuse me? I am interested in engaging in mature dialog about the article, not getting into a grammar-nazi pissing match.
If you have a worthwhile point to make in response to mine, then please do so. However I must ask you to refrain from posting unproductive comments like this.
Exactly, and neither did I, as a Github customer. As a matter of fact, I've probably used one or two of his arguments in the past and not thought twice about it because a) I'm experienced enough to know when and where to use profanity if I so desire, and most importantly, b) I'm experienced enough to know not to cause, enable or further fuel a situation where I cannot win no matter the logic employed.
This is where Holman lets the developer community down: justifying and promoting his unacceptable behavior in order to self-promote a fake persona. That alone implies a total disregard for his audience and alerts me to the fact that aside from colorful language, he isn't that bright.
I've always felt that the way you write should be the same way you'd talk to the person if you were face to face. I'll be blunt and drop f bombs when I'm talking with people informally so if we're having a round-table discussion regarding a blog I wont be afraid to call it "fucking brilliant" or "a piece of shit" because if we were face to face over a beer, that's how I'd put it.
A friend of mine took a "Business Communication" class recently and started getting on my ass about my communication at the office saying it wasn't professional enough, I don't feel that I should be toning down my language or using "less emotion" because its how I communicate; I'm not a god damn robot! Looking at my emails over the last few months I find I'm getting more positive and personal responses from my "informal" emails than I am from the formal ones.
Zach: You get lots of people reacting to your talks because you're inflammatory. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get lots of reaction because they're inflammatory too. I'm not offended in any way by profanity in a presentation. But I know for a fact that your essay "Don't give you users shit work" did not benefit a single bit from the expletive in the title. In fact, my immediate reaction was "what 19 year old wrote this?"
You may cultivate an "edgy" persona, but it's not endearing. It may be a wise idea to take Scott Hanselman's criticism and learn from it. He's one of the best tech presenters in the world.
This is exactly what he has proven in the article.
He would rather be that much more powerful in communicating his ideas to a smaller group of people and alienating people like you. By you, I mean someone who thinks "what 19 year old wrote this?" or similar.
He outlined this in the article. He gains a deeper engagement with some people at the expense of losing others.
Is he, really, a much more powerful communicator thanks to his use of obscenities? Would he, really, connect less with the same smaller group if he didn't? Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?
(ETA: Interesting, HN won't let me reply to a downvoted reply to my post.) Verbose defenders & detractors of the practice aside, methinks many who murmur support do so from social pressures, and in fact dislike the practice but won't or can't articulate their opposition.
Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?
That is a really interesting question.
I agreed completely with Zach's post, and I've agreed with all of @gks's comments in this thread. Zach's use of swearing increases my emotional connection to what he's saying. If Zach didn't swear, he would connect less with me.
But the plural of anecdote is not data. What proportion of people are like you, and find swearing in a talk trite and cheap? What proportion of people are comfortable with Zach's slides?
You're quite right, I'm not his audience. But here's the thing, I don't believe him. It's clear to me he loves a big audience (and the attention that goes with it). He's arrogant and also rubs me as a narcissist. I feel like he's just not willing to say he made a mistake, or admit that there were better ways to make his point. I don't believe for one second he actually feels that strongly about reaching a smaller more intellectually aligned group of people. I believe he doesn't want to admit that someone else might be right.
"Together, it’s a crafted persona. That persona includes edge, informality, and passion for what I do. Sometimes I’ll swear to invoke that persona."
I understand there's a certain showmanship that goes with technical presentations, but this quote kinda sounds like something a reality show star would say.
I don't really care about profanity in speeches; I think the stronger argument was made by Rob Conery:
I'm not opposed to swearing in presentations, or anywhere for that matter. I don't cringe when I read F-bombs nor do I care if you have the word "Fuck" embroidered on your Calvins. Swearing says more about your abilities as a speaker then it does your content... that's the problem.
Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home. It can also be a crutch, one that lets you avoid having to actually come up with something interesting to say.
I was thinking the same thing: that Zach missed Rob's point a bit (but not entirely). Then again, I was assuming his response was written for Rob. I didn't read Hanselman's post. Their point is, apparently, that using swear words in your presentation is trite and pedestrian.
All I can do is shrug my shoulders. I really enjoy Zach's presentations, and I hope he keeps doing what he's doing.
Swearing, as shown by many presenters, can also have a positive effect on your talks. Zach mentions most of the reasons why in his article. Attacking a person instead of the content of his talk for using a word is ridiculous. Would someone say that Zach's talk was bad and that was using the word "fuck" to help himself?
I agree with you in the statement: Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home. If that is true then Conery's argument, in the derogatory form he uses, makes no sense.
PS: Referring to "fuck/fucking" by using "the F-bomb" makes the person look just... bad.
Swearing is used for cheap pops. And it seems like many times swearing is used in place of quality content. A real shame. How come this author didn't throw up a potty mouth in his post?
To paraphrase XKCD: When did we forget our dreams that we would rather worry about fitting into some hypothetical mold somewhere than do whatever feels right? Fuck. That. Shit.
To be honest, I don't understand the whole debate that's been raging for the past week. So Zach used a naughty word. So fucking what? Are we as a community really that petty?
hi, swizec, I "cumming" love your comment. What a "dick" argument you're having here. So awesome. Please don't ride on high horse and interpret my message wrongly. Like "very" or "awesome", I'm just "raping" to stress my point. So "cumming" cool, uh? We're so "cumming" alike in our expressions. I raping love you, bro.
Whoosh. That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
The article, and the OP, aren't saying throw in all the swear words you can find into what you say. Yours were just deragatory and purposefully put there as some out of context hyperbole.
Nice try but you didn't provide a very good argument.
The point here is that people have opinions on this. Which is great. OPINIONS are great people. The simple fact that you're discussing this is because you have an opinion on it.
When someone goes out of their way to provide emotion in a speech that should reflect that the person cares a lot about what they're talking about. He uses swearing because he has an opinion and strong opinions that he feels necessitate using strong words.
That's the same emotion and strong opinions that people like you have towards this particular topic of swearing in a talk.
It isn't any different. He chooses to communicate how he does because it shows emotion. Why does everything tech related have to be so dry? Many people love their Apple products (just an example) because they relate to it in a way. They have strong opinions and strong emotions about them.
The point I'm trying to make is that not many people interpret F bombs the way you do. Some people get excited. Some people don't care. Some people have some images flash through their head. Some people get offended. Some people get uncomfortable.The world is big. There are many different people with different cultural, religious values and social norms. Something you think is no big deal can be an offense or distraction for others. Show some respect for diversity.
You could make the exact same argument over any word in any language. People have emotional responses to words and images based on their life experiences. Some are good, some are bad. Am I not going to use the word "staircase" in my presentation because someone in the audience might have fallen down one at some point in their life?
so "fucking" and "staircase" are the same for you? If I've a female boss, I wouldn't drop F words or other sexual profanity words in front of her in work place unless I know she doesn't mind. And I can't just make assumptions for that. I'm just saying in some social environment and audience, people should think twice about dropping profanity words.
We can't bend over backwards for every single minority or religion or cultural value.
If he wasn't effective as a communicator he wouldn't be doing talks in front of large numbers of people would he? Clearly he's doing something right.
The point I guess that I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be so strung up on one or two words that show up in a presentation. The overall picture is what matters the most. If he's doing that well then who are we to argue with what he does?
Everyone presents their ideas differently. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates… Meg whatever from HP…
Some are great, some are terrible, a lot are inbetween. But I'm in the camp of people that just simply don't care so long as the message is clear. If I'm learning something, I don't care if someone swears. It just doesn't bother me. Maybe that's a problem, but there are at least two sides to this.
People that care about the swearing and those that don't. I'm sure there are others who just don't give a damn either, just like me.
If what he is doing is so wrong and terrible, then he won't be speaking anywhere again right? The concensus would be "he isn't effective at communicating and uses bad language that offends our audience. We can't have him."
At which point, he'd be forced to change, or not speak.
You're welcome to an opinion, same as I do. But you can't bend over for every single person out there. If we had to worry about people's feelings all the time the world would be dull and dry.
I would agree there are limitations to what someone should do or say in a presentation though. I don't think the f-bomb once or twice is a problem though. If he was dropping it left and right, that's another story altogether.
I am not suggesting that he wasn't effective as a communicator. In fact, I would still listen to his presentations and won't be bothered by any profanity. My point is that advocating profanity in tech presentations is not necessary. It seems like a lot of young people are eager to drop profanity words when they present to wide audiences just to show how cool and different they are. But when everyone does it in presentations, it becomes cliche or even a pain.
This comes back to know your audience, or at least know your intended audience and don't worry about everyone else.
As you allude to, it is easy to offend people unintentionally, often without realizing it. In certain parts of the Middle East, crossing your legs in such a way that the bottom of your shoe or foot is exposed is highly offensive, but most Americans wouldn’t even notice. The movie "The Last Airbender" had some issues in Britain because "bender" has a slang meaning there that has nothing to do with either elemental control or reshaping objects.
You cannot worry about the possibility of offending anyone if you want to make any kind of point at all. Rather, you take your audience into account. If I am addressing a group of Infantrymen, swearing might be quite appropriate and might both help me connect better with my audience and emphasize the part I really want them to get. If I am addressing a group of Church Elders, then swearing is probably distracting at best.
You can't go through life worrying about what might offend people. Because the scope of what people are offended by is enormous. Some people are offended by sex before marriage. Or atheists. Or religious people. Or gay people. Or vegetarians.
Sure, if you're holidaying in Saudi Arabia, you shouldn't walk around badmouthing Mohammed. But for the most part you can be certain that a small percentage of your actions will offend a small percentage of the people you meet. Such is life.
Fun fact: here in the UK, the word "git" is mildly offensive (I mentioned GitHub amongst family and got a bit of an incredulous look). The company the guy works at is an offensive word.
You made my point. You don't need to worry about it if don't know. But it would nice to be considerate when you're aware of it. I'm just worried that a lot of young presenters drop profanity words in presentations just so to make themselves look cool. I hope F bombs won't become a rule of giving tech presentations.
I think the thing that you're not getting is that it doesn't show emotion. It might, to you, but it's not inherently emotional.
This is a lesson that i keep learning over and over again in life through my various amateur creative endeavors (music, writing, art etc)...just because you feel an emotion when you're creating something, doesn't mean that that emotion is somehow magically conveyed. This is cringingly obvious whenever i read old writing or listen to old music...i remember the emotions i felt at the time but, often, none of it comes across with fresh eyes.
If you want to convey an emotion, you'll have to figure out a method to creatively help people adopt a frame of mind, which then allows them to be receptive to your subsequent message. Cursing out of the blue isn't enough to do that. It's jarring and cringey, and you (or him) will look back on it in 5 years and realise that.
It doesn't/shouldn't take away from the main content of a presentation though.
This rang a lot of bells, principally because it took a lot of unlikely words from my comment yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3213040 (high horse, "very" and "awesome" in quotes).
Anyway, since helloworld1 is a newly registered account, and is acting like a dick, and I thought it might be worthwhile to say that I'm not helloworld1.
The sentiment expressed by xkcd is great and very liberating to ponder. But I think this is off-topic.
The blog post states that "I seldom swear much outside of my slides" and "...it’s a crafted persona". Unless I am not understanding correctly, Holman is swearing as a calculated move which he believes allows him to communicate more effectively.
The xkcd comic decries filtering expression of one's personality out of fear. Here Holman is slightly altering (filtering?) his own personality, or at least creating a persona with subtle differences, for perceived benefit. You might even say he's doing it out of fear of mediocrity, though I would hesitate to put it so strongly.
People are talking about whether swearing actually is more effective, not about whether sensibilities have been offended. Holman is not the guy in the comic that others are trying to chastise for being himself.
Most of what I've seen of this debate is people crying over the fact that Holman doesn't fit into their mold of what a talk at a conference should look like.
Simply being different/edgy doesn't mean it's better or effective. Someone can attempt to be different and you know what, be wrong. It's neat they made an effort and I hope they would continue to experiment though there comes a time when we must abandon ideas we have come to love if it is shown there is a better way and it takes great character to sacrifice.
Another point is that just because something was discovered a long time ago doesn't mean it's out-of-date, irrelevant and should be replaced. Our society now seems obsessed with changing everything for the sake of changing and ignoring the foundations we have been given.
Swearing is a last resort. It can be very powerful, but it can also signify loss of emotional control or lack of imagination. Hearing swears from a person who never does (e.g. my mother) would be shocking and cutting. Hearing swears from a sailor falls into the former category.
Indeed, that's why it is best to hold the swearing unless you _really_ need to use it. It can be powerful rhetoric in the right context. But used too often, it loses its sting and merely lowers expectations for whatever comes out of the speaker's mouth.
I agree that swearing is an incredibly strong tool in human communication. However, I do not agree that it belongs anywhere near technical discussions in the field of software engineering.
The best technical content is dispassionate. Appeals to emotion obscure the underlying rational argument (assuming there is one).
That doesn't mean that talks shouldn't be exciting or interesting -- but those emotions shouldn't serve as the primary argument for whatever position is being presented. Yet, this is exactly what happens when you leverage a huge emotional trigger like swearing.
On the spectrum of human experience, does verbiage suitable for "someone's gonna die" scenarios belong down around "I hate #defines" (and oh yes I do)? If the most extreme verbiage gains acceptable use around the latter, what then can be used for the former to indicate the vast gulf between those scenarios?
If you're using obscenities to "communicate passion" for, say, how cool C++11's lambda syntax is, you're going to have a hard time expressing suitable emotions when, say, a nurse informs you your spouse's heart is being stopped on the operating table and they'll get back to you in a couple hours - and then don't for more than 5 without good reason.
Maybe that's the thing: those advocating swearing in technical presentations haven't learned what _real_ intense emotion is. As such, they can't comprehend why some people consider application of such verbiage inappropriate.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm talking about, as discussed, his public persona, but I watched his video the other day and the first phrase that came to mind to describe him was, "smug little prick". Now, that's not the sort of language I would normally use around here, but we were already on the subject of presentation, expressiveness versus politeness, etc.
Zack's talk at Ruby Midwest last weekend was, in my opinion, one of the best talks of the whole conference. Saying "meetings suck" just doesn't cut it, because usually "meetings fucking suck...hard" Maybe I'm a simpleton, but Zack's talk hit home for me, and I really appreciated the effort and passion he put into it.
Usually not a good idea to swear, especially when presenting to a wide audience. Not everyone is cool with profanity and you risk being silently judged and dismissed by those individuals as a result. Moreover, you never know where your presentation will be circulated. Not everyone understands or is fluent with extremely casual American speaking styles and idioms. Swearing just does not translate well.
Zach dealt with this, specifically, in his blog post:
I don’t view it this way. I’m less concerned about my overall reach than I am with connecting with my audience. Put another way: I’m content with losing a handful of people if that means I connect much stronger with everyone else.
"I’m content with losing a handful of people if that means I connect much stronger with everyone else." - definitely the main takeaway from this. I'd rather have half my audience write me off for swearing than have the entire audience not care about what I had to say.
As you can see from the comments here, people's reactions to swearing are all over the map. Zach guesses that for his audience swearing will lose a handful and connect stronger with the rest. Even if that guess is right for his audience (which is not a given), it might be wrong for yours. I recommend seeking other ways to help the audience care about what you say.
The thing is, I agree with you - adding swear words isn't a panacea to make your talk instantly more engaging. Far from it! But neither do I think it's a lazy way out.
I'd be really surprised if any of my professional peers were offended if I were giving a talk and dropped in a swear word or two ... and I'd rather do so, and get a good reaction from a smaller percentage than water down my enthusiasm and reach nobody strongly.
A lot of the people reacting in the comments here are your professional peers. For some, it offends their religious or cultural sensibilities. For some, it offends their taste. Some associate swearing with linguistic laziness. Others associate it with uncontrolled anger. A few might associate it with an abrasive boss. For some swearing just means enthusiasm, but what I'm saying is you're going to get all sorts of different reactions, and it's hard to say exactly what array of reactions you're going to get.
That said, if for you the only options are swearing or watering down your enthusiasm, by all means swear.
Sure, but how do you know if you've connected much stronger with everyone else? I've never left a talk thinking "I really wish that guy swore more." And I personally swear all time. But I abstain from it during presentations because at best it's a cheap technique to get something of a rise from the audience, IME.
Not in presentations, but in support it can definitely help to swear. I found that if you swear to one 'notch' less than your clients, it helps put them at ease - they're no longer worrying that you might be looking down your nose at the way they're speaking. It means the clients are more likely to pass useful content along because they're not dividing their attention watching their p's and q's.
I don't really understand why the whole issue is being blown so much out of proportions. A good developer has used "objectionable" words in his presentation to drive his point home. But really, who are we to decide if those words were indeed "objectionable"? He is the one who knows his audience best, and I think that is where we should leave it. If you found slides distasteful, just don't read them. It is that simple. You don't like the developer's style of communication? Dont follow his blog. Again really simple. But don't go around telling people how they should or should not write their presentations, let them be a judge of that.
While I didn't really connect with his use of swear words on some of his slides (Like "Fuck ruby is so fast I love it so much"), I think the fact that everyone is talking about him and his presentations that he has succeeded in some weird way I doubt he expected.
I strongly disagree with the notion that swearing is a very strong tool for communication. In the conversations I'm a part of the in the real world I hear profanity used as a completely meaningless filler word.
In my opinion, in today's popular culture profanity doesn't hold much weight at all as an effective tool for communication. While profanity is often used by people who are communicating something passionate and emotional, it is used just as often in a completely flippant and emotionally detached manner.
For people who are offended by profanity it may evoke a negative emotional response but I find for people who are comfortable with profanity, it carries very little weight or meaning except for the fact that the speaker couldn't be bothered to come up with a more meaningful word to use.
I will acknowledge that because most of society is so lazy in their use of language, there is a strong relationship between a person who is communicating passionately and the frequency of profanity usage. This is why movie writers so often lace passages of emotionally intense dialog with profanity because it reflects what we hear in the real world. I however find that relationship to be one directional. The use of a profanity doesn't imply any kind of emotion in of itself because of how prevalent flippant usage of profanity is.
I'm aware that is a personal perspective and I may not be in the majority with these views.
Swearing isn't a strong tool for communication, and the TFA is not arguing in favour of that proposition. You're arguing against somewhat of a straw man there.
Zach's point is different. It's about making a connection, establishing commonality and empathy at a human level. Carefully chosen profanity can be a branding tool; it can establish commonality with a certain group of people, and depending on when it's used, empathy too. Just about all of us swear when we accidentally hurt ourselves, for example; if we were acting that out and didn't swear (no matter how mildly), we'd seem more fake somehow, like we were pretending to be invincible or something.
And Zach has his "brand", it comes fairly easily to him, more easily than other approaches. If it turns off people who don't have that in common, that's OK.
And that connection is what in turn makes richer communication possible than dry exposition.
My reaction was to the very first line of the piece.
"Swearing is a strong tool. It can be a particularly strong tool during presentations."
I get that Zach believes he is building a connection and empathy by using profanity. My argument is the same there as well. I personally believe that profanity doesn't work well as a tool for creating personal connections and empathy either.
There is a group of people that thinks:
"Oh man! he used the f-word in his public talk. He's so passionate and edgy. I feel connected to his disregard for old-fashioned professionalism."
I would suspect the group of people that think along those lines is rather small. I would also suspect that even for those people that feel a connection, the net result of the use of that profanity in their overall take-away from the talk is a tiny positive.
I think it's more subtle - and more simple - than that. When someone uses an inoffensive professional tone, they sound fake.
Like the way a salesperson or a teacher is fake, when you meet them in those roles, rather than in a social setting of equals.
This barrier of "professionalism" is exactly what the careful use of profanity is trying to puncture. It's not the only way to puncture it; and not everyone is comfortable with puncturing it, or having it punctured. But it may be worth it for the people who prefer the closer connection.
Professionalism, almost by definition, implies distance. Your emphasis on it actually convinces me that profanity is even more useful in presentations than I thought it was; I very seldom use profanity except in the company of people I know very well, but having had this exchange with you (combined with TFA) I may use it when I next give a talk.
If you choose to be offended when someone uses profanity, that's your problem, not mine. It's not my responsibility to protect the world from potentially offensive things.
I'm with you up to a point. That you can choose to be offended by something. But I fear that sometimes it's not a choice. Certainly I've felt offended in the past by things that surprised me, that rationally shouldn't have mattered as much as they did.
>It's not my responsibility to protect the world from potentially offensive things. //
Depends on your basis for morality. I think you have some responsibility not to be gratuitously offensive [in speech]. Talking graphically about the death of the [late] beloved of a recently bereaved person might be a ready example.
I've never been offended by so-called profanity - sure the intended meaning has been offensive to me but not the particular words used. However, profanity appears to be mainly what is used by those too lazy to try and properly express themselves or too limited in their vocabulary to do the same.
Read what I wrote. I didn't say you would find it offensive, I said he was asking you in joining his side as he offended others.
A typical audience is, by continued presence and attentiveness, inclined to support what the speaker says. The speaker is not saying "fuck you" to the audience, he's saying it to a third person/thing and at minimum implicitly suggesting the audience support the notion. He's not trying to offend you, he's trying to get you to offend someone/thing else. You don't have to protect the world from the offense, but you don't have to sit there tacitly supporting it either.
What the hell does this even mean? He's 'asking' you to support the offending of a mythical "third person"? I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate.
I'm asking you to think about obscenity and offenses thereof in a completely different way than you're used to.
This means that the use of obscenity is directed at someone or something, intending offense thereto. Yes, he's asking you to support the offending of a third person (or thing), mythical or not. He is acting as an offender (whether there is a being to experience being offended or not), and he's asking you to take the role of offender as well.
Do understand: there are times when initiating offense is appropriate. There are times when asking others to join you in initiating offense is appropriate.
Some people in the audience may not want to share in offending the subject of the offense the speaker is initiating. Thus, by using obscenity, the speaker may alienate some of the audience. Now, question is, was that necessary?
187 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 246 ms ] threadI'm not going to tone down my talks (unless it's inappropriate for the audience) but I normally won't include it in a slide. There's a difference for me verbally and putting it down "on paper".
I want people to pass around my slide decks. A slide deck full of vulgarity is probably not going to get passed around. However I probably cussed like a sailor during the same presentation.
The blog post by Hanselman is here: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProfanityDoesntWork.aspx
Zach Holman slides are here: http://zachholman.com/talk/a-documentation-talk
And the HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3212694
Mr. Holman has a lot of growing up to do. Don't swear in a professional conversation, specially in front of an audience. It's unbecoming of yourself and an insult to the listener who took the time out of their day to listen.
I'm not a native speaker so my vocabulary is pretty limited, but I don't remember coming across a word that would help me express that feeling.
"This piece of software is as useful as wings on Shamu"
"This piece of software makes me want to skewer needles up my thumbs for a relaxing break."
etc. There is value in shock. The problem with profanity is that it it only shocks whoever is not used to reading it (and in public writing it's hard to tell who is and who is not).
Whales like to jump, surely Shamu would rather like to have wings, and the second is a great deal more distressing to me than just a silly little word could possibly be. I don't think either of these are an improvement upon the first at all.
Judging by this entire tizzy HN has worked itself into, I'd say profanity doesn't run the risk of running out of "shock potential" anytime soon.
I honestly believe this is an instance of generally rational people becoming offended for a reason they don't quite understand, and inventing a theory to explain the data.
It adds nothing.
Edit: To respond to both of you and not be repetitive, I would like to refer both of you to the comment that I have made here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3217649
Swearing works in private conversation for the same reason that other slang and spoken shortcuts work, and it works in casual written conversation for the same reason that abbreviations, shorthand, and inattention to capitalization, spelling, and punctuation work: there's no real expectation of quality. Sure it's lazy and shows a lack of caring, but if a friend is shooting me an email to ask if I'm up for Thai tonight, I don't expect her to proofread and capitalize before sending. That's an appropriate amount of effort for the situation.
If you're putting that much effort into a presentation to someone you hope will give you money, however, that's just plain rude.
(Some folks, and I suspect this is true for HN commenters at a much higher proportion than it is true for the general population, prefer to spend the time on all communication, regardless of formality or venue, to make it decent. I believe this is a good habit to cultivate, but I don't insist upon it in others).
In a time of crisis, some swearing is appropriate to convey urgency to the listener. At a nerd meetup? Hardly.
I think that a lot what you are describing is heavily dependent upon the culture of the participants. Certainly in my culture "total disregard for even the most basic of social forums." would be a gross exaggeration and the rest of your comment would likely be perceived as far more insulting than the casual non-aggressive use of 'profanity'.
If you have a worthwhile point to make in response to mine, then please do so. However I must ask you to refrain from posting unproductive comments like this.
Exactly, and neither did I, as a Github customer. As a matter of fact, I've probably used one or two of his arguments in the past and not thought twice about it because a) I'm experienced enough to know when and where to use profanity if I so desire, and most importantly, b) I'm experienced enough to know not to cause, enable or further fuel a situation where I cannot win no matter the logic employed.
This is where Holman lets the developer community down: justifying and promoting his unacceptable behavior in order to self-promote a fake persona. That alone implies a total disregard for his audience and alerts me to the fact that aside from colorful language, he isn't that bright.
A friend of mine took a "Business Communication" class recently and started getting on my ass about my communication at the office saying it wasn't professional enough, I don't feel that I should be toning down my language or using "less emotion" because its how I communicate; I'm not a god damn robot! Looking at my emails over the last few months I find I'm getting more positive and personal responses from my "informal" emails than I am from the formal ones.
People like talking to people, don't change that.
E.g. http://zachholman.com/posts/shit-work/
And yesterday a rant on usage of swearing words in talks is given in many places including [1] & [2] on hacker news.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3212694
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3194287
You may cultivate an "edgy" persona, but it's not endearing. It may be a wise idea to take Scott Hanselman's criticism and learn from it. He's one of the best tech presenters in the world.
He would rather be that much more powerful in communicating his ideas to a smaller group of people and alienating people like you. By you, I mean someone who thinks "what 19 year old wrote this?" or similar.
He outlined this in the article. He gains a deeper engagement with some people at the expense of losing others.
He isn't concerned about losing you, dear reader.
(ETA: Interesting, HN won't let me reply to a downvoted reply to my post.) Verbose defenders & detractors of the practice aside, methinks many who murmur support do so from social pressures, and in fact dislike the practice but won't or can't articulate their opposition.
That is a really interesting question.
I agreed completely with Zach's post, and I've agreed with all of @gks's comments in this thread. Zach's use of swearing increases my emotional connection to what he's saying. If Zach didn't swear, he would connect less with me.
But the plural of anecdote is not data. What proportion of people are like you, and find swearing in a talk trite and cheap? What proportion of people are comfortable with Zach's slides?
We should do science.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/03/shit-work
So I'd say it did benefit.
"Shit work" is an evocative image that is more than just swearing.
I understand there's a certain showmanship that goes with technical presentations, but this quote kinda sounds like something a reality show star would say.
I'm not opposed to swearing in presentations, or anywhere for that matter. I don't cringe when I read F-bombs nor do I care if you have the word "Fuck" embroidered on your Calvins. Swearing says more about your abilities as a speaker then it does your content... that's the problem.
http://wekeroad.com/2011/11/08/some-people-not-have-way
Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home. It can also be a crutch, one that lets you avoid having to actually come up with something interesting to say.
All I can do is shrug my shoulders. I really enjoy Zach's presentations, and I hope he keeps doing what he's doing.
I agree with you in the statement: Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home. If that is true then Conery's argument, in the derogatory form he uses, makes no sense.
PS: Referring to "fuck/fucking" by using "the F-bomb" makes the person look just... bad.
When people become completely adjusted to swearing and it no longer helps 'drive a point home' (For some people), what will these people rely on then?
http://xkcd.com/137/
To be honest, I don't understand the whole debate that's been raging for the past week. So Zach used a naughty word. So fucking what? Are we as a community really that petty?
Thanks again. Seriously.
The article, and the OP, aren't saying throw in all the swear words you can find into what you say. Yours were just deragatory and purposefully put there as some out of context hyperbole.
Nice try but you didn't provide a very good argument.
The point here is that people have opinions on this. Which is great. OPINIONS are great people. The simple fact that you're discussing this is because you have an opinion on it.
When someone goes out of their way to provide emotion in a speech that should reflect that the person cares a lot about what they're talking about. He uses swearing because he has an opinion and strong opinions that he feels necessitate using strong words.
That's the same emotion and strong opinions that people like you have towards this particular topic of swearing in a talk.
It isn't any different. He chooses to communicate how he does because it shows emotion. Why does everything tech related have to be so dry? Many people love their Apple products (just an example) because they relate to it in a way. They have strong opinions and strong emotions about them.
This is no different.
Give me a break.
If he wasn't effective as a communicator he wouldn't be doing talks in front of large numbers of people would he? Clearly he's doing something right.
The point I guess that I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be so strung up on one or two words that show up in a presentation. The overall picture is what matters the most. If he's doing that well then who are we to argue with what he does?
Everyone presents their ideas differently. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates… Meg whatever from HP…
Some are great, some are terrible, a lot are inbetween. But I'm in the camp of people that just simply don't care so long as the message is clear. If I'm learning something, I don't care if someone swears. It just doesn't bother me. Maybe that's a problem, but there are at least two sides to this.
People that care about the swearing and those that don't. I'm sure there are others who just don't give a damn either, just like me.
If what he is doing is so wrong and terrible, then he won't be speaking anywhere again right? The concensus would be "he isn't effective at communicating and uses bad language that offends our audience. We can't have him."
At which point, he'd be forced to change, or not speak.
You're welcome to an opinion, same as I do. But you can't bend over for every single person out there. If we had to worry about people's feelings all the time the world would be dull and dry.
I would agree there are limitations to what someone should do or say in a presentation though. I don't think the f-bomb once or twice is a problem though. If he was dropping it left and right, that's another story altogether.
As you allude to, it is easy to offend people unintentionally, often without realizing it. In certain parts of the Middle East, crossing your legs in such a way that the bottom of your shoe or foot is exposed is highly offensive, but most Americans wouldn’t even notice. The movie "The Last Airbender" had some issues in Britain because "bender" has a slang meaning there that has nothing to do with either elemental control or reshaping objects.
You cannot worry about the possibility of offending anyone if you want to make any kind of point at all. Rather, you take your audience into account. If I am addressing a group of Infantrymen, swearing might be quite appropriate and might both help me connect better with my audience and emphasize the part I really want them to get. If I am addressing a group of Church Elders, then swearing is probably distracting at best.
Sure, if you're holidaying in Saudi Arabia, you shouldn't walk around badmouthing Mohammed. But for the most part you can be certain that a small percentage of your actions will offend a small percentage of the people you meet. Such is life.
Fun fact: here in the UK, the word "git" is mildly offensive (I mentioned GitHub amongst family and got a bit of an incredulous look). The company the guy works at is an offensive word.
Git is not a harsh word, it's used more playfully than anything IME.
This is a lesson that i keep learning over and over again in life through my various amateur creative endeavors (music, writing, art etc)...just because you feel an emotion when you're creating something, doesn't mean that that emotion is somehow magically conveyed. This is cringingly obvious whenever i read old writing or listen to old music...i remember the emotions i felt at the time but, often, none of it comes across with fresh eyes.
If you want to convey an emotion, you'll have to figure out a method to creatively help people adopt a frame of mind, which then allows them to be receptive to your subsequent message. Cursing out of the blue isn't enough to do that. It's jarring and cringey, and you (or him) will look back on it in 5 years and realise that.
It doesn't/shouldn't take away from the main content of a presentation though.
Anyway, since helloworld1 is a newly registered account, and is acting like a dick, and I thought it might be worthwhile to say that I'm not helloworld1.
The blog post states that "I seldom swear much outside of my slides" and "...it’s a crafted persona". Unless I am not understanding correctly, Holman is swearing as a calculated move which he believes allows him to communicate more effectively.
The xkcd comic decries filtering expression of one's personality out of fear. Here Holman is slightly altering (filtering?) his own personality, or at least creating a persona with subtle differences, for perceived benefit. You might even say he's doing it out of fear of mediocrity, though I would hesitate to put it so strongly.
People are talking about whether swearing actually is more effective, not about whether sensibilities have been offended. Holman is not the guy in the comic that others are trying to chastise for being himself.
Another point is that just because something was discovered a long time ago doesn't mean it's out-of-date, irrelevant and should be replaced. Our society now seems obsessed with changing everything for the sake of changing and ignoring the foundations we have been given.
The best technical content is dispassionate. Appeals to emotion obscure the underlying rational argument (assuming there is one).
That doesn't mean that talks shouldn't be exciting or interesting -- but those emotions shouldn't serve as the primary argument for whatever position is being presented. Yet, this is exactly what happens when you leverage a huge emotional trigger like swearing.
On the spectrum of human experience, does verbiage suitable for "someone's gonna die" scenarios belong down around "I hate #defines" (and oh yes I do)? If the most extreme verbiage gains acceptable use around the latter, what then can be used for the former to indicate the vast gulf between those scenarios?
If you're using obscenities to "communicate passion" for, say, how cool C++11's lambda syntax is, you're going to have a hard time expressing suitable emotions when, say, a nurse informs you your spouse's heart is being stopped on the operating table and they'll get back to you in a couple hours - and then don't for more than 5 without good reason.
Maybe that's the thing: those advocating swearing in technical presentations haven't learned what _real_ intense emotion is. As such, they can't comprehend why some people consider application of such verbiage inappropriate.
He is implying that given his stated goal of a passionate reader base, profanity is a necessary evil. I dispute the necessary part.
I don’t view it this way. I’m less concerned about my overall reach than I am with connecting with my audience. Put another way: I’m content with losing a handful of people if that means I connect much stronger with everyone else.
I'd be really surprised if any of my professional peers were offended if I were giving a talk and dropped in a swear word or two ... and I'd rather do so, and get a good reaction from a smaller percentage than water down my enthusiasm and reach nobody strongly.
That said, if for you the only options are swearing or watering down your enthusiasm, by all means swear.
In my opinion, in today's popular culture profanity doesn't hold much weight at all as an effective tool for communication. While profanity is often used by people who are communicating something passionate and emotional, it is used just as often in a completely flippant and emotionally detached manner.
For people who are offended by profanity it may evoke a negative emotional response but I find for people who are comfortable with profanity, it carries very little weight or meaning except for the fact that the speaker couldn't be bothered to come up with a more meaningful word to use.
I will acknowledge that because most of society is so lazy in their use of language, there is a strong relationship between a person who is communicating passionately and the frequency of profanity usage. This is why movie writers so often lace passages of emotionally intense dialog with profanity because it reflects what we hear in the real world. I however find that relationship to be one directional. The use of a profanity doesn't imply any kind of emotion in of itself because of how prevalent flippant usage of profanity is.
I'm aware that is a personal perspective and I may not be in the majority with these views.
Zach's point is different. It's about making a connection, establishing commonality and empathy at a human level. Carefully chosen profanity can be a branding tool; it can establish commonality with a certain group of people, and depending on when it's used, empathy too. Just about all of us swear when we accidentally hurt ourselves, for example; if we were acting that out and didn't swear (no matter how mildly), we'd seem more fake somehow, like we were pretending to be invincible or something.
And Zach has his "brand", it comes fairly easily to him, more easily than other approaches. If it turns off people who don't have that in common, that's OK.
And that connection is what in turn makes richer communication possible than dry exposition.
"Swearing is a strong tool. It can be a particularly strong tool during presentations."
I get that Zach believes he is building a connection and empathy by using profanity. My argument is the same there as well. I personally believe that profanity doesn't work well as a tool for creating personal connections and empathy either.
There is a group of people that thinks: "Oh man! he used the f-word in his public talk. He's so passionate and edgy. I feel connected to his disregard for old-fashioned professionalism."
I would suspect the group of people that think along those lines is rather small. I would also suspect that even for those people that feel a connection, the net result of the use of that profanity in their overall take-away from the talk is a tiny positive.
Like the way a salesperson or a teacher is fake, when you meet them in those roles, rather than in a social setting of equals.
This barrier of "professionalism" is exactly what the careful use of profanity is trying to puncture. It's not the only way to puncture it; and not everyone is comfortable with puncturing it, or having it punctured. But it may be worth it for the people who prefer the closer connection.
Professionalism, almost by definition, implies distance. Your emphasis on it actually convinces me that profanity is even more useful in presentations than I thought it was; I very seldom use profanity except in the company of people I know very well, but having had this exchange with you (combined with TFA) I may use it when I next give a talk.
The source is available here: https://github.com/holman/holman.github.com
If you choose to be offended when someone uses profanity, that's your problem, not mine. It's not my responsibility to protect the world from potentially offensive things.
>It's not my responsibility to protect the world from potentially offensive things. //
Depends on your basis for morality. I think you have some responsibility not to be gratuitously offensive [in speech]. Talking graphically about the death of the [late] beloved of a recently bereaved person might be a ready example.
I've never been offended by so-called profanity - sure the intended meaning has been offensive to me but not the particular words used. However, profanity appears to be mainly what is used by those too lazy to try and properly express themselves or too limited in their vocabulary to do the same.
A typical audience is, by continued presence and attentiveness, inclined to support what the speaker says. The speaker is not saying "fuck you" to the audience, he's saying it to a third person/thing and at minimum implicitly suggesting the audience support the notion. He's not trying to offend you, he's trying to get you to offend someone/thing else. You don't have to protect the world from the offense, but you don't have to sit there tacitly supporting it either.
This means that the use of obscenity is directed at someone or something, intending offense thereto. Yes, he's asking you to support the offending of a third person (or thing), mythical or not. He is acting as an offender (whether there is a being to experience being offended or not), and he's asking you to take the role of offender as well.
Do understand: there are times when initiating offense is appropriate. There are times when asking others to join you in initiating offense is appropriate.
Some people in the audience may not want to share in offending the subject of the offense the speaker is initiating. Thus, by using obscenity, the speaker may alienate some of the audience. Now, question is, was that necessary?
Without significant substantiating evidence, I am forced to object to this premise.
You are going to need to back that up before the rest of your argument can be coherent.
But lets start simple. What about: "I've got to go take a piss." (Urinate), "He looks rather pissed" (angry), and "Let's get pissed" (drunk).