Fake examples:
> It took me forever to find a good font for my webcomic that wasn't comic sans.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't use a perfects good font, lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's a font! For Microsoft Bob's sake. How bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
> John Smith, 56, was arrested for indecent exposure in a playground while laughing maniacally.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't show our entire bodies in public lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's a body part. I mean, it's how all other animals live - how bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
> Riots ensue as it is leaked that all Burger King meat has been human meat, this whole time.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't eat human meat lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's meat! For meat's sake. I mean, at the point where a human is dead, why can't we eat the meat? How bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
1: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/anthony-scaramucci/in...
2: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/27/anthony-scaramucc...
3: http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/anthony-scaramucci-steve-ba...
Is it such a bad thing to ty to empathize with others and avoid offending when it's clear that an action or speech probably will? Maybe it's because these days speech is often read by potentially millions of people. And, in those cases, it's almost impossible to not offend someone. So, since it's probably impossible to not offend someone, one might as well just let loose and not worry if you offend everyone? Is that the logic - to avoid overthinking and cognitive overload?
To be clear, I'm talking about news articles accurately referencing and representing what they are reporting. I'm not sure how you can get more contextually appropriate than that. I'm not talking about how professional communication should use swearing because it's fun. I'm talking about how they feel the need to go out of their way to not accurately represent the name of what they are talking about or the actual words that are the cause of the news itself.
It's like people being offended if my last name is "babcock" because it has "cock" in it. At some point it switches from one party making an effort to present themselves civilly to the other party being uncivil by taking umbrage over small, inconsequential items. In this case, news agencies are apparently so worried over the latter that journalism suffers (we'll call the article in question here journalism, and leave the Scaramucci news articles out of it to prevent muddying the issue...). I think that's a real shame.
Down the slippery slope to trigger words and microagressions.
> A bathing suit is not considered appropriate at a wedding.
> Emoji is not considered appropriate at a funeral.
> White pants are not considered appropriate after Labor Day.
> Swearing is not considered appropriate in certain styles of journalism.
All of these, when viewed at a low enough level of abstraction (we're all just atoms!) make no sense. But that doesn't mean we should do away with them all.
News agencies do not sell clarity and accuracy, they sell advertising views. Enough of the suppliers of advertising views will stop supplying that good for news agencies to sell if they encounter a “fuck”, even in a context where it wouldn't earn an FCC fine, that news agencies have a clear economic incentive to avoid the word.
The problem is ultimately those people that care that the word is used, but not why or how.
To me that feels like something society is struggling with lately. People looking for something to belong to, and attaching themselves to groups and causes without fully understanding the cause. Promoting civility is good. Condemning certain words in all contexts is not about civility. It's about proving you belong.
I'm not in the least bit offended by swearing and swear liberally amongst friends, but curse words (taboo words) do exist, and some people are bothered by them. It's not an expensive courtesy to just not swear to strangers, so why not extend that courtesy?
I'm a big believer in the right to offend, but that doesn't mean we should do so needlessly.
If the actual name is Big Fucking Rocket, maybe that's what media should report.
But if Musk says "Big Fucking Rocket" on stage, TV news can't quote him. That's counterproductive to his goals, but using a heavy implication both allows him a broader audience and lets every adult know they've got the 'cheeky' name for it.
In that context, it makes sense to avoid using swear words in more professional settings if you want to avoid giving the audience the associated emotional reaction; it's distracting at best and offensive at worst, and it's easier just to find another way to communicate which word was meant.
There's a lot of words that require some sort of care in their use lest some of the potential connotations carried offend or don't communicate intended meaning.
You might not care about this word -- or, more likely, you care very much about its use, otherwise you wouldn't be fucking talking about it like fucking pedant who is so fucking proud of his fucking adolescent pretensions of having thought about language -- but you probably care about some words and how their varied and overloaded use can affect communication.
(There's a much more diplomatic way I could have my little apositive screed up in the last paragraph. That's part of the point.)
So for the most part I would say "either swear or don't", but if you are going to play that game, you need to be better at it, and call it something like "a big functional rocket" or "a big futuristic rocket", which is plausible, and then remain completely straight-faced, forever, never admitting in public or private there could be any other meaning for the acronym, ever. Leave historians a hundred years from now guessing.
"Wink wink, I'm not cussing!!!" is just another version of "I'm not touching you!!!".
You just picked out one example. That defies my definition of generally?
Also, loanwords like fakku are a legitimate part of the language. The katakana script is used almost exclusively for them and many sentences have them, spoken and written.
F does stand for fun. A lot of it. It's really down to attitude.
I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it.
It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point where it's used more often as garnish in it's various adverb and noun forms than it's original verb form, you know, to fuck, how bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
Now watch this get auto-depressed by HN's incendiary comment detection filters.
Edit: If you see this reach the top, please downvote or unvote. I'm interested in this topic, but it doesn't deserve to overshadow real discussion about the submission.