At work, we have a trillion custom slack emojis, and one is a big X with the caption “no-just”, encouraging people to refrain using just in sentences like “you just need to set up the Kafka consumer”.

Now that I’m writing this out, it sounds kinda dystopian , but I actually appreciate the doublethink. I believe that pruning “just” (and cousins like “really” “very”, “it” the direct object/noun, “something”) has increased the clarity of my writing.

I think that these words actually do have a use, but only in long recurring interactions where it’s clear that you don’t use these words in everyday communication. Humans are language detectives, and will detect these changes in speech as a signal of emotion. When you’re sincerely emotional about something, these normally vacuous words can be super meaningful. You can even use them in documentation (sparingly), to make a point.

There’s a Tao Te Ching verse about how the wise practice “not-talking”. The implication is that normalizing silence makes words more meaningful: words only carry meaning because they contrast with silence, so if you’re talking all the time nobody will listen to you. It’s a good idea with many implications and applications, and I think it applies to these words. :)

But "you need to set up the Kafka consumer" and "you just need to set up the Kafka consumer" have different meanings.

You're not just pruning, but changing the meaning. The latter implies there is only one thing you need to do, while the former is open ended, and could imply the beginning of a set of needs.

"Just" can also add emphasis. "That's stupid" and "that's just stupid" have different nuance.

Perhaps the intent is to not be belittling, or, relatedly, not imply that something should be trivial for everyone.

If someone replied to me that I "just need to set up the Kafka consumer" I'd have no idea how to do that, and would potentially feel embarrassed about needing to ask for further information.

Yeah you’re right. Most sentences don’t survive subtracting the word “just” exactly as they were written. It’s more food for thought. I agree it changes the meaning, and I wouldn’t advocate a universal ban (your example is evidence for the second half of my original post, I think).