[stndef]

I think we need to be a bit more careful and considerate around the use of language around physical abuse, or abuse in general, and using software.

Saying that here as someone that isn't fond of the Windows experience these days, but the two are not relatable.

[nextlevelwizard]

Beating is a normal English idiom. While I do sympathize with anyone suffering from abuse, I highly doubt anyone is actually suffering from use of the word.

[afandian]

I agree with stndef. "Flowers after beating" is a very direct evocation of physical abuse in an intimate relationship. Whether or not you think it's appropriate.

[arowthway]

If you don't claim it's inapropriate then what's left to agree about?

[quietbritishjim]

I their point was: the comment they were replying to ("Beating is a normal English idiom") was being disingenuous.

Saying something like "the benchmarks took a beating in the new version" would be inoffensive but "flowers after the beating" is much more specifically about abuse in a relationship.

I don't think "Whether or not you think it's appropriate" was meant to say, don't worry it's fine. I think it just meant, let's not justify by pretending that it's about something different than it obviously is.

[arowthway]

Thanks, I get it now. I'm not sure if the comment was necessarily disingenuous but it's clearly not used as an idiom.

[afandian]

There are all kinds of language registers for communication. From formal business speak to 'locker room banter'. What is appropriate or otherwise depends entirely on the participants of the conversation. So, it depends on what kind of conversation we're trying to have.

I think this post's usage is meant deliberately to be a bit edgy, to illustrate how badly Microsoft has behaved.

An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.

Personally, data point of 1, I think it's a bit distasteful, and would prefer to participate in a community that doesn't routinely use that kind of langauge.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[JollySharp0]

> An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.

I think you guys complaining about provocative title and not not the substance of what is said, is what people are taking issue with.

If I didn't know better, I would honestly think it is concern trolling.

> I think it's a bit distasteful, and would prefer to participate in a community that doesn't routinely use that kind of langauge.

The entire point is that it is provocative and hyperbolic to make a statement. Often to make a statement you have to act outside what is considered polite norms and ruffle the feathers.

If Sam had given this a nice polite title (as per your preference), not as many people would have taken notice of it.

[afandian]

I hope you can take on trust that this is a genuine, exploration of the original point about language. And FTR I have a very low opinion of MS and have had since the late 90s.

There are usually all kinds of twists and turns in a HN discussion. And it's not like we're discussing the background colour or something far off-topic, the title is a pretty noticeable part of the article. I don't think it should be verboten to discuss these things.

I agree that transgressive speech is an important tool, and tone policing is generally bad news.

To each their own.

[arowthway]

I don't think it's fair to expect people to autocensor based on ill-defined, circular notions of taste and appropriateness, at least not in edge cases where these notions clearly vary from person to person. If the reasoning is something like "an abuse victim might read this and feel bad" or "a stupid person might confuse social license for edginess with license for being a bad person", then that's a discussion we can have.

[blenderob]

> An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.

I don't understand how HN's news guidelines apply to a blogger writing an article on their own blog. The controversial language was found in the article. It wasn't found in the thread you're replying to.

[stndef]

I'm willing to be wrong, but it's specifically mentioned as an analogy for abuse in the article itself.

Not trying to turn everything "woke", but phrasing of scenarios around this just takes away from the severity of what actual abuse is.

[arowthway]

How does it take away from the severity of actual abuse? By not mentioning it when it's not relevant to the analogy?

[someguyiguess]

It’s actually more triggering / offensive that you brought up abuse when no one was talking about abuse. This site is for adults who understand the concept of analogies. You just wanted to bring up the topic of abuse for whatever reason. Why?

[bee_rider]

The article comes back to the abuse analogy multiple times. If you want to defend that as fine, go for it, but in no way is it a new topic that the poster here brought up.

[dontwannahearit]

Oh please, TFA has a title of "Flowers after the beating" - its a direct reference to domestic abuse which attempts to equate Microsofts behaviour and that of a domestic abuser.

Username checks out, but you might want to check with your mother about how she feels about this comparison.

TFA brings up abuse not stndef.

An analogy is "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects" and stndef is right to point out that microsoft behavior, while abusive, is not comparable to domestic abuse "in significant respects". Not even close.

The TFA title is sensational for effect and in very poor taste.