Coarse language is (at least perceived to be) correlated with a lack of interest in reasonable discussion; If someone says "he should be teaching his son Python, not Javascript", you might be able to have a decent conversation with them about the relative merits of the languages. If someone says "... not fucking Javascript", that's not gonna happen.

Additionally, coarse language gets people's backs up -- people use more of it when they're... "being emotional", as it were, and it tends to bring out emotional (cf reasoned) responses in kind.

In other words, profanity is mutually causal with poor-quality discussion, by virtue of it being mutually causal with emotion overriding reason. I'd consider anything satisfying that property to be uncivil by definition, but that's semantics -- regardless, I conclude that coarse language is generally out of place on HN.

(Incidentally, I see dismissing attitudes you disagree with as "silly" and "to be moved past" in a similar light -- like profanity, it stands in lieu of reasoned argument, and the only effect it may have is to annoy those who hold the original sentiment.)

I don't see what swearing has to do with reasonable discourse - logic stands regardless of how it is communicated. Furthermore, there is always room for expression that is related to the topic. Are we limited to reasonable discourse? Are we not allowed to express how we feel about the topic at hand? I don't think that lack of reasonable discussion implies lack of civility. People can be passionate (even expressing this through profanity) without detracting from the discussion at all.

Nonetheless, I see your point when extrapolated to wider use. I also admit that I am biased in also hating Javascript; in a different context, I'm sure I'd be equally as upset.

Actually, you make a good point, there's no reason profanity must "stand in lieu of reasoned argument". In fact, a persuasive case can be made all the more impactful and compelling with a bit of coarse language, tactically applied to convey emotional context -- consider some of the content on, say, Cracked, or the Oatmeal.

So, on further reflection, I guess what irked me more was that the original post contributed nothing to the conversation, rather than the profanity therein; it's just easier to notice things present than things absent.

I suppose there's a "quality hierarchy" of sorts in my mind (loosely corresponding to upmod/abstain/downmod):

  - well-argued comments, in which case manners are incidental
  - poorly-argued comments, but at least they're polite
  - neither well-argued nor polite

I agree with the guy's actual statement but I agree with you that the coarse phrasing was unnecessary and unhelpful here

Apologies. My statement should have read:

"No, Python is what John should be teaching his son, not the abysmal JavaScript."