Agreed to some extent, but imo it's not the swearing that distracts as much as the underlying intention to manipulate the audience, and the sense of egoism behind it.
F-bombs-away as far as I'm concerned, but don't pretend you're Howard Stern and I'm a 'loyal follower'. We're coders, let's talk code. Funny is one thing, wit is fine, a little punk rock in your presentation never hurt anybody. But the idea that we need to craft ourselves into a 'brand' is crass to me.
We all have brands; in public, we try to be consistent with an idea we have of ourselves. Only some of us use that word thusly, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
So I ask you: is your objection to the use of the word, or to the notion of a consistent self?
(Every act of communication is an attempt to manipulate: to teach, to convince, to humour, etc. Saying that is almost meaningless in this context, unless you have specific moral wrongs in mind.)
We all edit ourselves and present various versions, but hopefully the personas we create have an integrity beyond an intention to 'brand' ourselves in simple marketing scheme.
I like the way you phrased that: 'consistent self'. It's true we have lots of 'selves,' but hopefully we work to integrate those and connect them to some truth about us that's more than simply 'build a following.'
The idea of a persona as a 'brand', it seems to me reduces too quickly to commericalism or ego or both.
F-bombs-away as far as I'm concerned, but don't pretend you're Howard Stern and I'm a 'loyal follower'. We're coders, let's talk code. Funny is one thing, wit is fine, a little punk rock in your presentation never hurt anybody. But the idea that we need to craft ourselves into a 'brand' is crass to me.