Re^2: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity

I tend to agree with you. Still, we do provide guidelines for consideration, as you point out. I guess what I thought worthy of discussion is whether the community at large considers posts such as the example that prompted the top node to fall within those guidelines.

My guess from your comment is that your idea of "egregiously offensive" would probably not include relatively vague sacriledge. Do I understand you correctly?

<–radiant.matrix–>
A collection of thoughts and links from the minds of geeks
The Code that can be seen is not the true Code
I haven't found a problem yet that can't be solved by a well-placed trebuchet

Comment on Re^2: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity by xdg (Monsignor) on Aug 22, 2006 at 13:49 UTC
I guess what I thought worthy of discussion is whether the community at large considers posts such as the example that prompted the top node to fall within those guidelines That's a bit of a different question -- "does this post cross the line/zone?" versus "where do we draw the line?". I understand how people of faith would be offended by the post in question and I think using an expression like that displays poor judgment. However, the definition of "egregious" includes reference to words like "blatant" and "flagrant" and I'm not sure it quite reaches that standard. For me, I tend to be fairly reluctant to censor unintentional offensiveness. What crosses the line for me in a community setting is more akin to "willful" offensiveness -- comments made that are intended to inflame or incite or hurt the feelings of others. (I.e. "flames" and "trolls".) I don't think the author of the post in question set out to offend and thus I, personally, would not consider the node. -xdg Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by xdg (Monsignor) on Aug 22, 2006 at 13:49 UTC

I guess what I thought worthy of discussion is whether the community at large considers posts such as the example that prompted the top node to fall within those guidelines

That's a bit of a different question -- "does this post cross the line/zone?" versus "where do we draw the line?".

I understand how people of faith would be offended by the post in question and I think using an expression like that displays poor judgment. However, the definition of "egregious" includes reference to words like "blatant" and "flagrant" and I'm not sure it quite reaches that standard.

For me, I tend to be fairly reluctant to censor unintentional offensiveness. What crosses the line for me in a community setting is more akin to "willful" offensiveness -- comments made that are intended to inflame or incite or hurt the feelings of others. (I.e. "flames" and "trolls".) I don't think the author of the post in question set out to offend and thus I, personally, would not consider the node.

-xdg

Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

[reply]