in reply to Re^3: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
in thread Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity

Let's steer this back on topic. As important as religion may be, whether of the Christion, athiest or agnostic variety, Perl Monks is not a good place to sort it out (the name of the place not withstanding). The current topic is decorum, offense, and how much we cramp our style in order to be inclusive of those with different sensibilities. Such a matter of the conventions of courtesy is important for any community, especially one like PM, and it's therefore on-topic for this section.

Different people are shocked by different things. I'm shocked by exlusive use of single letter variables in a large piece of production code. Graphic descriptions of consumption of human flesh and/or excrement are way beyond what I'm willing to read, even if they are part of someone's swearing about something that's realy bad. Others may have better code-reading comprehension or stronger stomachs.

Courtesy requires that one at least start by taking someone at their word about what shocks or hurts them. Of the following responses:

I believe that all but the last are appropriate courtesy in the right circumstances. From her writings, I'm pretty sure the American "Miss Manners" (aka Judith Martin) would agree with that.

In the situation referred in the OP of this thread, I'd vote for the the first of these responses as the most appropriate for Dr.Hyde's response in those circumstances. Others may choose differently, but that's the boundary the OP of this thread is asking about, I believe.

  • Comment on Re^4: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by woolfy (Chaplain) on Aug 23, 2006 at 19:47 UTC
    You forgot one possible response:
    - Hey come on, I was just teasing, and if you feel offended, it's mostly your own problem. Grow up and find out why you are offended.

    I've got no problem saying sorry if the person I offended is really shocked, nearly in tears, but I'd just say sorry about them feeling so rotten, but not sorry about what I said. I've been insulted often enough (I'm a female of 6'6", I'm quite a bit overweight, I used to stutter, and I got several other flaws) and I've grown a rather thick skin. I can handle those insults. I've read a lot about insults and worse done to christians and as history shows, christians have taken a lot of insults and handled them quite well.

    The OP was just teasing. The insulted guy has to grow a thicker skin.

    Wendy

    Update: Really, some christians need a thicker skin. I really am sorry that so many people seem to be so immature. Why do you believe in christ? Is your believe really so easy shocked, is it such a feeble believe? When a non-believer criticizes your believe, just shrug and go on with your life. Even when a non-believer like me is vague or self-righteous. You know better, don't you? Do you? Really? So, just ignore me, and ignore the other non-believers. Or show your own wit, your own sense of humour. Most non-believers have a thick skin.

[reply]
      Update:The original post in the text below the line was grossly insensitive and condescending on my part and I'm sorry I wrote it, but I did write it and it stands intact as a testimony to my stupidity, as well as an object refered to by some clear and concise comments from BroserUK in posts below it.
      Double plus (really, that's my vote) for coming up with another version of the generic
      I'm sorry you're offended
      Judith Martin classes these as non-apology apologies. These statements add a second insult in the form of an apology, in this case it's basically "I'm sorry you're so immature."

      In practice, these replies are a bad move, leading to further miscommunication. The insultee feels further insulted (quite reasonably), and the insultor thinks "What's the matter with him? I apologized, didn't I.", and leaves with either a vague uneasiness, or a naive self-righteousness.

      Of such things are family splits and community divisions made.

[reply]

        I find this post extremely offensive.

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion