One of the things I love about this æthereal Monestary we tend is how laid-back the moderation system is. Partly, this is because the majority of our bretheren and visitors are reasonably well-behaved, and partly it is because it takes a fair bit to get our collective hackles up.
Of course, we do have our limits: ad hominem attacks are rarely tolerated, and they are never deemed appropriate. Even here, though, it takes a fairly eggregious case to invoke the dreaded NodeReaper.
However, this response to this node does raise a question. Now, I have several responses in that (admittedly horribly off-topic) thread that pretty clearly state my position: less-than flattering references to religious figures, especially when intended to be humorous, are not something I think is inappropriate.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that some people were seriously offended. Because of that, I think it's worth some open debate; however, I don't want to get into arguing the fate of that particular thread. Rather, I'd like to pose a broader debate.
From one point of view, I certainly have no desire to promote behavior that would alienate members of the Monestary. However, there are two other points of view to consider. Firstly, when we start trying to define what "offensive" material is, we can get onto a very slippery slope: especially when it comes to spiritual beliefs. Secondly, I know that I am not so easily offended when people poke fun at my beliefs, and I suspect many of my fellow Monks feel the same.
So, where should we draw the line?
|
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by xdg (Monsignor) on Aug 21, 2006 at 18:32 UTC
|
So, where should we draw the line?
We shouldn't attempt to draw a line. We have a perfectly decent "gray zone" that gives monks of rank Friar or better the power to consider a node and then reach a consensus for action. What is consideration? offers guidelines. For reaping, it refers to "egregiously offensive" -- a fairly high bar. This is community consensus and a dynamic one, which, in my opinion, will always reach a more common-sense solution than any attempt to define "a line".
-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] |
|
|
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?
| [reply] |
|
|
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] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Aug 21, 2006 at 19:07 UTC
|
So, where should we draw the line?
No one has the right never to be offended on this site.
However, repeatedly mocking someone (say, Re^5: RFC: Acme::BottomsUp) who's said "Hey, that offended me!" is plain rude.
Agree or disagree, I don't care, but at least pretend you can be a civil human being. When you must offend someone else, do it over something substantive that has some degree of actual mattering with regard to the site subject.
| [reply] |
|
|
That is an excellent point. There really is a line between discussing/debating the appropriateness of a node and ad-hominem. Personally, I feel DrHyde's response to ptum's original complaint very closely tread the line to an ad-hominem attack, especially in light of the rather calm and articulate objection by ptum.
More generally, I would tend to agree that simple decorum should keep someone from insulting another who has just calmly objected to one's own comments. I'm curious, would you consider such rude behavior worthy of more than just a downvote?
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 21, 2006 at 23:20 UTC
|
Where I draw the line: I try not to deliberately offend without good reason. I am moderately careful to avoid accidentally offending, and if I misstep I think through what caused offense and decide whether I'll take care to avoid doing that again. Usually I will, but sometimes I won't. (Random example, I usually do not refrain from jokes about wildlife being potential dinner, even though I know some vegetarians who are offended at the concept.)
That said, reading through the thread, I personally find ptum's responses more offensive than DrHyde's initial comment. As the saying goes, be strict in what you emit and liberal in what you accept. Neither person followed that advice. However it seems to me that ptum was farther from that ideal. (That said, once DrHyde saw that this annoyed ptum, he shouldn't have prodded further...) | [reply] |
|
|
A hearty double plus on your personal standards.
I disagree with your weighing of ptum's response. I found it remarkably restrained, considering it's from someone who's just been injured. I could have been much more restrained, but Dr.Hyde's original exclamation didn't mess with any of my deeply held convictions or my sense of reverence.
| [reply] |
|
|
I disagree completely. Somebody who believes in something, like a christian who believes in the existence of christ, in christ being the son of god, or being the same as god, does not have that believe to be shocked by an insult.
A christian who is shocked or insulted by an insult, and even complaints about that insult, should start thinking about the strength of his faith. Is his faith so weak that it can be shocked that easily? Of so, on what is his faith based?
A true believer may be shocked, but does not complain in public about that shock. Instead, this believer seeks for the reason of this shock. Once he finds that reason, he thinks about it and tries to solve the problem, so the next time he is not shocked. If he wants to respond at all, he will then write about his quest for the reason of him being shocked and about the way he solved it.
Being shocked generally means that the believer did not think about his believe thoroughly enough. There are aspects of his faith that are taken for granted, that are plainly accepted for true.
A response that the believer is shocked by the insult is a confession of weakness. A response should include an answer to the one that insulted, in which the insult is proven wrong. If the faithful is not capable of such an answer, I seriously doubt the reason for his faith.
Yes, I am an atheist. I know many christians who believe in christ just because their parents and teachers and religious leaders told them to be. Christians who know hardly anything about their religious texts. Maybe they use their faith to add to their identity, just like a Perl Monk who proudly claims on his home node he is a faithful christian, to distinguish himself from less faithful monks (look, my car is bigger and better).
Should an insult remain unanswered? No, as I said, answer with a prove of the erroneousness of the insult. Not just by showing shock.
Wendy
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by Joost (Canon) on Aug 21, 2006 at 19:40 UTC
|
So, where should we draw the line?
Where it goes seriously off-topic, I guess. I'm not at all worried about the occasional "offensive" remark - as other people noted already, it can be hard not to offend anyone.
About the religious angle; I would be more worried about direct insults to (groups of) real people - which is extremely rare here. Vaguely insinuating remarks about gods don't count - they don't post on this board. And even if I were religious, I wouldn't believe they'd read it. :-)
| [reply] |
|
|
About the religious angle; I would be more worried about direct insults to (groups of) real people - which is extremely rare here.
Insulting Jesus will usually be considered a direct insult to a Christian. How that Christian reacts to that insult varies, but most all will be insulted nonetheless. Why would insulting me, personally, a member of the communiity, be less offensive than insulting a "group"?
| [reply] |
|
|
But it's not aimed at you, directly. It's not aimed at your belief either. The remark in question was aimed at Jesus / god.
As far as I'm concerned, deities are public figures and public figures are fair game for jokes.
For example, I might not like it if someone makes a insulting remark about my mother, but I would hardly take it as personally if she was president of the USA.
Also, I did not say it was more offensive to insult a group than single people. I said i was more concerned about insults to people than insults to deities.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Insulting Jesus will usually be considered a direct insult to a Christian. How that Christian reacts to that insult varies, but most all will be insulted nonetheless. Why would insulting me, personally, a member of the communiity, be less offensive than insulting a "group"?
His Dad created the world, if you believe standard Christian dogma. He's an omnipotent, unstoppable force; no mortal can stand against His manifest Will.
I think He can take care of His son's honour himself, if He cares.
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by Polonius (Friar) on Aug 21, 2006 at 19:10 UTC
|
You can't avoid offending all of the people all of the time. But I'd just like to ask, when people do want to take a thread abruptly off-topic, could they please change the title? I think there was an interesting discussion buried in this thread, but damned if I can find it.
| [reply] |
|
|
...and whenever you change titles mid-thread, please always leave part of the original title intact, including the "Re^$x:" part.
A complete title change when viewed from within the thread seems reasonable, but there are too many other places where titles are displayed (especially Newest Nodes and several different types of search results) where complete title changes are particularly annoying. I like title changes (and almost always make them even when not going completely off-topic) but when someone completely drops the context from the new title it almost always disrupts my ability to determine much about the node from the title.
So I usually visit the node, find the title quite lacking (covering mostly the difference between the node and what it is in reply to and so not covering the topic of the node well at all), and usually either /msg the author (if I'm not feeling less-than eloquent) or just down-vote the node.
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by eric256 (Parson) on Aug 21, 2006 at 20:38 UTC
|
So, where should we draw the line?
Close to direct personal attacks, far from vague attacks.
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by rodion (Chaplain) on Aug 22, 2006 at 14:46 UTC
|
I myself tend to hang out with flippant atheists more than with devout Christians, but I think PM should be reasonably hospitable to technical contributions from both.
People will make mistakes. The whole idea of an exclamatory oath, or a joke, is that it crosses or plays with some boundary, and that leaves lots of room for error. Some people will use the boundaries of thier own associates, and forget others present, especially on-line. I think such mistakes deserve a polite reminder, as in
You probably didn't realize it, but that expression is deeply offensive to some, so you probably don't want to use it.
This response is best from someone who is not deeply offended, since such measured politeness is asking a lot from someone who was, in fact, injured (unintentionally).
It's true that some take a certain macho pride in casual blasphemies that offend those outside their group of compatriots, but courtesy requires giving the poster the benefit of the doubt; sometimes it's just a mistake, or ignorance. I think repeated offense and insistence on the right to offend, short of the "egregious" level, deserves at least one response along the lines of "please don't be a jerk", as well as downvotes. (And nothing more. Atheists are not immune to the attractions of righteous martyrdom.)
That leaves the naive, those who think the offended are "just being silly" and it shouldn't be that hard to "broaden one's view". They should be directed to discussion of indentation style, or those about which programming language is better.
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by shmem (Chancellor) on Aug 21, 2006 at 22:34 UTC
|
There's already a line drawn. That line is invisible and subject to change without notice.
Any separating line which isn't a domain border (and/or a border of distinct realities) is highly arbitrary. As are borders between states, or religions for that matter.
update:
The best weapons against insults are a sharp two-sided sword of wit and a broad shield of humour.
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by shotgunefx (Parson) on Aug 22, 2006 at 04:06 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by ysth (Canon) on Aug 21, 2006 at 21:23 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by aufflick (Deacon) on Aug 25, 2006 at 08:29 UTC
|
I know it's not adding a lot to this debate, but I agree with everyone who has endorsed the current "consideration" regime.
I think the system does a good job of representing the feeling of a majority of active PerlMonks members and that should be it's goal. The reason why different countries have different ethical and moral standards is (in most cases) because different groups of people tend to have different ideas/priorities etc.
In some countries, insulting the government will land you in jail. In others it's derigeur behavior. In nearly every country, insulting someone's family will insult them. Whether they beat you with a stick in return depends on the culture. Insulting Jesus is taken by some church cultures as an insult to rebuke, in others it is taken as an opportunity to start an interesting discussion.
PerlMonks is a community like a country, a church or a bingo club. It's rules are, I believe, implemented more fairly than many online communities and I would be reticent to back any change to the status quo. | [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by webfiend (Vicar) on Aug 24, 2006 at 19:54 UTC
|
I don't bother with a line. I just downvote if it bugs me and move on. What usually bugs me is a sudden shift off-topic and/or language that distracts me from whatever point the poster was trying to make. | [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by tphyahoo (Vicar) on Aug 22, 2006 at 11:33 UTC
|
If riling people up is more likely to cause exhaustion and sadness than learning and productive stimulation, > /dev/null.
"With great power comes great responsibility" as spidey learned.
Well, on a public forum, everyone posting has great power. | [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by jdtoronto (Prior) on Aug 24, 2006 at 18:19 UTC
|
Over the last few days we have also seen some pretty radical Christian activism occuring in the CB. Which leads me to ask why it is that we who do not take offence at these remarks (either by virute of not being Chritian or not being insecure enough to take offence) should be expected to take into account the sensitivities and sensibilities of one group.
Direct personal attacks are not okay, in my mind. On that point I have to agree with radiantmatrix and I would also agree that I must have a thicker skin than some here.
What I really find offensive of late is the blatant Bible thumping hate mongers that are starting to appear here attacking others for their fraternal associations, beliefs and customs.
jdtoronto | [reply] |
Re: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity
by Argel (Prior) on Aug 22, 2006 at 23:04 UTC
|
Given the choice between trying to be (mostly) safe for work (where many members on here are presumably using Perl) or allowing inflammatory off-topic posts like the one referenced then I'll vote for the former. | [reply] |
|
|
I'm confused; there wasn't any off-topic post that I saw. What is "the one referenced"?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
| |
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
| | A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
|
|
