in reply to Consideration for obscenity

Context!

Personally, there isn't a single word in the entire english language that I find offensive. But there are many, that when strung together to convey a particular meaning or message that I could find highly offensive. It's not the word that is offensive, but the way in which it is used and the intent that is carried.

In this case, as educated_foo notes, the word was probably used in an attempt at humour. A very poor attempt yes, but one would have to be pretty thin-skinned to find it personally offensive.

For the record, I didn't vote on the consideration. But if I had, I almost certainly would have voted to keep it.

Cheers,
Darren :)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Consideration for obscenity
by ww (Archbishop) on Feb 03, 2007 at 12:31 UTC
    I thing one phrase in McDarren's comment may provide some additional focus for this discussion:
    there are many, that when strung together to convey a particular meaning or message....

    Had the post in question said

    Fxxx your mother!
    more Monks (this one included) might have agreed that it was "highly offensive" but as far as I can see, we have not defined "highly offensive" in sufficient detail to distinguish between sophomoric attempts at humor (yep, that's what I think the node under discussion one was/is) and "highly offensive" in the sense of troll-ery, bigotry, and the like.

      Thank you - that was exactly the point I was attempting to make.
      Shouldn't that be Fxxxed paco?
Re: Consideration for obscenity
by jonadab (Parson) on Feb 03, 2007 at 11:54 UTC
    Context!

    In context, the node is making a vulgar reference to subject matter that, at least in most of the US, is widely considered inappropriate for children. In a movie, such references would result in a rating that would prevent minors from viewing the film in a theatre or renting it from a video store without a parent present. It isn't so much the word; indeed, it would be (a little) less objectionable if it were used as a general vulgar remark of dismay.

    Personally, there isn't a single word in the entire english language that I find offensive.

    This thread isn't about what you personally find offensive, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that.

    The thread is about what perlmonks policy is, or isn't. If we aren't going to reap nodes for gratuitous vulgar references to sexual intercourse, then the quoted policy needs to be updated to reflect that better. If this is how it's going to be, I suggest the following wording:

    Invalid reasons to consider a node include:

  • To reap a highly offensive posting. PerlMonks is not meant to be family friendly, and we don't intend to try to keep PerlMonks off of corporate blacklists that we disagree with. Although this might prevent otherwise worthy monks from participating while at work, we think it is more important to take a moral stand against being easily offended by obscenity and vulgarity, which in our view are not only harmless but important for their own sake.
  • update: inserted paragraph break

      In a movie, such references would result in a rating that would prevent minors from viewing the film in a theatre or renting it from a video store without a parent present.
      Not true. you can get a PG or PG 13 rating mentioning the word "fuck".

      This thread isn't about what you personally find offensive, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that. The thread is about what perlmonks policy is, or isn't.
      Perlmonks policy is to consider for deletion "highly offensive posts". The policy is not "delete posts that some people might consider somewhat offensive".

      Any node can be considered by most monks, then the interested monks cast their vote according to their own standards (or someone else's if they want to). Only if enough monks vote for deletion and not enough vote to keep the node is reaped.

      Perlmonks is an international forum, probably more varied and definitely less organized than the MPAA's rating cabal, so not everything that might be considered inappropriate for children's movie is considered inappropriate here. At least not by a fair number of voting monks.

      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
      "This thread isn't about what you personally find offensive, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that."

      Respectfully - absolute bollocks!
      I was merely responding to a direct question from the OP. He asked - "Can any of you who voted to 'keep' the node help me to understand this?"
      Although I didn't actually vote in the consideration - had I have voted, I would have voted to keep. And I was simply explaining why.

      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.