-7
$\begingroup$

I always wondered in policies regarding offensive contents that have a meaningful purpose in a question like actual politics, and scientific and objective perspectives on horrible atrocities like the holocaust, rape, etc...


Note: I'm not really interested in things that can be resolved with (troll/anti-SJW) logics like this example:

Situation: I have the clones of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the story as protagonists.

  • SJW/straw romanticist: How daze you, peopl died at that horrible tragedy you...
  • Me: You do realize, that by implying that the clones of them have the same personality for no apparent reason, then you're implying that evil genes exist and people can be judged by the evil genes in their ethnicity, which is the equivalent of racism, so you're a nazi scum and you should hang yourself. Here's the rope.

Note: This may not be delivered in this form, the important parts are the connections of the reasons and their cause (the bold parts).


I'm more interested in situations like this:

  • ...In this universe holocaust was a lie...
  • ...In this universe, Trump was nuked by aliens, because of his hair scared them...
  • ...These genetically-engineered manta rays are called the Irwin-rays...

Do we have policies regarding offensive, but purposeful (read: essential, important) contents in a question (most likely those, that tackle darker fantasy/ dystopian sci-fi elements)?


Removed

This stuff isn't actually interesting or funny enough to be kept.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I can't tell what you're asking. Your example is broken; if you're claiming that the clones don't share beliefs with their sources then why does it matter whose they are? This question itself feels kind of trollish to me; are you trying to start a conflict here on meta? If not, please edit so your meta question itself isn't an example of the kind of question you're asking about (and also clarify what it is you're asking). Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Apr 16 '17 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio Is it okay now, or should I edit it more? $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Apr 16 '17 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That doesn't clarify anything for me, no. To be clear, the "me" comment would be deleted as rude as soon as mods became aware of it, and the other would likely be deleted as well as it's not about improving the post. If you think that kind of content is essential in a post, you're going to need to make a stronger case. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Apr 16 '17 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What is this? I can't get past your formatting. Voting to close as 'unclear what you are asking?' On the plus side, this is my first close vote on Meta? $\endgroup$ – kingledion Apr 17 '17 at 13:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If something is essential it is not offensive...just the delivery. $\endgroup$ – James Apr 17 '17 at 14:24
10
$\begingroup$

We have had questions that deal with sensitive topics -- rape, torture, genocide, and more. The topics aren't inherently offensive (though they require delicate handling), but the way a question is asked can be offensive.

It's hard to answer your question without a real example. You can ask about topics like an alternate history where the holocaust was a lie or where aliens are afraid of a national leader, but you should make sure that provocative details are actually specifically needed for your question. The name of your "Irwin-ways" doesn't sound important to the question so why bring it up? And even for public figures, try to be only as specific as you need to be -- is your question really about one specific person? Those kinds of presentations call your motivation into question. (Also, beware of questions that ask about characters/plots rather than worlds.)

If you're unsure about whether any proposed question is ok, you can use the Sandbox to work it out with the community.

One other thing: you include a negative example and say it "can be resolved" with comments like the examples in your question. The second comment, labelled "me", is not acceptable. It would be deleted as offensive. This is not the way to "resolve" matters with which you disagree. I'm having trouble seeing how a comment like that could do anything other than provoke.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Red Sure, maybe you're frustrated and not happy with this answer but the way you wrote your comment isn't helping a discussion on it...you may as well have started off saying "GRRR, dfgdsfsgfsfgsfg" and then not added all your full-stops. I'm sure you're aware of that though so only you can know what your motivation was (and don't say that you were just annoyed....we all get annoyed but it doesn't have to come out). $\endgroup$ – FreeElk Apr 17 '17 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio can you comment on this one as an example of a dytopian plot? Is it warranted for someone to find the presentation in the post to be offensive? $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 28 '17 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz first, I haven't seen the movie so I didn't recognize the reference. When I saw the question I read it as a parody of some place(s) like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc, though not any single one of them. It seemed a little borderline to me, given that the setting doesn't seem to be important to the question. (I could imagine a question that does rely on that setting and culture.) Now I've seen the comments objecting to it, and while I don't feel as strongly as the commenter, I can see how the question could prompt that response. I'll make some suggestions to the OP over there. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio May 29 '17 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio I’m still not getting it: setting a dytopian plot somewhere in the world is offensive on behalf of people living there now in the real world? Is it “borderline” to discuss cautionary tales, rebellions, etc.? $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 29 '17 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz it's pretty clearly a parody of the negative stereotypes of the Arab world. Now the Arab world has produced people who caused that stereotype, which is why I said "borderline". The question doesn't meet the definition of offensive that would warrant its removal; that said, I can see how people could be offended by it, so it would be better if the author could tone it down some. Not because it's violating the rules, but because it's polite to try to reduce unintended strife. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio May 29 '17 at 1:30
8
$\begingroup$

offensive contents that have a meaningful purpose in a question

I think the key to this lies in your definition of "meaningful purpose"...

Yes, some topics are inherently more controversial. Politics being one of them. But often the difference between offensive and non-offensive is in the intent.

  • Is the poster bringing up the topic purely to incite?
  • Is the poster bringing up the topic purely for lulz?
  • Is the post really about the potentially offensive topic, or is it an unnecessary/unrelated addition?

As far as an official policy see:

Be Nice

What is considered "hate speech"?

If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree


Using this question as an example...

Pretty much everything below your first horizontal rule <hr> was pretty much unnecessary and likely used purely for humor and/or incitement.

For example the term "SJW" short for Social Justice Warrior, is a term usually used as a pejorative.

And then there's this...

Situation: I have the clones of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the story as protagonists.

SJW/straw romanticist: How daze you, peopl died at that horrible tragedy you...

Me: You do realize, that by implying that the clones of them have the same personality for no apparent reason, then you're implying that evil genes exist and people can be judged by the evil genes in their ethnicity, which is the equivalent of racism, so you're a nazi scum and you should hang yourself. Here's the rope.

The situation you're "not really interested in" is a pretty clear example of someone taking offense and then someone responding by escalating the situation and getting much more offensive.
Don't do that here.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Even without the kill yourself part? It's only a logical justification for having a terrible person's clone in a story as a protagonist (who might or might not being harassed for his original version's fault). $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Apr 16 '17 at 21:42
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @RedactedRedacted I'm beginning to wonder if any of this was posted in good faith. $\endgroup$ – apaul Apr 16 '17 at 21:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RedactedRedacted Rather than escalating you could de-escalate and explain that the characters are used as protagonists who might or might not being harassed for his original version's fault. As in: "No offense intended, I'm actually using the characters because..." $\endgroup$ – apaul Apr 16 '17 at 21:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .