Timeline for Handling user that's offended by a joke about a disability
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 7:15 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @a20 you're certainly welcome to disagree with my use of "victim". Personally, however, I'm comfortable with that description. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @a20 your joke example doesn't really compare as the existence of those jokes (presumably in a forum for collecting jokes if there are many good jokes there) is not a direct attack on someone. If however a poster was following your hypothetical anti-knock knock religious person around the site posting knock knock jokes to every single thread they participated in, I would see that as a clear attempt to harass them and I would take action. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 5:32 | comment | added | a20 | Also I disagree with your use of the word "victim". "The offended person" is more appropriate in a situation where only feelings were hurt, and that too in a virtual environment where nothing can really be verified. Pinch of salt and all that... | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 5:30 | comment | added | a20 | @RobM How do you respond to the following hypothetical situation? '"Knock knock jokes" and "walking into a bar" jokes are against my religion. I've been part of this community for a while, and while there are so many good jokes here, these are horrible, and I'm offended. Do something mod!' | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 14:04 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I would say not. The job of a moderator is to keep the site "on topic" - moving in the desired direction, deal with disputes when they arise, and prevent future disruption. Turns out that banning jokes about minorities and dealing strongly with people who breach that rule meets all those criteria unless you're a moderator for a site that actually collects jokes about minorities. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 14:02 | comment | added | Martin Smith | But the job of a moderator is surely to arbitrate whether the claim is reasonable. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 14:00 | comment | added | Rob Moir | It's certainly possible that the joke was inoffensive. A lot of things are possible. It's also possible that the joke was offensive. It turns out that we don't get to choose what someone else finds offensive. The American Sign Language association has a whole page of deaf jokes. And lots of rappers of colour choose to describe themselves as 'n____rs' too. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 13:58 | comment | added | Martin Smith | No it isn't particularly clear at all. When described hypothetically. It is certainly possible that the joke was actually inoffensive to the vast majority of deaf people too. I see this site (surely geared to the deaf community) has a whole page of deaf jokes. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 13:53 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @MartinSmith not at all, but it's pretty clear what happened here is it not? This seems to be a simple case of a joke being made against a minority in a 'public place' and someone of that minority seeing it and being offended. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you talk about taking a claim of offence at face value. Who are you (or I, or anyone else here of course) to judge whether or not someone is truly offended by a joke made at the expense of a minority they are a member of? I know a good way to avoid the problem though: Don't allow jokes at the expense of minorities. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 13:46 | comment | added | Martin Smith | So in your opinion any and all claims of offence should be taken at face value and there is no need to bother evaluating it at all? I much prefer the more nuanced question and answer here moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/587/… | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 13:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 31, 2014 at 16:25 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2014 at 13:24 | history | answered | Rob Moir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |