3 ms·
Again, trying to put words in others' mouths. Abusive language, slurs, ad-hominem attacks are not ambiguous. Neither is 'putting words in other's mouths', whic
by JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Again, trying to put words in others' mouths.
Abusive language, slurs, ad-hominem attacks are not ambiguous. Neither is 'putting words in other's mouths', which is against this (HNs) site's rules. Lets do better.
- dane-pgp 6y agoYou said "'insulting' is fairly obvious when you see it" and I asked if you supported the standard of "I know it when I see it". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, jumped to conclusions, or phrased my question poorly, but I hope you can forgive me for finding those two approaches very similar. If you think there is a universal unambiguous system for deciding whether a claim is "insulting" then I'd be happy to learn about it. For example, I can imagine people disagreeing about whether the statement "Country X has a problem with corruption." is insulting to people in country X.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoI listed three criterion. Is that not enough?
- dane-pgp 6y agoIf those three criteria are the only valid grounds for deeming a statement "insulting", then I agree that the risk of the rules being misused is greatly reduced. Let's hope that the people enforcing them show such restraint.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoThey are very often ambiguous and different arbitrators of rules will come to different conclusions, and their own political opinions will definitely play a factor in which way they will swing. If an editor hold political opinions that the arbitrator agrees with, he will suddenly find various things to not be insults, which he would have, were he to politically disagree with the editor.