TL;DR: I've reconsidered: I don't think the post meets our site's standards. The solution is to flag the question as "rude or abusive".
When I first read the offending question (pun intended), my reaction was (a) it's not trolling but (b) it's misogynist and offensive but (c) so is a lot of rap and (d) there's a legitimate question of language usage here, even if the example given is awful.
I posted a comment straight away, because I think it's important that men speak up against the misogyny of other men. I downvoted the question, because I thought its merits as a legit question are outweighed by how inappropriate the "example" is. And I upvoted Mitch's answer because it's a good generic answer that skilfully avoided reference to the unsavoury elements of the question's text - and I loved the clever irony of "[freestyling is] a stream of consciousness flow through any of the usual hip hop subjects, from self-aggrandizement to the travails of life to explicit bodily functions."
But I didn't flag it, because I thought we should try to be liberal about these things.
This Meta post has given me an opportunity to reassess. The issue is not the question itself –
What is the rhyme scheme called where near rhymes flow into pure
rhymes then back into near rhymes?
– but rather the example provided. As Mr Lister commented, it's likely that the OP has used their own self-written doggerel.
Well, there's no rule against providing your own self-written example to illustrate the question, and the example itself does indeed illustrate the rhyme scheme being asked about. And like Cascabel, I'm no prude: if someone wants to ask about the correct use or etymology of an offensive phrase, or they have offensive personal views but ask a legitimate question, I can accept that.
However, I agree with Cascabel that this particular post seems to cross the line. The question is, what action should be taken? There seem to be four broad options:
1. Downvote, and move on
I think this is a cop-out. If it's a legit question, why the downvote? If it's bad enough to downvote, then I think that points to it being bad enough to remove.
2. Edit out the offending elements
I don't think this is an option, as some of the offending words form part of the rhyme scheme. In any case, the OP could roll back the edit. Someone could replace the entire example with another example of freestyle rap, duly attributed, that wasn't (so) offensive. But again, the OP could roll it back.
3. Flag it as "should be closed"
Not really an option, since it's not unclear, it's not off-topic and it's not POB. Which just leaves...
4. Flag it as "rude or abusive"
The flag's guidance says this is used when "A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse", and links to the Code of Conduct. The latter describes the following under the heading Unacceptable behaviour:
No bigotry.
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or
alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion
— and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the OP has chosen to include an example that is likely to "offend or alienate people" based especially on gender but to a lesser extent on sexual orientation. I think we have a duty to call out this kind of language, in the same way that we call out racism. The integrity of our site as a safe place for all classes of people must take precedence over any interest in adding another question to our library. And I think the gratuitous nature of the offence is pertinent, since the OP could easily have chosen (or written) an example that perhaps might have used vulgarities but wouldn't have denigrated entire classes of people.
Conclusion
Upon reflection, I agree with Cascabel that this particular post is unacceptable and should be removed from our site. It clearly meets the requirements of the "rude or abusive" flag, and I have therefore raised that flag. As a community-moderated site, it's up to our EL&U community to decide whether to flag, close and delete the post.
