I recently had a question tagged as pejorative-language. The question asks what skull means when used as an insult -- but it was based on a misreading of skulk, which was used in the cited text to mean one who hides. From the wiki description and my own understanding of the tag's name I believe this an apt tag.

But because this post says that the tag was made for mean-spirited requests and because the cited statistic of there being 201 similar questions (the tally as of my writing this is 233), of which it is said that "all [emphasis added] these questions had their genesis in bile," I wonder if my intentions in writing it have been mistaken for more sinister ones.

More than wielding it myself I was interested in knowing what the character meant by it. In the three months that have passed I have not found occasion to use it myself. (Although now that I'm reminded of it, I'm tempted to start applying skulk to Riki in DotA, sneaky little hero that he is!) :)

And more than in insults, my history suggests an interest in neutral terms:

1. My second question on ELU, Word for "Intellectual Prankster"

Ethically neutral: No connotations of underhandedness, as in crafty 2. Word for "Source of Unpleasant Disclosure" (more about generality than neutrality)

3. My most recent question, Term for Only "Unbelieved Warner"

I would like for this term to make no judgments on such characters, their messages, or deliveries.

I am at a loss for what to do. On the one hand, I feel this tag fits my question to a tee. On the other, I would like to exercise KitFox' recommendation of removing the tag because I feel by association it is saying that I mean to be offensive, that I'm asking ELU to provide me "with rude words to use to commit verbal violence." (Permit me a third hand, and I would delete the question entirely; it was not my finest hour, research-wise...)

Is the pejorative-language tag meant to carry this sort of stigma?

I have seen questions that very directly said they had someone they wanted to use their answer on, and I don't like those much either. I don't feel comfortable providing that kind of insight into a relationship I vaguely know only one side of. And so I think the advice of not answering is sound, not only ethically but also practically.

Given MrHen's suggestion of titles that make the subject matter easy to guess, I would even advocate a firmer stance of: If the subject matter sounds like something that would rile me, it's probably in my best interest to not even add to its view count. Ideally, when more people follow this principle, there would be more incentive to post content that appeals to the intellect than morbid curiosity: They would get the most views/votes/activity/etc. But this eventuality depends on an ideal, so it's hard to practice, odd to promulgate (especially to non-community members), and thus somewhat unrealistic.

But in general I think more, warmer responses to all-around good questions is a good thing to aim for.

I recently had a question tagged as pejorative-language. The question asks what skull means when used as an insult -- but it was based on a misreading of skulk, which was used in the cited text to mean one who hides. From the wiki description and my own understanding of the tag's name I believe this an apt tag.

But because this post says that the tag was made for mean-spirited requests and because the cited statistic of there being 201 similar questions (the tally as of my writing this is 233), of which it is said that "all [emphasis added] these questions had their genesis in bile," I wonder if my intentions in writing it have been mistaken for more sinister ones.

More than wielding it myself I was interested in knowing what the character meant by it. In the three months that have passed I have not found occasion to use it myself. (Although now that I'm reminded of it, I'm tempted to start applying skulk to Riki in DotA, sneaky little hero that he is!) :)

And more than in insults, my history suggests an interest in neutral terms:

1. My second question on ELU, Word for "Intellectual Prankster"

Ethically neutral: No connotations of underhandedness, as in crafty 2. Word for "Source of Unpleasant Disclosure" (more about generality than neutrality)

3. My most recent question, Term for Only "Unbelieved Warner"

I would like for this term to make no judgments on such characters, their messages, or deliveries.

I am at a loss for what to do. On the one hand, I feel this tag fits my question to a tee. On the other, I would like to exercise KitFox' recommendation of removing the tag because I feel by association it is saying that I mean to be offensive, that I'm asking ELU to provide me "with rude words to use to commit verbal violence." (Permit me a third hand, and I would delete the question entirely; it was not my finest hour, research-wise...)

Is the pejorative-language tag meant to carry this sort of stigma?

I have seen questions that very directly said they had someone they wanted to use their answer on, and I don't like those much either. I don't feel comfortable providing that kind of insight into a relationship I vaguely know only one side of. And so I think the advice of not answering is sound, not only ethically but also practically.

Given MrHen's suggestion of titles that make the subject matter easy to guess, I would even advocate a firmer stance of: If the subject matter sounds like something that would rile me, it's probably in my best interest to not even add to its view count. Ideally, when more people follow this principle, there would be more incentive to post content that appeals to the intellect than morbid curiosity: They would get the most views/votes/activity/etc. But this eventuality depends on an ideal, so it's hard to practice, odd to promulgate (especially to non-community members), and thus somewhat unrealistic.

But in general I think more, warmer responses to all-around good questions is a good thing to aim for.