Consider this answer:
What is the pejorative for people who only practice their faith while at the place of worship?
Whited sepulchres. This is what they are called in that noted work of fiction " The Bible", King James' Version.
Is this joke OK? If not, what should be done about it? Should it be flagged, edited, commented on, ignored?
I ask because I heard someone question this joke. I believe he has flagged it.
On the one hand, I guess I agree that if a significant number of readers find something offensive (whatever their reasons), and if as in this case it isn’t specifically needed for the sake of the discussion at hand, then it should probably be removed in the name of politeness.
But on the other, I would urge readers to try not to be offended by something like this!
When I hear other people making fun of beliefs that are important to me, I may argue back and defend my position; I may turn aside and mock their position in turn; I may just bite my tongue and shrug it off; I may even realise that they have a point, and that some things I believe actually can look a bit silly from another point of view! But as long as it isn’t causing anyone substantive harm, then as far as I’m concerned, they should be allowed to say it.
(Sometimes, offense can itself arguably be substantive harm — if eg it perpetuates prejudice towards groups who still do suffer consistently from discrimination. But I don’t think that argument can be made in this case.)
This joke is not particularly funny.
It's a distraction from the answer.
It's a religious joke, so it will offend some, rightly or not.
Therefore it is a net negative in my opinion.
Of note, we were discussing this in chat at the time I flagged the answer.
My opinion is multi-part: I don't see a reason to allow any trolling or flamebait answers. It doesn't matter if the answer is only slightly trollish or hateful or inflammatory. These things are not necessary to discuss English and its usage.
I also don't think jokes are something that should be given a pass on any of the other rules on the site. An inappropriate joke is still inappropriate and should be removed. An off-topic joke is still off-topic and should be removed. Leeway for things not causing problems are fine or jokes that are on-topic or part of a larger answer are fine.
In regards to this particular instance, the joke is not innocent in the sense that it will not offend anyone. Taking a dig at a particular religion should be considered reasonably offensive and action should be taken. In this case, the joke was not tasteful or purely humorous. It was a callout against all people who consider the Holy Bible non-fiction. In addition, it had absolutely no relevance to the topic on hand.
My initial decision was to edit the joke out and leave the answer alone. Cerberus rejected the edit and the conversation linked above ensued.
I guess this is entirely down to personal taste, but people should probably not be subject to discriminatory or sarcastic answers to legitimate questions. Essentially it just adds to the level of noise, and in this particular instance, is likely to cause offence.
I think the original question has put the emphasis on the wrong thing, essentially asking how "offensive" is someone allowed to be. Really the question should be along the lines of how much noise is preferable in questions and answers.
I think most people would agree that clear, straight-forward answers are preferable.
On a general note, I have noticed several times that there are a few people in this community who know what's right and what's wrong and who are determined if not to foster the former at least to extirpate the latter.
EL&U is not a technical forum. Many people unavoidably sport many opinions. Even in technical forums there are many different truths, explanations, visions and solutions. Furthermore, the most powerful and elegant scientific breakthrough in mankind's history started from non conformism (relativity, antibiotics, plate tectonics to name only a few).
Closer to us, it is a well accepted view that the English language we are all fond of owes its richness and its universality to its openness and its multiple facets. We as a community could probably take this as an example and should avoid trimming out or putting off members who fall slightly out of the template (defined by who ?).
Let's stay curious, not self righteous. Let's not confuse good taste protection with censorship.
In reality, provocation finds its justification in censorship and unconsciously begs for it. Obliging is the best way to nurture it.
Cautious observers might have noticed various occurrences of valuable new members quickly achieving high rep scores and then simply vanishing away as if not interested any more. Our nascent community is already gaining a lot of momentum, let's not cripple it.
My 2cts of course; after all I've been "here" only for a few weeks.
Kind Regards.
As someone who will probably be attending no less than three services during this Holy Week, I really don't see the problem.
Its even debateable what he was even getting at. For instance, my denomination currently does not consider the King James Bible one of its preferred translations, and I know of quite a few Biblical scholars who would consider this joke quite amusing, on the basis of how inaccurate a translation the KJV is considered to be. Considering how it was phrased, I might even be willing to argue this is exactly the sense which was intended.
Yes, innocent jokes like this are perfectly fine, Left Head. I make them too. A long invective against religion is not OK, of course; but this is a minor thing, just a matter of style. Someone else might post in reply "I'm sure the Devil will find that entertaining: you should repeat it when you get down there". Okay, this wasn't particularly funny, but I am trying to come up with some innocent example quickly. The current taboo on discrimination, arbitrarily limited to a few random topics (such as sex, race, religion), is very strong already in society at large: we should not go even further by censoring what no sane person would take offence at. Just ignore it.
Every potentially offensive item has to be taken in context. If I'd seen the quoted example in a Question, I'd probably have edited the offending words out.
If I'd seen it in an Answer, I wouldn't edit it out, but I might downvote the answer. Plus I'd probably also leaf through a few other postings by that user. If I found other inflammatory posts, I'd almost certainly downvote and add a comment explaining why.
If I saw the same words in a Comment, I wouldn't really care. As an atheist somewhat to the right of Richard Dawkins, I don't really mind such "banter", so long as it's kept reasonably "off the front page".
But undeniably, it's a fairly "lame" sideswipe. If someone wrote it in Chat, I'd just set a mental flag to say that person may be a bit childish - purely because the "joke" is so feeble. I have no problem with such sentiments being expressed in chat, provided no-one else is getting worked up over them.
There are very few people who would consider that offensive - but unwelcoming, definitely. A couple of those comments has a negligible effect, but if enough of them start to spring up, then we will have purposefully made the community feel less welcome to large group of people (including myself) for no good reason.
I strongly oppose any editing that removes or compromises any views expressed in relation to the question at hand. However, I don't have a problem with removing text does nothing but encourage unwanted behaviour.
As a Fundamentalist, and therefore presumably among the prime targets of that particular comment, let me say, (a) As a joke, it's not very funny. It's really more "ridicule" or "random insult" than "joke". And (b) I vote to let it stand. Such a trivial insult is not going to send me running to the corner, sobbing hysterically.
(Indeed, I'm happy to see such lame insults from my opponents. Let us Fundamentalists present carefully reasoned historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments, while the atheists shout, "You're a moron! Ha ha ha", and let's see who wins in the court of public debate. :-)
When someone tells an ethnic or religious or political or whatever joke that is actually funny, I think it can be entertaining, and help to break the tedium. But of course this forum isn't a place for protracted comedy routines, nor for political/social/religious debate.
In my humble opinion, an occasional good-natured joke is a positive thing that helps keep a dry subject entertaining. Of course, while much humor hinges on making fun of the foibles of people, there is a point where it becomes deliberately insulting. Like, a joke whose humor relies on the fact that a certain ethnic group has different tastes in music or has its own dialect should be harmless; a joke that relies for its humor on the assumption that a certain ethnic group are lazy or stupid or criminals is likely just insulting. Saying, "Isn't it funny how your political party and mine see this differently" can make for a good joke. Saying, "Isn't it funny how your political party is too stupid to understand this obvious reality" is an insult.
Are there gray areas? Sure. For a stand-up comic, pushing the gray areas may make for edgy comedy. But for a forum like this, it's just not appropriate.
Oh, and by the way, if it would be an outrageous insult for somebody to say this about you, that it's an outrageous insult for you to say it about someone else. I don't know how often I've heard the defense, "But those people ARE stupid, so they have no right to complain when we make jokes about them, but my group are intelligent, so if you say such a thing about us you're just out of line." Insults do not cease to be insults because they are true. Besides, if you don't see the obvious bias in your high opinions of yourself compared to others ... well, that's a subject for jokes right there.
My conclusion: A little humor now and then is a good thing. But on a forum like this, err on the side of being unoffensive.
Having read and up-voted some of the excellent answers already here, I think there's another point that can be made.
Whited sepulchres. This is what they are called in that noted work of fiction " The Bible", King James' Version.
Forget whether the remark is offensive. Forget whether it is funny. What we should be asking is, is it relevant?
Does the fictional or non-fictional nature of the Bible affect the validity of the phrase, 'whited sepulchres' as an answer? Clearly it might affect the validity of some answers but does it affect this one?
I submit that in this specific case it doesn't. Whether the Bible is true or not makes no difference to the usefulness of the the phrase 'whited sepulchres' as an answer to the question.
Therefore I believe the remark was simply irrelevant and should have been challenged on that basis.
For example, a possible comment could have been, Please can you explain how the fictional or non-fictional nature of the Bible affects the validity of the phrase 'whited sepulchre' as an answer?
If the author had given a convincing answer explaining how, in general, the fictional nature of a work affects the usefulness or correctness of the language used within it and how it affects this point in particular, then I would have accepted it. If not then I would have down-voted and explained why.
In other words: we should judge an answer, and any comments within it, by the normal standards of the site. Is the answer cogent, well-supported and well-thought out? Do the comments support the correctness of the answer or are they (as Django Reinhardt puts it in his answer here) simply noise?
I'm a little surprised that no one has considered that the original comment is arguably a contentious factual claim, and not a joke at all. After all, we seem to be in agreement that the comment is not in itself funny, clever, or surprising. There's nothing in the style of delivery that's offensive. The offense is in the assertion itself.
