[WikiEN-l] Why is 'CrucifiedChrist' less offensive than a pun on oral sex?

Tue Jan 28 22:08:50 UTC 2003

On mar, 2003-01-28 at 13:51, james duffy wrote:
> Brion,
> I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening 
> argument' comment.

Allow me to compare, using an exaggerated form purely for rhetorical
effect:
      "I'm the only person ever to complain about how
       offensive this is! Ban it now!"
with
      "Wikipedia has lost access to a valuable resource
       because this user name made the project look
       extremely unprofessional."

>  The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a 
> clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused 
> offence to Wikipedia users and contributors.  Yet you seem to be only 
> bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous 
> offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you 
> regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!

Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of
offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable
results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to
me.

> People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because 
> their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back 
> telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as 
> seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else.

Thank you for doing so -- we can't take seriously a complaint that is
never received!

>  Your 
> continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think 
> that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because 
> religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of 
> causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But 
> mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest 
> political correctness?

You clearly have misunderstood my position. I am offended by neither
corny sexual puns nor by co-opting of religious terminology, but I
consider both to be in the category of things that make the project look
bad, along with silly usernames in general. If they make the project
look bad enough, or they provoke enough trouble within the ranks, that
it is detrimental to the project, I'm all in favor of kicking them out
and letting us all get back to work.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030128/00b199ff/attachment.pgp 