PellucidWombat wrote:RE: Consistency of what is considered offensive?
With this long conversation going on about talking disrespectfully about the Vatican, I feel like I should point out that I found the joke about the Muslim suicide bomber extremely offensive in a similar if not worse note. Yet no one has yet bothered to point out the double-standard that seemed glaringly clear to me.
(let me clarify - the comment itself wasn't offensive to me personally and I get the more subtle jest. But it does fall into the same sort of "not cool" category that so many people are putting this topic into)Personally I just ignore such comments if I find them "not cool" if they don't hurt anyone since I partake in my own share of blasphemous and offensive humor, but I figured I'd point out the hypocrisy here if you all are going to get so riled up over how someone talks about the Vatican.
PellucidWombat, I think we're missing the point. At least let me refer to the comment I posted...What I pointed out very clearly, is that slander or sarcasm about ethnic or religious groups - and, believe me, if there was a joke about a Muslim suicide bomber somewhere in some other report, I don't find that the slightest bit more "cool" than jokes about the Vatican on SummitPost - is something that just DOESN'T FIT INTO AN INTERNATIONAL SITE UPON A SHARED TOPIC OF LOVE FOR NATURE! This is my point! I didn't come across the "Muslim suicide bomber report" myself, but if I had, I'm sure I would have said the same thing as I did about the report in question here on this particular blog - it's something that could make some people feel offended, and most important of all, that is a statement which goes contrary to the idea of SummitPost as a whole - a common passion for something that stands above all questions of nationality, confession, ethnic groups etc. In our case - mountains!