This comment breaks the HN guidelines, regardless of whether someone else was wrong. Please post civilly and substantively or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Failing to see how my comment breaks these guidelines? I most certainly would say this face to face.

You "get real". Not everyone is from an English speaking country or can differentiate 'earthy banter' from sincerely offensive epithets online.

Offense is not an argument, nor is it rational; it is essentially a form of the "appeal to disgust" fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance

Where we get tripped up is in applying the Golden Rule, because everyone's Golden Rule is different, and different standards of "decency" (note: also not an argument, also irrational) exist, across time, space and culture.

So the question is, do we always act in such a way that anyone who could be "offended", wouldn't be? The problem there is that I could claim offense at anything (since it is irrational), nobody could disprove that I am offended, and thus use it to shut down arguments. For example, if we were discussing Jesus from a historical context, and I belonged to a religious sect that forbade discussion of Jesus in a non-Biblical context, I could justifiably claim offense, and those who kowtow to inoffense would have to comply (or most likely just take it elsewhere).

On the opposite end, if we allow anything offensive as long as someone (anyone) finds it inoffensive or valuable, we risk alienating a good portion of the readership. For example, an in-detail review of the particulars of a rape, or gory photographs of a murder scene.

I personally would prefer HN lean toward the latter, but that is because I have a thick skin and I realize that even me arguing for this does not rest on rational grounds, merely "consensual irrational" grounds.

Which is why the default reaction shouldn't be offense

Who said the default reaction should be offence then? Who even said rituch was personally offended by it?

If someone doesn't recognize it as relatively harmless banter (which may be a matter of opinion anyway), then why would they not think it's inappropriate here, when this forum is known for being more civil than most, partly for the reason rituch gave?

The "default" should be to recognize that misunderstandings happen online, and to definitely not post a rude, redundant comment like "get real" to an already heavily downvoted post that two other people have already addressed.

Edit: Well, judging by the down and upvoting, it seems I'm in a minority, or a lot of 'free speech' warriors here don't understand the concept of private forums with rules, and think posts simply telling people to "get real" add to a discussion.

Ever more vigilance against the possibility of negative reactions is the way we got to so many negative reactions to begin with. There's no good future that comes from this way of living except more of what produced it.

Stop being wild, muttafuk, we are tryna chill n talk some good shit together

How about he came out and said

"yo bitch, that's crazy" or "my nigga, that's insane"

These would be deemed unacceptable and rightly so.

I assume you mean AJRF. Just because those two examples are unacceptable doesn't mean "wow, get real" is acceptable. If you disagree or don't understand why someone said something, then either forget about it, or reply to it for clarification or discussion.

I mean why don't we all just post "get real" to everything or everyone we disagree with? Apparently a surprising number of people here can't think of a reason why not, since they think "get real" a fine response.

Edit: Actually, I think you mean if the "motherfucker" guy had said those things, in which case, I agree. People defending the use of "crazy motherfucker" may indeed be offended by the examples you gave, or feel they are inappropriate here, but can't seem to understand that terms they think are fine may be considered inappropriate to other people.