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.
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.