Please refrain from using abusive terms here on this forum.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11617591 and marked it off-topic.
The term "mother" fucker, may not insinuate fucking ones mother to you - perhaps you are desensitised to it, but to others from different cultures, countries it can be more / less offensive.
If you think about certain words which are all but banned for some colours of society to say, they too used to be all prevalent and not thought of as a problem to say. Perhaps in 100 years from now, to suggest some one fucks their mother would be considered the same
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.
"yo bitch, that's crazy" or "my nigga, that's insane"
These would be deemed unacceptable and rightly so.
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.
Stop being wild, muttafuk, we are tryna chill n talk some good shit together
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.