I don't think we're on the same page.  I'm saying someone shouldn't be moderated for such things.  You, as a user, sure.  You can say you're sorry if you offended someone (regardless of reason).  I really don't think mods should get involved in such cases, though.  Otherwise anyone can get banned for anything.  

That's why the OP doesn't make sense.  It needs a comment that really seems like it requires moderation.

The best idea I can come up with is just to put everything in spoiler text, so that if anyone wants to see it they can but if someone is reading a thread all they see is spoiler and "this post was moderated".

That's a really good idea.

Agreed.  Much better than Kantors motto of "Just deal with it".  Stealth trolling also needs to be fixed on this site.

I don't see any major problem that needs to be addressed. Looking at Galaki's post and the rules you posted, his post clearly didn't break the rules; it was simply a play on the arrangement of letters. If you want to make the point that there's a problem with women-targeted insults, then you have given a poor example. I cannot understand why anyone would be insulted by the mere mention of PMS especially in an open-forum. That's probably the best example of overreaction I could find.

You say this thread isn't about Galaki's post but a bigger problem with people making jokes that target women. Perhaps you can list a more appropriate example (preferrably multiple)? Because I don't think there's been a major problem with insults directed at women and you example has not changed that. Sure, there are a lot of sexual jokes on here, but there's nothing insulting about them. They may be sensitive topics, but there's no rule against discussing sensitive topics.

Moreover, these sexually themed jokes are "directed" at men as often, if not more, as to women. So unless you can demonstrate reason to believe that women are specifically targeted more than man, you shouldn't try to say there's a problem with women jokes specifically. You instead should say you have a problem with all sexual jokes, regardless of gender. If that is the point you're trying to make, then good luck to you; many people will disagree (myself included). If it turns out that women in general have a problem with sexual jokes, then to them I say...tough titties. Either deal with it or get out because it's not changing. Sex jokes are intrinscally associated with th our forum and there's nothing wrong with them either.

-

Some people in here have also claimed that there's been a problem with people badmouthing religion. I don't think this is a major problem here either. There's nothing wrong with expressing your beliefs even if that means constructively criticizing other people's belief. Of course there's a problem with explicitly stating that someone is of a lower intellectual capacity for their beliefs, but I have not noticed much of a problem with that. There has been a lot of criticism for religion on here, but I don't have a problem with that in itself.

I have actually been more disturbed by the opposite; I've noticed more religious users on here who seem to want to censor any sort of discussion of religion, as if such a topic is different from any other topic. I have seen quite a few of them entering perfectly legit threads trying to prevent discussion of their "sacred" subject. I think we need to end any sort of feelings that any sort of topic is too special to be discussed. That's bogus. There should be nothing inherently wrong with discussing any particularly topic.

Not really. You wouldn't have any obligation (morally) to apologize for merely discussing a topic that someone else finds disturbing. There's nothing wrong with discussing 9/11. In fact, I'm pretty sure every American has probably discussed it thoroughly in their life; it's actually become a fairly common topic in the USA especially for educational purposes. If someone starts crying because of such a common topic, that's their own problem. Do you think people should apologize for talking about leg training because it made a parylized person upset? I would say no. Sure, it would be a good course of action to ease the tension, but other than that, there's no obligation to do so.

And if you do apologize, it's because you are sorry the person is upset, not that you're sorry you discussed the topic. A difference. 

Yes you do have an obligation as a member of the human race to appologize for accidently upsetting a fellow human. Just because you didn't intend to cause pain does not mean that their feelings are less painfull. Talking about 9/11 is perfectly legit. Upsetting someone who lost a loved one and not appologizing for accidently causing the pain would be a dick move. Compassion and empathy are extreamly important parts of human interaction. The internet forgets that far too often.

So if I started talking about ham sandwhiches and someone started crying (for whatever reason - maybe their family was eaten by savage pigs), I would be obligated to apologize? Or let's say someone become upset becaus my shirt bore a certain shade of red (maybe they were red-green colorblind and my shirt reminded them of their disability), I would also be obligated to apologize? That's the argument you're making with the bolded. Using your argument, you would be apologizing 15, 20 times minimum per day as people are bound to be upset by your words (unless you don't talk much). You would have to apologize to people with the craziest, most vulnerable sensitive topics. Is that how you live your life? 

I would guess the answer to that question would be no. You don't go around apologizing to every sensitive person out there just because they are the ones who easily become upset. No, you probably create a spectrum in your mind containing when you are obligated to apologize for something and when you aren't. On one end of the spectrum lies things you probably wouldn't feel obligated to apologize for regardless of who becomes upset (though you may do so anyway to ease the feelings) - like apologizing for wearing a red shirt. On the other end of the spectrum lies things you are more likely to feel obligated to apologize for since it's more understandable for someone to become upset by it - like accidentally driving over someone's pet cat. In this particularly case, yes, it would be a dick move to just casually continue your day after violently ending the life of someone's pet.

I agree that apologizing would be the compassionate move and one that helps ease the tension, but there's nothing morally wrong about it. 

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.

The scenarios I listed don't have to be actual to discuss the merits of your arguments. If you have a belief system, it should hold weight among all possible scenarios (those actual and imaginary). Otherwise your belief is based on a condition by condition basis. Meaning your actual belief isn't based on the belief system you provided, but is instead based on whatever factors are affecting the different conditions.

Anyway, you have moved the topic away from what's moral and what's the right thing to do to what humans are biologically programmed to do. This has very little practical applications to the point of this thread - which is the rules and enforcement of the rules of this site. These rules are not based on the human condition, which is why there are no rules that say "please be nice and apologize to other users if you offend them". That would be cool if users did that, but to expect such a rule to be enforced is crazy. The rules are based not on whether or not some random user becomes offended by a post, but rather, they are usually based on if a post is intended to offend for the sake of offending. 

If you go around moderating every posts that offend someone, then you are left with a situation like the one I mentioned where you are apologizing 15, 20 times a day over the most trivial and common posts. But instead of apologies, you would have moderations instead and discussion would be virtually impossible; everyone would be afraid that their post would offend someone, somewhere at some time with some specific condition that makes him particularly sensitive to some particular topic.