Is rude or unfriendly language prohibited on all SE sites? Or are some "dirtier" fields like politics and law exempt from the rules?

I have had unfriendly comments posted on my questions about police accountability and the moderators from the law site don't seem to have the time or willingness to tackle the problem.

So, as a general rule, do we need to be civilized across all SE sites? or only some?


One time I complained here about a flag not being taken care of on "politics" site and the answer that got most upvotes included this statement "..communities have a bit of freedom how they interpret the global Stack Exchange rules."

I am skeptical about asking for help here while/if above "statement" is correct

marked as duplicate by πάντα ῥεῖ, Supa Mega Ducky Momo da Waffle, Josh Caswell, gnat, hat Feb 6 at 19:40

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    From the linked question: "Expletives are not acceptable behavior on any Stack Exchange site, even on Meta. There are a very small handful of exceptions (such as if you were talking about the word itself on a language site), but in general you should not use expletives anywhere, under any circumstances." If a comment is rude, flag it as such. If the rudeness needs to be explained, you can go for a mod flag. – Jenayah Feb 6 at 18:22
  • 11
    Though what's received as rude or unfriendly widely varies among different cultural backgrounds. You should better show us a concrete example where your flag was declined. – πάντα ῥεῖ Feb 6 at 18:24
  • 3
    @Jenayah I wouldn't equate expletives with unfriendly language. Vulgar language (or even swearings and cursing depending on the object) is not necessary unfriendly (look at many subreddits). And you need not to curse, swear or use vulgar language to be unfriendly. – rus9384 Feb 6 at 18:31
  • 1
    The comments should be valued in the context of the Code of Conduct. If they pass the CoC test then the exchange in comments can be qualified as unpleasant but civilized. – rene Feb 6 at 18:49
  • I wonder who is voting my police accountability questions down. Maybe corrupt cops? :) – Alex Doe Feb 6 at 20:04
  • 5
    Or maybe someone who thinks they aren't good questions? You can strawman it if you want, but that doesn't do you any favors. – fbueckert Feb 6 at 20:11
  • I like to "strawman". I see already -7 down votes :) – Alex Doe Feb 6 at 20:40
  • 4
    I'm not a big fan of tendentious questions that ask something generic that is in fact perfectly obvious, then try to ingeniously argue back from that to a specific case that invariably is much more nuanced than the question let on. In short: yes we need to be civilized on all SE sites, now what is your actual question? – Nathan Tuggy Feb 6 at 21:52
  • @NathanTuggy , I agree with you. I edited the question to show the reason for asking before getting lost in details from specific posts – Alex Doe Feb 7 at 2:20
  • 2
    @AlexDoe: I find that your flag was correctly declined. On a site about politics, you are going to, sooner or later, talk about the beliefs of some people which are decidedly "rude or unfriendly." The post in question was not espousing such beliefs; they were merely repeating them and attributing them to a nebulous group of "some people". The mere presence of the word "scum" (or most words) should not by itself be considered "rude or unfriendly"; it's all about how the word gets used. – Nicol Bolas Feb 7 at 3:27
  • @AlexDoe: The second paragraph of the answer you now link to is far more relevant than the first: "But, like in real life, you'll need to provide some grounds, not just saying that you don't agree with the outcome" – Nathan Tuggy Feb 7 at 5:15
  • @NathanTuggy : Yes it makes sense to "provide some grounds", but let's not get sidetracked into a different subject. The question was whether or not all SE sites had to abide by the same rules pertaining to unfriendly language or intent. It doesn't seem so obvious that they do now, does it? At least two people so far (Nicol Bolas - above- and Glorfindel in my link) don't think that they do. Is there a contradiction here? – Alex Doe Feb 8 at 6:37
  • @AlexDoe: No. I agree with both of them, and also with the uniformity of the rules. But on most sites there's not much scope for talking about things one may find objectionable, so even the mention of those is more likely to be both off-topic and unnecessary. Also, edit your question to ask about that, assuming good faith. – Nathan Tuggy Feb 8 at 12:07
  • I really appreciate your help. Great points. Keep it up you guys :) – Alex Doe Feb 8 at 14:47

Browse other questions tagged .