PT118 · S4 · Q21 Etiquette firmly opposes both obscene

Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. Being gruff or unfriendly does not match obscene/malicious talk, nor does it match discussing offensive, disturbing or controversial ideas.

This answer is saying "they should avoid intensive questioning". Our principle allows us to say that "controversial ideas should be discussed in a civil manner". Those don't seem relevant to each other. Whether or not you're asking a lot of questions is very different from whether or not you're being un-civil. So the normative claim in this answer is a poor match for the normative Outcome of our principle. Maybe one could argue that it's rude, i.e. un-civil, to ask a lot of questions. If so, then you could also eliminate this answer because it doesn't connect to anything in the Trigger of our principles. Intensive questioning just means that you're asking a lot of questions. It doesn't have anything to do with obscenity, malice, controversial/disturbing ideas.

Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. But this answer is saying If the population that finds then there certain speech offensive → shouldn't be and hateful is less than any legal a large majority restriction We know that etiquette is not committed to the idea that speech needs to be restricted by law, but this rule is a very specific idea centering around whether the offended group is smaller than a large majority, and there's nothing in the text that matches up with that concept.

Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. The word "controversial" makes it seem like we should be looking at the 2nd principle. Is a news conference an appropriate situation to discuss offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas? It could be. Sometimes we need news conferences to alert the public to a terrible tragedy, which would be disturbing. If we accept that this is potentially a suitable setting for discussing inflammatory ideas, then etiquette would say that we should discuss / express these ideas in a civil manner. Would asking a politician a potentially embarrassing question be un-civil? That would be a big stretch. Journalists are supposed to ask people in power tough questions. The fact that the question is potentially embarrassing doesn't make it un-civil. You could ask Joe Biden in a civil way, "Do you have any regrets about how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was executed? and that is potentially embarrassing for him (if he doesn't want to talk about the shortcomings) but not un-civil.