I have to say, James, that the issue doesn't bother me greatly. Sure, that's lazy, liberal echo-chamber thinking on my part. Or rather non-thinking. But I feel I have plenty else to be exercised about. I think the majority of the most vitriolic passages are indeed intended as satire, or stand-up comic-style rants. They may not be particularly pleasant, or amusing, to read, but I see that as an 'off-button' rather than a triggering matter.

Punching down is always ugly - and the definition thereof always somewhat subjective - but I don't think that rabid right-wingers or blinkered bible-belt puritans, certainly in the context of the USA that accounts for the majority of English-language users here, can claim to be viciously oppressed minorities. If only! (Joke.)

And I wouldn't take the Rules too seriously or dogmatically, either. They are clearly meant to 'sound like we give a shit' rather than actually be implemented in a practical sense, like all corporate flannel about 'our values and stakeholders', at least unless someone kicks up a real stink because they feel genuinely harassed or offended. In which case they would need to be put to the test, and a decision reached as to what genuinely constitutes threatening or harassing conduct, and which categories are eligible for protection.

Medium being Medium, of course, any such decision will be taken in camera.