Gotta go with: ?!?
I’m just gonna roll my face across the keyboard a few times mhnyvcx cxdbnumiiii
Say that about my sister again and we’re gonna have serious issues, pal.
In which case, -j0u hr4r54j h0- your mother, too.
Yer goin’ down, mofo.
Whatever. In practice, if I have occasion to write a sentence like that, I’m not going to sweat the order of the punctuation. If anyone ever calls me on it, I’ll respond with a hearty “Meh!”
In the example given (“For fuck’s sake, were you born in a barn”) the phrase “were you born in a barn” has hardly any interrogative intent. It’s rhetorical, and a continuation of the shock expressed in “for fuck’s sake.” Slightly weaker, but a continuation.
So, I favor the bang, followed by the QM… which is needed because the sentence is interrogative in form, if not intent.
In formal writing it would get the QM, but when effective communication is all that matters I vote EMQM.
Agree. 
Nah, meng, you got it backwards, although you do have one thing right - “Were you born in a barn” is rhetorical. But it’s still an interrogative - and therefore requires the use of a QM.
“For fuck’s sake” is the intensifier here, indicating a heightened level of exasperation or frustration. The exclamation point is therefore not part of the main rhetorical interrogative.
You could look at it as a two-step series of nested functions, if you like. First we have the two basic elements: the rhetorical interrogative with its question mark (RI?) and the intensifier with its exclamation point (IN!).
In the phrase we’re looking at, and in general, RI? serves the main function and IN! serves a supporting function. RI, being the main function, therefore has its punctuation marked first (like the primacy of a mathematical operation within parentheses). Therefore we get the structure
IN(RI?)!
with the question mark coming first and the exclamation point second. This should hold true regardless of the actual order of elements:
For fuck’s sake, were you born in a barn?!
Were you born in a barn, for fuck’s sake?!
Mr. Olentzero, I understand your desire to apply the rules of traditional “monopunctuation” to this issue, but we can’t be enslaved by the past.
Since the rules for compound punctuation are not formalized, each author can decide what combination of symbols is most effective.
To me the two following sentences do not convey the same meaning:
“For fuck’s sake, were you raised in a barn!?”
and…
“For fuck’s sake, were you raised in a barn?!”
If I was to write the second one (with ?!) the reader should understand that the speaker is trying to confuse the other person with an intimidating “semi-rhetorical” question.
A “semi-rhetorical” question such as…
“Have you got a turd in your pocket?”
“I know you are, but what am I?”
“Are you still being an asshole?”
When someone receives a semi-rhetorical question, their mind will struggle for a moment to answer it in some quasi-rational manner… unless they’ve built up immunity and simply answer, “So’s your mother.”
Putting the exclaimation point second (!?), does NOT imply a semi-rhetorical question. If someone says, “For fuck’s sake, were you born in a barn!?” the question is ENTIRELY rhetorical. The intention may be shock or intimidation, but there is no attempt to confuse.
That’s how I read the difference. Others may interpret differently. Punctuating the sample sentence with ?! lends it a different meaning than !?, therefore neither compound punctuation mark is incorrect.
Typographical error in my last post. Correction in blue:
Putting the exclaimation point first (!?), does NOT imply a semi-rhetorical question. If someone says, “For fuck’s sake, were you born in a barn!?” the question is ENTIRELY rhetorical. The intention may be shock or intimidation, but there is no attempt to confuse.
Huh. What do you know, that seems to be the case. OK, I yield the point insofar as I’ll stop thinking “That’s wrong” whenever I see it.
I agree with this post. I use both orders in my informal writing depending on the message I meant to convey. You can be more precise in your meaning by not sticking slavishly to one or the other.
! before ?, except after c.
You wouldn’t hit a woman with glasses, would you?
I hope not, 'cause that’ll give me a chance to get a sucker-punch in. 
The “meh” cannot be hearty if optimal slackitude is to be achieved!
“Were You Raised Catholic” test time! Who else read this as Jesus of Nazareth (King of the Jews?)!
I was gonna say ‘no’ until you came up with the sucker-punch line. (Didn’t realize you was a woman, neither.)
Wasn’t raised Catholic but went to a Catholic high school, and thought that as I was typing it.
I get that a lot on the webbernets, since most of my names tend to be gender-neutral.
Yeh, sorry f’r bein’ one of the crowd on that one.
I take absolutely zero offense. Given general internet demographics, it’s a reasonable assumption to make.
Well good. Now stop saying stuff about my mom and sister.