A word Tom

[The Second Stone]

Tomndebb, frankly I'm appalled at your one-sided application of the rules. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=564220&page=4

It has long been allowed at SDMB rule in GD that we can call fascists and such morally repugnant, but we cannot call poster "so-and-so" morally repugnant in Great Debates. Has that rule changed? Or is this yet another example of your bending-over-backwards and over-protectiveness of conservative racist hatred? Why cannot the people who support slavery as a category be accused of moral turpitude? It is moral turpitude. It is beyond disgusting.

What has been outlawed in GD is "you" or "so-and-so" is a racist. Great debates is the place the denounce racism and support of slavery and revisionism of slavery for what it is: morally despicable. It is loathsome. And so is bending over backwards to try to look fair and protecting it from such denunciation. If we can call socialists morally repugnant in GD, can we not call Fitzhugh's descendant's the same?

If slavery apologists as a general category are too sensitive to be called morally deficient in general, then you really must remove any denunciation of any group from GD.

I generally like your posts as a member. But you are easily the shittiest moderator at any website I have ever visited because of your constant censorship of the denunciation of the immoral.

The incidents where you engage in this bending over backwards that I have seen always have been where you are protecting a point of view you seem to disagree with (usually conservative) and smack down a (usually liberal) poster who denounces in general a disgusting argument and in general those people who make it. Liberals should be entitled to just as much leeway in denouncing a group in general as conservatives. It seems you are over-compensating.



Confederacy revisionists and apologists are racist, pro-slavery and despicable and should be denounced as such. If someone objects to that premise, they should be required to come out and make the objection. Anybody who has read the secession statutes and articles who still argues that slavery was the central issue of the civil war is intellectually utterly dishonest. It is entirely fair to say that in general terms.

Stop being such a push-over for despicable causes.

[Marley23]

I moved this thread to ATMB from the Pit. I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but it looks like tomndebb felt this comment was directed at other posters:

I'd argue that an educated person pushing "states rights" is engaged in moral turpitude. There is no evidence to support the "states rights" bullshit, except repeating talking points drilled into them since they were children. But examination of the evidence is required of an educated person. Examination of the secession statements alone demolishes that the underlying reason was anything other than slavery. An examination of the historical context of independence through the civil war would show that just about every public discussion about the entire nation was centered on slavery, foreign relations over slavery, or a central bank, or wiping out Indians.

And I'm not trying to scold those on the other side of the debate. But I would like them to read what the Southern proponents of secession and war actually said and wrote at the time.

I'll point out that you borrowed the phrase "moral turpitude" a previous post in which tomndebb told another poster the following:

You know, I am on your side of this discussion, but you are letting your personal feelings take you over the top, here.

The idea that those who incorrectly argue for a "states rights" motivation for the secession do so from a perspective of dishonesty or moral turpitude is not supportable without a significant amount of evidence that you have not presented, (and which is, frankly, not available to you). One might, with sufficient research, provide evidence that the people who initially proposed the "states rights" argument might have done so with a deliberate intention to obscure the truth. (I doubt that there is sufficient evidence that you could actually prove that point, but will concede the possibility for the sake of argument.) Making the assumption that people who, following 150 years of accumulated argument for that position, and being led by the arguments to a conclusion different from yours and mine are, themselves, dishonest, is not supportable.

Beyond that, of course, your diatribe, here, whatever your motivation, is way too close to a personal attack on other posters. Having made your feelings known, you will now confine further attacks on other posters to the BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[The Second Stone]

Yep, I borrowed it because it was very nice turn of phrase. Slavery apologists are loathsome, and turpitude means dishonesty, so it hits the nail on the head. Thank you for moving it to the correct forum.

[Rhythmdvl]

Confederacy revisionists and apologists are racist, pro-slavery and despicable and should be denounced as such. Though I am in general agreement with you, I don't think that holding such views means that a person is per se racist, pro-slavery or despicable (note that the last may actually be the case when the person leveling the charge is a duck and the other is a rabbit).

Imagine for a moment James, born to Very Liberal Parents. His parents are unfortunately run over by an escaped rhinoceros and he's sent to live with his aunts in Texas. They're not all that introspective, so offer no guidance. He goes to school with the new Texas curriculum, which despite the recent brouhaha is implemented as neutrally as possible. He learns about blah blah blah ...

The point being, that he--and vast swathes of others with less peachy backgrounds--could easily hold the honest belief that the Confederacy was something noble and that slavery was a small factor leading up to the Civil War. No racism. Not pro-slavery. Not desttththththpicable.

While there certainly are lots of people (perhaps even a majority) that hold such beliefs and are racist, etc., it's unfair to say that holding such automatically makes you racist. That the post was quoting someone who acknowledged the plausibility of those views added to the perception that it was calling him/her a racist, etc.

Also note that it seemed to be Moderator direction more so than a warning. Though clearly on follow-up the personalization wasn't there, mod direction to be aware of other reasonable interpretations and their impact on board interactions is a necessary aspect of maintaining the overall tenor of board interactions.

[Cheshire Human]

Though I am in general agreement with you, I don't think that holding such views means that a person is per se racist, pro-slavery or despicable (note that the last may actually be the case when the person leveling the charge is a duck and the other is a rabbit).

Only if the duck and rabbit in question are anthropomorphically bipedal and capable of speech. Oh, and also copyrighted by Warner Brothers :D

[Irishman]

The Second Stone said:
Tomndebb, frankly I'm appalled at your one-sided application of the rules.

Oh, no, not another "Tomndebb hates conservatives!" thread.

Or is this yet another example of your bending-over-backwards and over-protectiveness of conservative racist hatred? ...

The incidents where you engage in this bending over backwards that I have seen always have been where you are protecting a point of view you seem to disagree with (usually conservative) and smack down a (usually liberal) poster who denounces in general a disgusting argument and in general those people who make it. Liberals should be entitled to just as much leeway in denouncing a group in general as conservatives. It seems you are over-compensating.

Oops, didn't see that coming.

Thanks for the laugh.

[The Second Stone]

DUCK SEASON! Fire, FIRE! FIRE!

Seriously, it is clear that Tom is politically a moderate to liberal from his non-moderator posts. But this thing where he constantly pretends that you can't call conservatives hard hearted per se in a general sense (as a paraphrased example) is something I haven't seen him do to conservatives.

[Rhythmdvl]

OT:
By the way, anyone else out there find it refreshing that though the OP has the trappings of a vitriolic diatribe (e.g., perceptions of mod bias, heavy-handedness, unwarranted intervention, etc.), it does not have the knee-jerk semi-shouting that often accompanies such posts? It's almost as if the thread was intended to merely question and discuss modding actions instead of rant and shout and dance up to the Pit line with insults and surplus anger. (Er, I meant to use "almost" sardonically, not to suggest the OP wasn't serious). It's been about 24 hours and no one has yet jumped on the bandwagon with a "yeah, the mods here suck and so doz this board!" quasi-rant. Not that there shouldn't be feedback, complaints, and whatnot; just that it's nice that there's no chip on the OP's shoulder.


ETA: RABBIT SEASON!

[Irishman]

Agreed. (Especially since it was first posted in the Pit.)

[TriPolar]

I'll defend Tomndebb. His comments about my post were based on it's 'over the top' nature, which my post might be interpreted as by reasonable people. Also, I did use terms and phrases that might reasonably be interpretted as insults toward people, such as Southerners for example, who may not have had the attributes I described. Also, I greatly desired to fling insults at certain people who's motives I cannot claim to know, and I accept the concept that this desire may have been apparent in my post, even if not explicit.

[The Second Stone]

Well, the non-foaming-at-the-mouth nature of the OP is a result of editing that stuff out before posting it. It was there, trust me. The thing is, I like Tomndebb a lot as a poster, but good flying spaghetti monster, his modding is just bizarre.

[tomndebb]

Seriously, it is clear that Tom is politically a moderate to liberal from his non-moderator posts. But this thing where he constantly pretends that you can't call conservatives hard hearted per se in a general sense (as a paraphrased example) is something I haven't seen him do to conservatives.How did this become a "liberal/conservative" issue?

Marley got it exactly right.
ed malin's post was a nice little diatribe that I would have ignored, except that his most hostile comments were directed to other posters in the thread. For that, I admonished him to leave those sort of comments for the BBQ Pit.
Immediately after my exchange with ed malin, you posted an attack on people with whom you disagreed, employing a key phrase from my comment, (ed malin did not use that phrase), and claimed that people with whom you were in philosophial disagreement were bad people.
If you really meant that some vaguely identified group of people with whom you disagreed--but not the posters in that thread--were guilty of being bad, then you should not have tied their "guilt" directly to a post in which a Moderator declared that insulting other posters was inappropriate behavior.

[Cheshire Human]

rabbit season!

duck season!!!

[The Second Stone]

How did this become a "liberal/conservative" issue?

Marley got it exactly right.
ed malin's post was a nice little diatribe that I would have ignored, except that his most hostile comments were directed to other posters in the thread. For that, I admonished him to leave those sort of comments for the BBQ Pit.
Immediately after my exchange with ed malin, you posted an attack on people with whom you disagreed, employing a key phrase from my comment, (ed malin did not use that phrase), and claimed that people with whom you were in philosophial disagreement were bad people.
If you really meant that some vaguely identified group of people with whom you disagreed--but not the posters in that thread--were guilty of being bad, then you should not have tied their "guilt" directly to a post in which a Moderator declared that insulting other posters was inappropriate behavior.

Still nonsense. Of course people in the thread who I disagree with fall into that category. That is unavoidable because they are in the despised category. The rule prohibits calling opposing counsel for the KKK racists, it does not prohibit calling actual racists, racists. If you choose to infer that opposing counsel are also closet members of the KKK, that is your right, but I did not do it either directly, I accused people who were racists of being racists, which is what is on trial in the thread, and that is moral turpitude per the premise of the thread. You are in essence prohibiting my accusation from being leveled directly and without adornment because you have concluded that by being so blunt and plain, that I am accusing all who defend racism of being racist and morally depraved. Which I am. But I am not doing it by name, or even saying dopers or people in this thread. You have suddenly made it against the rules to shove your own phrase in the face of generalized racists. Stop protecting the sensitivities of racists, do protect individual posters. Follow the rules. That means generalized groups of losers can be called just that.

[Cheshire Human]

....

Racist xxxxx! and xxxx!

[Trying out the newest dumbass meme. note the lack of smilie]

[The Second Stone]

pay attention sir, racism was what we were talking about.

[Cheshire Human]

pay attention sir, racism was what we were talking about.

Sorry, I just came upon this again. I posted it into the wrong thread. Ignore me! :smack:

[The Second Stone]

Sorry, I just came upon this again. I posted it into the wrong thread. Ignore me! :smack:

Junior Mod hat on abusing authority:

Umm, it is not acceptable behavior at the SDMB to admit wrong and apologize in one single post!

Not an official warning, don't give up so easily again! :D All is forgiven.

Junior Mod hat off abusing authority:

[Rhythmdvl]

Junior Mod hat on abusing authority:

Umm, it is not acceptable behavior at the SDMB to admit wrong and apologize in one single post!

Not an official warning, don't give up so easily again! :D All is forgiven.

Junior Mod hat off abusing authority:

Not only that, but he referred to the ignore list outside the Pit!


GET HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Second Stone]

Not only that, but he referred to the ignore list outside the Pit!


GET HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No sir, you referred to the compilation that shall not be named, he merely referred to an action in general. SPLITTER!!!!

[tomndebb]

Still nonsense. Of course people in the thread who I disagree with fall into that category. That is unavoidable because they are in the despised category.You are not paying attention.
You used a specific phrase that tied your insults to a specific Moderator comment in a way that directly tied your insults to other posters.
You do not need to agree with me, but you do need to refrain from posting in a way that directly insults other posters.

Stop protecting the sensitivities of racists, do protect individual posters. Follow the rules. That means generalized groups of losers can be called just that.I do not care about the "sensitivities" of anyone--except to the point where one poster insults another poster (or group of posters), thus risking a flame war.
Calling a "generalized group" "losers" means taking care that one does not use language that directly ties those being insulted to posters on this board.

I also deny that you are capable of accurately identifying "racists" based solely on positions taken regarding the "state's rights" vs. "slavery" origins of the U.S. Civil War. Thus, you are simply employing your own prejudices, here, to contrinue insulting other posters for no reaon that I can determine except to give yourself the smug satisfaction of believing you hold some sort of moral superiority that you have failed to actually demonstrate.

Rather than continue this discussion until you reach the point where you are Warned by ATMB Mods for insulting other posters, I will simply note that I have made my position known and that my ruling stands.

[Zoe]

The Second Stone: Anybody who has read the secession statutes and articles who still argues that slavery was the central issue of the civil war is intellectually utterly dishonest.

Those are your own words from Post #1. See how easy it is to make ourselves misunderstood? It's a good thing not to jump to conclusions, brandish labels, and react as if these labels are the set-in-stone truth. That is the very template for developing prejudices ourselves.

Just to set the record straight, you later said this, which is what I think that you meant to say:

Examination of the secession statements alone demolishes that the underlying reason was anything other than slavery.

It must be very frustrating for Tomndebb to be accused of favoring the liberals one minute and then favoring conservatives the next. (How dare you be so even-handed, Tom!)

[The Second Stone]

You are not paying attention.
You used a specific phrase that tied your insults to a specific Moderator comment in a way that directly tied your insults to other posters.
You do not need to agree with me, but you do need to refrain from posting in a way that directly insults other posters.

You do not seem to understand the difference between direct and indirect when moderating. When posting, you do actually seem to understand the difference. "you are a smurf" is a direct statement. "you have blue skin and smurfs have blue skin" is an indirect statement. An example would be: Poster Ayn Rand is scum. Not allowed. Libertarians are scum. Allowed. All posters who are libertarians are scum, not allowed.

The fact that I used "moral turpitude" is what seems to be pushing your abuse of power button. You did not invent the phrase, you just applied it in a perfect way that demanded adopting in a general sense.

I do not care about the "sensitivities" of anyone--except to the point where one poster insults another poster (or group of posters), thus risking a flame war.
Calling a "generalized group" "losers" means taking care that one does not use language that directly ties those being insulted to posters on this board.

I also deny that you are capable of accurately identifying "racists" based solely on positions taken regarding the "state's rights" vs. "slavery" origins of the U.S. Civil War. Thus, you are simply employing your own prejudices, here, to contrinue insulting other posters for no reaon that I can determine except to give yourself the smug satisfaction of believing you hold some sort of moral superiority that you have failed to actually demonstrate.

Rather than continue this discussion until you reach the point where you are Warned by ATMB Mods for insulting other posters, I will simply note that I have made my position known and that my ruling stands.

First of all, I am not morally superior to anyone, even racists. I don't frankly, think that Hitler was any more of a monster than I am capable of being. He/I was/am both sinners and humans and capable of great evil. I try to avoid doing evil. I am not always successful. He is one of my warnings. Second, you are being obtuse in the technical sense. Slavery supporters and individual posters are categorically not the same. I use categorically in the technical sense.* Racists need to be denounced and educated, not coddled. Third, you have the power to warn and do anything you want. That doesn't make it non-abused. Fourth, you have made up the rule about tying language and applied it when a liberal generally denounces conservatives. You do not do that the other way around, in threads on abortion where liberals are called baby killers in general, and it generally insults every liberal posting in the thread.

You are welcome to say that I am incorrectly identifying racists and employing my own prejudices. That is your opinion, it is not an insult and it is on topic. I deny that I am incorrectly identifying racists, however I accept that I am applying my pre-judgments, because I am. Whether it be states rights crowd or people opposed to the 64 civil rights act, they are supporting a racist view and their personal acceptance of that is irrelevant to my conclusion of the result of their "philosophy" on principle or otherwise: responsibility for the consequences of action or inaction or silence exists. In short, you are using the word prejudice correctly, but not the dichotomy between direct and indirect. But do not mistake that my prejudices, my pre-judgments, are not based in rationality. They are. Those who argue for a racist result indirectly (like Rand Paul) are supporting racism and are racist. Whatever semantic or philosophic tricks they employ to sound respectable to themselves or others are rejected by my rules: show me results. Another example: Chief Justice John Roberts always (up till last year, I haven't checked since) rules in favor of corporations against individuals. It is entirely fair of me based on this sample of hundreds of rulings to conclude that he is a fascist in judicial philosophy, meaning that he rules for corporations and the state and submerges individual rights. That is my prejudgment. He can pettifog all he wants in his judicial opinions, but my heuristic is going to be a better predictor of his behavior in future cases than his legal reasoning. It is the same with concluding that the states rights supporters are racists if they are aware of the actual secession statutes. (People who have not read the secession statutes and are just parroting what they mis-learned in grade school are excepted, as I have stated almost every time.)

Lastly, you are not obliged to participate in this discussion at all. My points have been made and your "defense" of them is pathetic, an appeal to pathos: it is an appeal to your power, and [I]ipse dixit.[/I ] I have done nothing in this thread violating any rules so I am in no danger of being "warned", unless the mods are going to make up other rules. Or are you and the other mods snarking on your private mod board about me? The fact is, if you guys want to change the rules, I am all in favor of that. Rules I can understand. This pull stuff out of a hat is exactly what I am objecting to. (Well, that and the intellectual dishonesty of saying the Civil War was not fought over slavery.)


When I first joined, we were engaged in a similar discussion about Confederate heritage and slavery. I made the "mistake" of saying that Confederate apologists were racists. Our dear Liberal decided to say something to the effect people with my opinion were idiots, implying that I was an idiot. The import was unmistakable. But it sure as hell wasn't direct. Now y'all claim that the rules were not different for Liberal, which is another matter entirely, but I checked very carefully, and indeed, he had not violated the rules, as that was allowed. Now, I conceded that I was in fact an idiot, and Liberal being the wise man that he is, engaged in no further argument with me. He understood the difference between direct and indirect and so do I.

I don't want this to stop or be swept under the rug. I want the rules to be clear. If in fact it isn't allowed, I would like that in writing: no direct or indirect insults (although I do not concede I was insulting, as moral turpitude was denouncing behavior and why it was the perfect phrase.) I want my opponents to stop having a technique that I cannot use. Applied to the abortion debate, if this rule were adopted, it would be against the rules to call pro-choice people baby killers. Applied to Liberal, it would have meant that he had broken the rules.

*Categorically is a perfect example of why I am using the word obtuse. Tomndebb, you, of all people, know that direct and indirect and categories are in rhetoric. It was perfectly within SDMB rules for Reagan, in the Reagan/Carter debates to slam Democrats. It was outside the rules of that debate (and probably within the rules here) to say "There you go again." Notwithstanding that it was a prepared phrase based on the use of stolen prep books.

[The Second Stone]

Those are your own words from Post #1. See how easy it is to make ourselves misunderstood? It's a good thing not to jump to conclusions, brandish labels, and react as if these labels are the set-in-stone truth. That is the very template for developing prejudices ourselves.

Just to set the record straight, you later said this, which is what I think that you meant to say:



It must be very frustrating for Tomndebb to be accused of favoring the liberals one minute and then favoring conservatives the next. (How dare you be so even-handed, Tom!)

Please pay attention Zoe. I don't charge TnD with favoring liberals, but rather as being a liberal himself, bending over backwards and being extra fair to conservatives. That requires an examination of the facts of the particular incident, which in this case does not involve any charge of favoring any liberals. I gather that you are implying that because he gets grief from both sides that must mean he is doing his job right, the old newspaperman's saw that if the left and right both accuse you of bias, you must be perfect. Well, be suspicious of that. We have a specific case where all people of the following view: "states rights was the issue, not slavery" who have read the secession statutes are being accused of "moral turpitude" (that is intellectual dishonesty on the morality of slavery). It is a perfectly cromulent argument and charge.

[tomndebb]

I don't want this to stop or be swept under the rug. I want the rules to be clear.Ahh! A barracks lawyer, (AKA rules lawyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer)).

Sorry. I am on record as saying that I find that sort of "rules" lawyering to be counterproductive and I am pretty sure that I have the support of the rest of the staff in that regard. You were not Warned for having broken a rule. You were not Warned at all. You were simly told to back off on your deliberate association of an insult with posters in a particualr thread. You are perfectly free to make your case for "racism," providing you are exceptionally clear that you are not directing your comments at your fellow posters. You have now spent four times the time and energy with your special pleading to be allowed to insult other posters than you have spent actually defending your absolutist stance on morality.

Enjoy yourself. Our discussion is over.

[The Second Stone]

A, a barracks judge. As long as you are aware that you pulled a previously non-existent rule out of thin air, applied it and generally abused your authority as a moderator and that I am not letting you get away with it without mentioning it.

You are not officially warned either. But you are unofficially cautioned that you should learn the difference between direct and indirect and when somebody has violated the rules and not.

I never insulted any other individual poster and to the extent that you say so, say the name and make the quote. You made that up, and it is low and I'd say beneath you, but in your moderating capacity, it is your standard procedure. I ask for no special pleading, only that I be treated the same as everybody else, and that you treat everyone equally. Which you do not do.

You too, enjoy yourself. Discussion suspended until the next time.

[Irishman]

There are two issues (at least) in discussion here. I will separate my discussions.

The Second Stone's primary complaint in this thread is interpretation of his remarks as attacks on posters rather than attacks on a general class or group of people.

tomndebb said:
Immediately after my exchange with ed malin, you posted an attack on people with whom you disagreed, employing a key phrase from my comment, (ed malin did not use that phrase), and claimed that people with whom you were in philosophial disagreement were bad people.
If you really meant that some vaguely identified group of people with whom you disagreed--but not the posters in that thread--were guilty of being bad, then you should not have tied their "guilt" directly to a post in which a Moderator declared that insulting other posters was inappropriate behavior.

Point of order: is it unacceptable to bash a general class of people who happen to include members of this board?

The Second Stone cited a specific class of people:
an educated person pushing "states rights"

I agree that ed malin's diatribe was directed at posters in this thread. I agree that The Second Stone took your phrase to cast his arguement. I do not agree that by taking your wording The Second Stone was inherently directing his attack at specific or collective board members, but at the general class of educated people advocating the Civil War was about states rights rather than about slavery.

Now I don't think he has made his case, but that is not relevant to the intent of the remark as made. My take is that you appear to be reading into his remark an intent based upon feelings carried in from ed malin's post, not based upon anything The Second Stone actually said.

An analogy is he stated "All Republicans are engaged in moral turpitude". Whether that is factual is irrelevant. He can be harried in the thread in question or some other thread for the validity of that remark. But here the issue is about you giving him a moderator admonishment for attacking other posters in the thread. But he didn't attack other posters in the thread except by virtue of them being a part of the larger class of people "Republicans".

tomndebb said:
You used a specific phrase that tied your insults to a specific Moderator comment in a way that directly tied your insults to other posters.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. Because he copied use of your phrase "moral turpitude", he has automatically become guilty of attacking specific posters on this board? I will note that your specific use of moral turpitude appears to be framed around the broader class of people who incorrectly argue for a "states rights" motivation for the secession. You yourself appear to be discussing the larger group of people than just people on this board who argue the states' rights position.

tomndebb said:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone
I don't want this to stop or be swept under the rug. I want the rules to be clear.

Ahh! A barracks lawyer, (AKA rules lawyer).

Sorry. I am on record as saying that I find that sort of "rules" lawyering to be counterproductive and I am pretty sure that I have the support of the rest of the staff in that regard.

The Second Stone does not appear to me to be trying to manipulate or twist the rules in any way. He has pointed out a situation where you appear to be citing him for doing something when other posters do it all the time and it is apparently acceptable. I think it is wholely appropriate to ask for clarification of what he is doing wrong that others are not doing wrong, to clarify the rules.

You are perfectly free to make your case for "racism," providing you are exceptionally clear that you are not directing your comments at your fellow posters.

If this is true, then I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of The Second Stone's comments. I suppose one could think when he said "people who argue X" he meant "posters who argue X" and not "people in general who argue X", but it is just as fair to say he meant the latter as the former. There doesn't appear to be any justification for arguing he meant the former.

[Irishman]

Second issue:

The Second Stone said:
Please pay attention Zoe. I don't charge TnD with favoring liberals, but rather as being a liberal himself, bending over backwards and being extra fair to conservatives. That requires an examination of the facts of the particular incident, which in this case does not involve any charge of favoring any liberals. I gather that you are implying that because he gets grief from both sides that must mean he is doing his job right, the old newspaperman's saw that if the left and right both accuse you of bias, you must be perfect. Well, be suspicious of that. We have a specific case where all people of the following view: "states rights was the issue, not slavery" who have read the secession statutes are being accused of "moral turpitude" (that is intellectual dishonesty on the morality of slavery). It is a perfectly cromulent argument and charge.

Wait, if you wish to make this about the specifics of this one event, then you shouldn't have started with the accusation

...is this yet another example of your bending-over-backwards and over-protectiveness of conservative racist hatred?

and

The incidents where you engage in this bending over backwards that I have seen always have been where you are protecting a point of view you seem to disagree with (usually conservative) and smack down a (usually liberal) poster who denounces in general a disgusting argument and in general those people who make it. Liberals should be entitled to just as much leeway in denouncing a group in general as conservatives. It seems you are over-compensating.

And you have repeated the accusation a couple more times in this thread, declaring that tomndebb is biased in his moderation against liberals by giving conservatives more leeway. That won't fly. You have not made the case.

In fact, if you ask conservatives on this board who gets the most leeway, they will undoubtedly and universally say Der Trihs - known for being so provacatively liberal that he is practically a curse word. Since you made the argument that this is a pattern of behavior and not a one-off case, it is totally appropriate for Zoe to examine tomndebb's complete reputation, and on that matter you fail to make your case.

Now I grant you that I don't really read GD, so you might have some actual evidence to present. But be warned that the standard of comparison is going to be Der Trihs.

And no, I'm not happy to bring Der Trihs into this. I would prefer not to bring this up yet again, because now this thread is almost certainly going to derail into a whinefest about why he gets special treatment. And that's not my goal at all!

And really, this point is unnecessary for your main issue - the specific incident in question.

[Zoe]

I was paying very close attention to what was written, The Second Stone. I didn't say that you charged Tomndebb with favoring liberals! Heavens no! It's just that that happens so often in other threads. I recognize that you were accusing him of favoring conservatives (or of being "extra fair" to them as you put it.)

That requires an examination of the facts of the particular incident, which in this case does not involve any charge of favoring any liberals. I gather that you are implying that because he gets grief from both sides that must mean he is doing his job right, the old newspaperman's saw that if the left and right both accuse you of bias, you must be perfect.

Sorry, but this path is leading far from home. I give you credit for kindly taking the time to respond to my comments. But I am much more logical than you give me credit for.

...We have a specific case where all people of the following view: "states rights was the issue, not slavery" who have read the secession statutes are being accused of "moral turpitude" (that is intellectual dishonesty on the morality of slavery). It is a perfectly cromulent argument and charge.

I agree with you that slavery was by far the main issue and that at that time even issues of states' rights were mainly or at least indirectly about slavery. No bones about it.

There are people today who support states' rights because of other issues than racism. The one that comes to my mins is abortion rights. Some people support states' rights so that they can make laws concerning abortion that make it more and more difficult for a woman to have abortion on demand. Some states already have these laws inacted. Another issue for states' rights is the right to marry.

I am a supporter of a strong Federal government and a liberal from a very left wing family. There are more of us than you might think in the South. Nashville is a symbol of all things Southern and the city voted in support of Obama. Don't make the mistake of being prejudiced against Southerners. That just leads to such silliness as people changing their accents and dialects to disguise their backgrounds (ala Stephen Colbert of Charleston, South Carolina, closet Southerner).

[The Second Stone]

There are two issues (at least) in discussion here. I will separate my discussions.

The Second Stone's primary complaint in this thread is interpretation of his remarks as attacks on posters rather than attacks on a general class or group of people.

tomndebb said:


Point of order: is it unacceptable to bash a general class of people who happen to include members of this board?

The Second Stone cited a specific class of people:


I agree that ed malin's diatribe was directed at posters in this thread. I agree that The Second Stone took your phrase to cast his arguement. I do not agree that by taking your wording The Second Stone was inherently directing his attack at specific or collective board members, but at the general class of educated people advocating the Civil War was about states rights rather than about slavery.

Now I don't think he has made his case, but that is not relevant to the intent of the remark as made. My take is that you appear to be reading into his remark an intent based upon feelings carried in from ed malin's post, not based upon anything The Second Stone actually said.

An analogy is he stated "All Republicans are engaged in moral turpitude". Whether that is factual is irrelevant. He can be harried in the thread in question or some other thread for the validity of that remark. But here the issue is about you giving him a moderator admonishment for attacking other posters in the thread. But he didn't attack other posters in the thread except by virtue of them being a part of the larger class of people "Republicans".

tomndebb said:


I don't follow your line of reasoning. Because he copied use of your phrase "moral turpitude", he has automatically become guilty of attacking specific posters on this board? I will note that your specific use of moral turpitude appears to be framed around the broader class of people . You yourself appear to be discussing the larger group of people than just people on this board who argue the states' rights position.

tomndebb said:


The Second Stone does not appear to me to be trying to manipulate or twist the rules in any way. He has pointed out a situation where you appear to be citing him for doing something when other posters do it all the time and it is apparently acceptable. I think it is wholely appropriate to ask for clarification of what he is doing wrong that others are not doing wrong, to clarify the rules.



If this is true, then I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of The Second Stone's comments. I suppose one could think when he said "people who argue X" he meant "posters who argue X" and not "people in general who argue X", but it is just as fair to say he meant the latter as the former. There doesn't appear to be any justification for arguing he meant the former.

Irishman, you have stated exactly what I have been trying to say with respect to the general class of confederate apologists. Amen. But that isn't what is going on here. Tomndebb is not looking at the written evidence, the only evidence here, and presumably off in moderator land of their private snark board are making things up and imputing motives that are non-existent in their effort to circle the moderator wagon because you cannot say that "states rights" apologists are morally and intellectually bankrupt slavery apologists because it will offend the sensibilities of posters who happen to fall within that group of apologists, even though I am clearly and unequivocally including the blowhards on pundit radio and TV who push the states rights crap (presumably as I don't listen to that stuff) and teach it in schools.

With respect to accusation against Tomndebb bending over backwards to protect the sensibilities of the Sean Hannity's of the world because it might include posters, I'll concede that it is a bare accusation without a long offer of evidence. My evidence is basically the utterly illogical rebuke against me and the ignore all facts defense of that rebuke along with my long experience and interpretation of seeing Tomndebb doing this over and over again. Just my word, I haven't conducted a search. Now, Tomndebb is usually quite rational when defending his points of view. But when defending his moderating, he frequently abandons all logical thinking and says, because I say so. People do that sort of thing. But let's not pretend that it is anything more than a raw assertion of authority from a person who when not personally involved would never do such a thing in an argument. Nor would I do it without admitting it. If something is just my opinion I have no qualms in saying so.

Now, Irishman, I have to say thank you and my apologies. I'm not supposed to waver in my steadfastness when something is in my opinion indisputably correct, and normally, if Tomndebb is only posting as a moderator, I assume that he is right and I am wrong and I go double and triple check. But you are going to get on the moderator eyeroll list for "encouraging" me. But when Tomndebb is moderating, he is as wrong as often as he is right when posting as a poster, so much so that I wonder if I am just developing a salivating response to seeing his wackiness in making up rules as he goes along.

The rule at SDMB is clear that there are no direct personal insults in GD. And it is a good rule. It is the rule of civilized debate. But indirectly attacking a noxious general public opinion like "states rights" is not a violation of that rule in letter or spirit. In rhetoric rules, it is an ad hominem, but it is not an improper or fallacious ad hominem because the disgustingness of states rights apology and its moral character is the subject of the debate.

[tomndebb]

Point of order: is it unacceptable to bash a general class of people who happen to include members of this board?No. However, it is not permitted to bash a class of people in such a way that that the poster links that class directly to posters with whom he or she is engaged.

I agree that ed malin's diatribe was directed at posters in this thread. I agree that The Second Stone took your phrase to cast his arguement. I do not agree that by taking your wording The Second Stone was inherently directing his attack at specific or collective board members, but at the general class of educated people advocating the Civil War was about states rights rather than about slavery.

Now I don't think he has made his case, but that is not relevant to the intent of the remark as made. My take is that you appear to be reading into his remark an intent based upon feelings carried in from ed malin's post, not based upon anything The Second Stone actually said. What I am doing is reading the thread from the perspective of a poster who happens to hold the states rights argument who sees, first, an attack upon his person, followed by a Mod's intervention to prevent that from occurring further, followed by one more attack that would most likely be construed as a further attack upon his or her person.

Note the construction of The Second Stone's post. Following my introduction of the phrase "moral turpitude" to paraphrase ed malin's attack on other posters, The Second Stone specifically says thatI'd argue that an educated person pushing "states rights" is engaged in moral turpitude.In the context of the three posts in question, The Second Stone has specifically selected a phrase that was used in conjunction with an attack on other posters and insisted that the phrase does apply to someone without making any effort to distance his remarks from the posters on the board.

All that I sought at that point was a shift in emphasis to ensure that no poster was attacked. Such a shift could have taken the form of highlighting specific historians that had made the argument and demonstrating their pro-slavery views. It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster or even simply making sure that all further posts clearly indicated he was not including other posters in his remarks. It could even have amounted to simply not posting that view, again, if that sub-thread died out on its own.

If The Second Stone insists on coming in here and playing barracks lawyer on a matter of "rules" when there is a long and explicit tradition that this board is not Moderated in that fashion, he is simply going to be disappointed.
I did not invent a rule. I did not employ a rule--real or imagined--to impose a Warning on a poster.
I moderated the discourse with a note that statements that could easily be construed as personal attacks were to be posted in the BBQ Pit.

[Irishman]

Zoe said:
There are people today who support states' rights because of other issues than racism. The one that comes to my mins is abortion rights. Some people support states' rights so that they can make laws concerning abortion that make it more and more difficult for a woman to have abortion on demand. Some states already have these laws inacted. Another issue for states' rights is the right to marry.


I think you are talking about a different topic than The Second Stone. I believe he is arguing only about people who claim the cause, reason, justification, whatever of the Civil War was about the larger issue of State's Rights rather than the issue of Slavery and the States' desire to maintain that economic policy (talk about euphamism). I don't believe The Second Stone has anything to say about people who are currently unsettled with the government and the current administration and who are lobbying to make more local decisions rather than being stuck with the centralized ones with which they disagree.

That just leads to such silliness as people changing their accents and dialects to disguise their backgrounds (ala Stephen Colbert of Charleston, South Carolina, closet Southerner).

To be fair, his schtick is pretending to be other than he is, so that's just par for his course.

The Second Stone said:
But that isn't what is going on here. Tomndebb is not looking at the written evidence, the only evidence here, and presumably off in moderator land of their private snark board are making things up and imputing motives that are non-existent in their effort to circle the moderator wagon because you cannot say that "states rights" apologists are morally and intellectually bankrupt slavery apologists because it will offend the sensibilities of posters who happen to fall within that group of apologists, even though I am clearly and unequivocally including the blowhards on pundit radio and TV who push the states rights crap (presumably as I don't listen to that stuff) and teach it in schools.

Now you are making further unfounded accusations: (a) that the moderator private board is for snarking and has no legitimate function; (b) that the moderators (especially tomndebb) are intentionally misrepresenting your position so that they can pick on you (apparently)? I see no other reason for intentionally misrepresenting your intent in order to have cause to comment against you other than to pick on you; why would they need to manufacture a charge against you to defend other board members?

But you are going to get on the moderator eyeroll list for "encouraging" me.

You have no idea what lists I am on. I stand by my posting history.


tomndebb said:
No. However, it is not permitted to bash a class of people in such a way that that the poster links that class directly to posters with whom he or she is engaged.

Okay, that is interesting. I suppose an example of that might be

poster 1: "I'm a tax collector."
poster 2: "Yeah, well all tax collectors suck ass."

That's almost certainly a deliberate attack against poster 1 veiled under a convenient group label. I can see why that is not allowed. But that certainly does make the rule a little fuzzier in how to interpret.

It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster or even simply making sure that all further posts clearly indicated he was not including other posters in his remarks.

Thank you for the response. Is that really the rule? So someone posting "all conservatives suck ass" is going to get a moderator note because some posters on this board are conservatives? They would have to say "All conservatives suck ass (except for the conservatives on this board)"?

I'm asking the question because I don't go hurling near insults enough to know where the lines break down. Obviously I don't hang out enough in GD.

I did not invent a rule. I did not employ a rule--real or imagined--to impose a Warning on a poster.
I moderated the discourse with a note that statements that could easily be construed as personal attacks were to be posted in the BBQ Pit.

Yes, I intended to comment that the repercussions of the moderating were pretty slim. I mean, it's not like you even gave him a warning, just a comment to watch his tone.

[The Second Stone]

No, it is not the rule that "all smurfs suck" is against the rules because there are smurfs on the board. If that were the case I wouldn't have started this thread (in the Pit) and I would have acknowledged a mistake, apologized and moved on. I will still do that if there is a cite to a rule. But there hasn't been. This is a rule being made up on the spot.

[The Second Stone]

No. However, it is not permitted to bash a class of people in such a way that that the poster links that class directly to posters with whom he or she is engaged.

What I am doing is reading the thread from the perspective of a poster who happens to hold the states rights argument who sees, first, an attack upon his person, followed by a Mod's intervention to prevent that from occurring further, followed by one more attack that would most likely be construed as a further attack upon his or her person.

Note the construction of The Second Stone's post. Following my introduction of the phrase "moral turpitude" to paraphrase ed malin's attack on other posters, The Second Stone specifically says thatIn the context of the three posts in question, The Second Stone has specifically selected a phrase that was used in conjunction with an attack on other posters and insisted that the phrase does apply to someone without making any effort to distance his remarks from the posters on the board.

All that I sought at that point was a shift in emphasis to ensure that no poster was attacked. Such a shift could have taken the form of highlighting specific historians that had made the argument and demonstrating their pro-slavery views. It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster or even simply making sure that all further posts clearly indicated he was not including other posters in his remarks. It could even have amounted to simply not posting that view, again, if that sub-thread died out on its own.

If The Second Stone insists on coming in here and playing barracks lawyer on a matter of "rules" when there is a long and explicit tradition that this board is not Moderated in that fashion, he is simply going to be disappointed.
I did not invent a rule. I did not employ a rule--real or imagined--to impose a Warning on a poster.
I moderated the discourse with a note that statements that could easily be construed as personal attacks were to be posted in the BBQ Pit.

Nice of you to finally get around to admitting that it is not a rule and is only a "tradition". And I thought that you had washed your hands of this thread?

Rather than continue this discussion until you reach the point where you are Warned by ATMB Mods for insulting other posters, I will simply note that I have made my position known and that my ruling stands.

Can we only assume that you have come back to undermine your previous assertions? The reason that you are undermining your assertions that this isn't allowed is that you have finally invented that it is a "tradition", not a rule. Had that been the case, you could have done it right off the bat. But because this is being made up as it is going forward, because yet another person agreed that I was not insulting an individual poster and because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong about moderating, you keep making your inventions more elaborate and more preposterous.

So rather than post a rule, or a reminder that we have a "tradition" around here of not criticizing despicable practices that some posters may secretly support, (Are there really any posters here who have read the secession statutes who still support the "states rights" lies?) it is a good practice to pull this "tradition" we now call it out of a hat (and if this weren't moved from the pit I wouldn't be using "hat") and say it is a "tradition". Well, I've been a poster for two years now and I was unaware of this "tradition". I was aware that Tomndebb had a personal moderating tradition of bending over backwards to see that the conservative movement is less insulted than the liberal movement, which I object to.


If The Second Stone insists on coming in here and playing barracks lawyer on a matter of "rules" when there is a long and explicit tradition that this board is not Moderated in that fashion, he is simply going to be disappointed.

I would like to know where this explicit tradition is written down. That is what explicit means. I will happily abide by the rule if it is written down and retract everything I have criticized you over if it is an existing written rule. That is what explicit means.

Second, I did rise to your "barracks lawyer" bait earlier and called you a "barracks judge", which was an insult, and against the rules. I apologize for that. I was in the wrong. You have twice called me a "barracks lawyer" or "rules lawyer". I note for purposes of the discussion of the thread that those are in fact, direct and explicit insults.

I would like the rules to be applied in the same way for all. If that happens, I will not be disappointed.

[tomndebb]

tomndebb said:
No. However, it is not permitted to bash a class of people in such a way that that the poster links that class directly to posters with whom he or she is engaged.

Okay, that is interesting. I suppose an example of that might be

poster 1: "I'm a tax collector."
poster 2: "Yeah, well all tax collectors suck ass."

That's almost certainly a deliberate attack against poster 1 veiled under a convenient group label. I can see why that is not allowed. But that certainly does make the rule a little fuzzier in how to interpret.

It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster or even simply making sure that all further posts clearly indicated he was not including other posters in his remarks.

Thank you for the response. Is that really the rule? So someone posting "all conservatives suck ass" is going to get a moderator note because some posters on this board are conservatives? They would have to say "All conservatives suck ass (except for the conservatives on this board)"?

I'm asking the question because I don't go hurling near insults enough to know where the lines break down. Obviously I don't hang out enough in GD.It is not true that saying "all conservatives/liberals/atheists/believers/whatevers suck ass" gets a Warning in GD. (And the Mods receive a fair amount of mail in complaints by conservatives/liberals/atheists/believers/whatevers that we do not enforce the rule in that way. A strict enorcement of that interpretation of the rule would mean that no negative comment could be posted by anyone at any time in GD, because we really do have posters representing just about every possible philosophical position.) However, as I have noted in several posts in this thread, there was a direct link between the language employed by The Second Stone and a Mod's response to an attack on other posters. The language employed created a much closer connection to other posters than simply saying "some vaguely identified group that holds a certain philosophical opinion."

[Irishman]

tomndebb said:
However, as I have noted in several posts in this thread, there was a direct link between the language employed by The Second Stone and a Mod's response to an attack on other posters. The language employed created a much closer connection to other posters than simply saying "some vaguely identified group that holds a certain philosophical opinion."

Well, I am not seeing it. Just because he lifted the phrase "moral turpitude" does not to my eye connect his claim directly against board posters. He specifically said "person" not "poster".

Oh, and he also said
And I'm not trying to scold those on the other side of the debate. But I would like them to read what the Southern proponents of secession and war actually said and wrote at the time.

Does that not speak to distancing the statement from an attack against board members?

What I am doing is reading the thread from the perspective of a poster who happens to hold the states rights argument who sees, first, an attack upon his person, followed by a Mod's intervention to prevent that from occurring further, followed by one more attack that would most likely be construed as a further attack upon his or her person.

This appears to be the root of your perspective. While I certainly understand that in principle, I'm not sure it follows that this case applies. But thank you for responding.

[The Second Stone]

It is not true that saying "all conservatives/liberals/atheists/believers/whatevers suck ass" gets a Warning in GD. (And the Mods receive a fair amount of mail in complaints by conservatives/liberals/atheists/believers/whatevers that we do not enforce the rule in that way. A strict enorcement of that interpretation of the rule would mean that no negative comment could be posted by anyone at any time in GD, because we really do have posters representing just about every possible philosophical position.) However, as I have noted in several posts in this thread, there was a direct link between the language employed by The Second Stone and a Mod's response to an attack on other posters. The language employed created a much closer connection to other posters than simply saying "some vaguely identified group that holds a certain philosophical opinion."

So now there isn't a rule except in a "direct link". And you still are being obtuse as to the meaning of "direct". It is only direct in your imagination, an imagination that is bending over backwards for the propaganda about the "wah between the states". You are basically saying that when you personally interpret it to be so, you will change the normal meaning of "direct" to suit your bending over backwards modding.

Moreover, you have no trademark on the phrase "moral turpitude".

[tomndebb]

Oh, and he also said
And I'm not trying to scold those on the other side of the debate. But I would like them to read what the Southern proponents of secession and war actually said and wrote at the time.
Does that not speak to distancing the statement from an attack against board members?Do you think it does? I read that as typical CYA. Poster HypotheticalA opens with everyone on the other side is a scoundrel then closes with but I am not trying to insult anyone on the other side. Do you believe that a poster who believed states rights was a significant issue would be mollified by the little disclaimer?

If a poster wishes to avoid stirring up fights and raising emotional flashpoints, I expect to see a bit more effort put into the text to reduce personal conflict.

[The Second Stone]

I think that it is utterly dishonest not to read the secession statutes. I truly would like every American who spouts "states rights" crap to read them so that they are disabused of the notion. If this is where your frankly paranoid statements are coming from, you should read my earlier posts in the thread, and even earlier posts in other threads on the subject.

The invention that I came late to the "I want people to read secession statutes" is your weakest argument yet, unless I have the magical ability to travel back in time and alter old threads.

And by the way, nice to see that you don't back down from your own direct personal insults against me in this thread. If you figure out how I "covered my ass" by going back in time and posting consistent statements in other threads, you might want to patent it.


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=539336&highlight=secession&page=2

The above is a thread that is remarkably the same in my treatment of slavery and states rights apologists. I re-read my posts, and frankly, I couldn't have written them more in matching context to my current posts then if I had completely forged them and inserted them into the SDMB database. The idea that I made up anything new for the current thread smacks of ... well, I'll let others read and come to their own conclusion. I've got posts starting on the second page going to the last. (Okay, just a little hint: it looks like I'm plagiarizing myself.)

And here is another thread on the confederate naval battle flag. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516017&highlight=secession


Now an ordinary person not abusing their authority might read those threads, realize his/her mistake and disappoint me by reading those threads, realizing he/she were 100% wrong and apologizing. Certainly that is what I as the aggrieved insultee of "barracks lawyer" would do that. But since I am regularly wrong, I'm used to admitting error and moving on. When I'm wrong. Not when I'm right.

[Irishman]

tomndebb said:
Originally Posted by Irishman
Does that not speak to distancing the statement from an attack against board members?

Do you think it does? I read that as typical CYA.

But above you posted this:

All that I sought at that point was a shift in emphasis to ensure that no poster was attacked. Such a shift could have taken the form of highlighting specific historians that had made the argument and demonstrating their pro-slavery views. It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster...

Underlining added. To me, that is exactly what that sentence says.

Look, I understand and accept that you're trying to keep the tone of the thread in control, and I agree that the level of sanction is pretty mild. And I personally feel that The Second Stone is getting all worked up over an imaginary problem - at least he has yet to post the supporting evidence to show you have a pattern of defending conservatives more than you defend liberals or any other board posters. But I want you to consider that the situation is not as clear cut as you think it is.

To me, The Second Stone was not attacking any particular poster, he was aiming his complaint against anyone who has studied the history and still tries to argue that the Civil War was about broader states rights than the right of the states to continue slavery. The fact that he followed on the heels of your moderation of ed malin for going overboard and the fact that he coopted your turn of phrase does not mean he was directly attacking board members.

Would you have said anything if, instead of using the phrase "moral turpitude" he had said "an educated person who continues to make the argument that the Civil War was about states rights is being disengenuous."? Is disengenous a polite enough word that you would have accepted it?

[tomndebb]

But I want you to consider that the situation is not as clear cut as you think it is.I do not believe that the situation was clear cut, at all. It was a judgment call I employed to make sure that that thread did not jump the rails. The thread has not jumped the rails--whether because of or despite my intervention I would not hazard a guess. The Second Stone asked what my purpose was and I answered him. You have asked a couple further questions and I have answered them. I am making no profound case that I have posted a totally correct and irreversible opinion, (other than indirectly indicating that there is nothing for me to "reverse").

Would you have said anything if, instead of using the phrase "moral turpitude" he had said "an educated person who continues to make the argument that the Civil War was about states rights is being disengenuous."? Not at all. That sentiment or something like it was expressed by multiple posters in multiple posts in that thread with no Mod reaction.

[Irishman]

tomndebb said:
I do not believe that the situation was clear cut, at all. It was a judgment call I employed to make sure that that thread did not jump the rails. The thread has not jumped the rails--whether because of or despite my intervention I would not hazard a guess. The Second Stone asked what my purpose was and I answered him. You have asked a couple further questions and I have answered them. I am making no profound case that I have posted a totally correct and irreversible opinion, (other than indirectly indicating that there is nothing for me to "reverse").

Fair enough (to me). I can accept your answer. And right, there's nothing to reverse. I suppose The Second Stone expects a statement like "You are right, you did nothing wrong, I shouldn't have admonished you" or something. I can accept it was a judgment call and there's not even an official warning.

Not at all. That sentiment or something like it was expressed by multiple posters in multiple posts in that thread with no Mod reaction.

I guess I'm just wondering what about "moral turpitude" turns the argument into a specific case. Or is it just that the accusation is leaning toward confrontational and harsh?

[tomndebb]

I guess I'm just wondering what about "moral turpitude" turns the argument into a specific case. Or is it just that the accusation is leaning toward confrontational and harsh?Since the phrase "moral turpitude" was introduced to the thread in the context of telling one poster to refrain from attacking other posters, an almost immediate response that another poster would, indeed, use that phrase in regards to a philosophical position looked too much, to me, like a futherance of the personal attack. It was the connection, not the definition, that evoked my response.

This is how the series appeared to me:
PosterA: People who believe X are doodyheads.
PosterB: People who believe X are just misinformed.
PosterC: People who believe X are nudniks.
PosterD: People who believe X are terrible, evil people who should roast in hell.
Mod: PosterD, it is not appropriate to say posters who believe in X should roast in hell; there is no reason to assume that they are meshuganas.
PosterE: Well, I would call believers in X meshuganas.
Mod: PosterE, let's not make this personal.

[ElvisL1ves]

Something like 90% or more of all complaints about modding seem to be about just one particular mod, don't they? But it's certainly possible that it's everyone else who has a problem, not him, I guess.

Gotta disagree about tom's modding being driven by politics, either way, though. He's just capricious, and defensive as all get-out when challenged on it.

[Zoe]

Irishman, your clarification for me that the states' rights issue was limited in this discussion to the Civil War period is appreciated.

The Second Stone, I pass no further judgments on your comments about states' rights. But may I suggest that you lose vital communication when you pack too much information into one sentence as in the following:

The Second Stone: Tomndebb is not looking at the written evidence, the only evidence here, and presumably off in moderator land of their private snark board are making things up and imputing motives that are non-existent in their effort to circle the moderator wagon because you cannot say that "states rights" apologists are morally and intellectually bankrupt slavery apologists because it will offend the sensibilities of posters who happen to fall within that group of apologists, even though I am clearly and unequivocally including the blowhards on pundit radio and TV who push the states rights crap (presumably as I don't listen to that stuff) and teach it in schools.

[The Second Stone]

PosterD: People who believe X are terrible, evil people who should roast in hell.
Mod: PosterD, it is not appropriate to say posters who believe in X should roast in hell; there is no reason to assume that they are meshuganas.
PosterE: Well, I would call believers in X meshuganas.
Mod: PosterE, let's not make this personal.[/INDENT]

But I did not say they were "terrible, evil people who should roast in hell." That is what we call a straw man. I didn't say it. I said "moral turpitude" in the meaning of intellectually dishonest in an immoral cause. Which it is. Spreading racist lies might be an evil act, but the people who do it are not necessarily evil by nature. Nor do I believe in hell and roasting in it for myself or others, doers of evil acts or people who are evil by nature.

[The Second Stone]

Zoe, that is the most masterful sentence ever written in the English language. Tight, compact, yet sprawling and all over the map, full of sound and fury, signifying everything.

[The Second Stone]

Here is a thread where DSeid called me an asshole in GD and Tomndebb shrugs it off.

Yeah, and stupid asshole or worse is what they call people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about and attempt to insult people who we respect over in The Pit. What of it? If we were in the Pit I'd call someone doing that that or worse but we are not, so I won't, and we also are not on Slashdot. So Slashdot etiquette don't matter none do it?

From the context it is absolutely clear that he is talking about me and no one else or any amorphous group of people. It is the same situation and Tomndebb tolerating someone flinging "asshole" in the Pit at a poster. From the context of the two threads, it is really apparent that I would have been warned or banned had I referred to a whole group, or a someone, as an "asshole" in that manner. It is a double standard, plain and simple.


And here in this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=499597 I carp about conservative in general making shit up about FDR and Pearl Harbor and comparing it to the Aug 2001 memo Bush got. Tomndebb again smacks me down for generally bashing conservatives who do this (I don't bash conservatives who don't). Yet in this thread, he admits that general remonstrating of a group is allowed.

The only two consistent things in these threads is that Tomndebb protects conservatives calling names and smacks me down for much less. There really cannot be any dispute that Tomndebb is holding different people and groups to much different standards. I object to it.

[Irishman]

Thank you, tomndebb, that really clarifies it for me.

Now I look at The Second Stone's response, and what it says to me is even though he used the second part of your statement, he didn't make the mental connection that that implied the first part of your statement.

Ahh, the joys of communication.


ElvisL1ves said:
Something like 90% or more of all complaints about modding seem to be about just one particular mod, don't they? But it's certainly possible that it's everyone else who has a problem, not him, I guess.


I'm pretty sure twickster is a she. Oh, not who you meant?

No, Tubadiva is a she, too. TubaDiva, are you kidding me? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=557113)

Oh, you meant Czarcasm and his penchant for not explaining his moderating actions.

No? Marley23 and his PM attacks?


Well you can't mean CK Dexter Haven, nobody complains about him.

I give up.

Seriously, no moderator gets 90% of the complaints.

[Irishman]

The Second Stone said:
Here is a thread where DSeid called me an asshole in GD and Tomndebb shrugs it off.

Link to tomndebb's post
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11221057&postcount=172

So I read the relevant parts of that thread, and the thing is, you are the one who first dropped insults. You are the one who said

Anonymous Coward is what they call posters over at Slashdot who decline to post by their own names or a made up name.

You were specifically talking about Una Persson.

DSeid exactly copied your phrasing. Notice that tomndebb did not warn either of you. Looks pretty evenhanded to me.

And here in this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=499597 I carp about conservative in general making shit up about FDR and Pearl Harbor and comparing it to the Aug 2001 memo Bush got. Tomndebb again smacks me down for generally bashing conservatives who do this (I don't bash conservatives who don't).

You misunderstand. What he said:

Nothing in this thread requires that it be hijacked into an acrimonious squabble over current politics. If you have a need to link WWII to the Iraq War, open a new thread.

tomndebb did not "bash you down" for attacking generic conservatives, tomndebb moderated you for making an off-topic political taunt with a likelihood for derailing the discussion.

The Second Stone said:
The only two consistent things in these threads is that Tomndebb protects conservatives calling names and smacks me down for much less.

There's nothing consistent between the moderations because they are separate incidents with separate reasons with the only common factor being that you made a comment that drew moderation from tomndebb. Any pattern you observe is confirmation bias, not inherent.

There really cannot be any dispute that Tomndebb is holding different people and groups to much different standards. I object to it.

I do dispute it. The events you cite have different explanations than the one you claim. You have not made your case.

[tomndebb]

OK, The Second Stone, I am willing to ignore all the false charges and misinterpretations you have posted for the last couple of days, but if you are going to go back and start dragging up ancient history and twisting that, I suppose I need to address it.

Your feud with DSeid occurred on pages 3 and 4 in the New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=520154&page=3) thread. It began in an acrimonious exchange with you insulting several other posters, then hiding one of your insults behind terminology that they employ at Slashdot. DSeid responded inappropriately to you. I had looked at the thread prior to your actions and had not been back to it during your feud. When I returned, I found both of you going at each other and you making a big deal about his insults while ignoring your own; I told you both to stop, and I issued no Warnings.

In the second thread (to which you actually did provide a link), you will note that all I did was point out that you had entered a potential hijack to the thread and that you could discuss that separate theme in a different thread. Your claim that I smacked you down for "generally bashing conservatives" is pretty silly in light of my actual statement Nothing in this thread requires that it be hijacked into an acrimonious squabble over current politics. If you have a need to link WWII to the Iraq War, open a new thread.

[The Second Stone]

It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. You ignore completely your own moderating, of which I am complaining. The fact is in different threads you behave differently toward different posters, based on point of view. You didn't go back at those other threads before now because they were not then evidence staring you in the face of your bias. Either it's against the rules to call someone an insulting name, or it isn't. Your little unwritten explicit tradition "directly" insulting rule was not one you cared to enforce when someone called me an "asshole" in GD. And that was a pretty unequivocal by anyone's reckoning. It was direct. It was applied to me and only me. And then, as now, you pretend to be obtuse to that, where suddenly you can reach into my mind and invent an indirect insult to an individual poster where I intended none, and elevate your own use of a phrase "moral turpitude" above asshole. Now in most people's minds "asshole" is a more coarse pejorative then the descriptive phrase "moral turpitude".

Your moderating is filled with double standards. I can't refer to a whole class of people as engaged in intellectual whoring when they are, and you letting people refer to one person as an "asshole".

The sun will rise tomorrow.

[Irishman]

The Second Stone said:
Either it's against the rules to call someone an insulting name, or it isn't. Your little unwritten explicit tradition "directly" insulting rule was not one you cared to enforce when someone called me an "asshole" in GD.

So, are you saying you want a warning for this comment?
Nice of you to know precisely that the damage is no more than 4,000 dead, which I call bogus on. It is just as internet anonymously cowardly ignorant as your calling bogus on someone who has put his name on something.

You just called Una Persson "anonymously cowardly ignorant". If you are willing to take your lumps for throwing your insult, then I suspect you can find a moderator who will throw warnings at both you and DSeid for lobbing insults in GD. But if you don't want a warning for that remark, then you can hardly complain that tomndebb is being unfair by not giving one to DSeid.

And then, as now, you pretend to be obtuse to that, where suddenly you can reach into my mind and invent an indirect insult to an individual poster where I intended none,

If you were not intending to be insulting, then I suggest you consider your tone more carefully. From that thread, Una Persson said:

I never once said that your chemist was ignorant or a coward. In fact I didn't call anyone an anonymous coward on anything. Unlike yourself, who apparently is going to be allowed to refer to me and my posts as anonymous, cowardly, and ignorant.

She certainly thought you were trying to insult her. Apparently so did DSeid. It doesn't take anyone reaching into your mind to invent anything, all we did is read the words you wrote on the page. If those words came out wrong, then you should be more careful in your word selection and arrangement.

And remember,

Either it's against the rules to call someone an insulting name, or it isn't.

If the moderators are not allowed leeway, then they are not allowed leeway, and it doesn't matter what your intent was, you called someone an insulting name.

So, are you asking for warnings against both DSeid and yourself, or are you trying to argue that the moderator is being unfair while at the same time trying to get a warning applied to DSeid but not to yourself?

[The Second Stone]

Yes, they certainly thought I was trying to insult her, and I was mistaken in using that phrase. I had thought it common. I was mistaken. I had not intended to insult, but I did in that instance.

I had incorrectly thought that people would understand the reference, but they did not, and they did not even after I explained it and offered links. The unofficial SDMB response was to allow "asshole" to be flung in GD.

It doesn't change that what the response was was certainly an insult and it was not objected to by the moderators.

No, I am not asking for warnings against DSeid, I think that is long past time to do that. I am asking that the moderators change their double standards.