I didn't realize that it was considered okay to accuse posters of being drunk

[Ibn Warraq]

Unsurprisingly several arguments took place in this thread regarding whether or not there should have been a moment of silence at the opening Olympic ceremony at the 2012 Olympics.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=659948

During the argument, Really Not All That Bright rather unwisely declared in post 77 "It's not an Israeli/Palestinian thing" which was obviously silly since as everyone admits had the murdered athletes been anything but Israelis and the killers been anything but Palestinians we wouldn't be having such a discussion.

I pointed to a comment by Jibril Rajoub, the head of the Palestinian Olympic Committee and then RNATB rather noxiously said.

A Palestinian says it's an Israeli/Palestinian thing. No shit. Mr. Rajoub probably thinks the sun rises in the east to make a political statement about Palestine.

I know that quite a few people have accused me of being an apologist for the Israelis but I most certainly am not and I called RNATB's comment what it was, "racist".

I don't see how the comment about Mr. Rajoub, "A Palestinian says it's an Israeli/Palestinian thing. No shit. Mr. Rajoub probably thinks the sun rises in the east to make a political statement about Palestine" would be fundamentally any different than someone referring to Henry Louis Gates with the comment "A black man thinks it's a race issue. Mr. Gates probably thinks the sun rises in the east because the sun is racist" or if someone making a comment about a Jewish poster said, "Of course you believe that was anti-Semitic. You're Jewish. You probably think the sun rises in the East is proof of anti-Semitism."

It's worth noting that I was hardly alone in viewing RNATB's comments as racist.

I mean no insult to him, but no one would ever classify FinnAgain as an apologist for the Palestinians or a fan of Palestinian nationalists but in post #108 he made it clear that he saw claiming that someone was unable to "perceive events properly simply because he's Palestinian"(which is what RNATB did) was racist.

Anyway, in response to my post #88 in which I said "Please don't make racist assertions" RNATB decided to respond rather insultingly with this comment in post 106.

Posting drunk last night?

I understandably found that comment rather insulting and decided to report it.

Marley23 decided that what RNATB did was only "somewhat inappropriate" and did not feel the need to chastise him but to chastise me moderating my post(#111) but not RNATB's. declaring:

While Really Not All That Bright's allegation that you were posting drunk was somewhat inappropriate for this forum, your accusation that his post was racist is also inappropriate and seemingly groundless, which I presume is why he asked if you were drunk. (It was an allegation of bias, but not racial.)

Now, for starters, his claim that my accusation of RNATB's post being "racist" was "inappropriate and seemingly groundless" is utterly silly particularly when Marley says "It was an allegation of bias, but not racial".

Well, yes, it was an allegation of bias but the allegation was rather explicitly racially based(or for those who prefer ethnically based). RNATB said that Jibril Rajoub's judgement couldn't be trusted simply because he was "a Palestinian".

Saying someone's judgement or perception of events can't be trusted due to their race/nationality/ethnicity is by definition racist.

Now, perhaps had RNATB said something different like, "It's the job of the head of the Palestinian Olympic committee to say something like that" things would be different, but that's not what he said.

What RNATB said was no different then proclaiming that one couldn't trust FinnAgain's perception of events because he's Jewish, MrDibble's because he's black, or mine because I'm Iranian.

However, Marley felt the need to moderate my post calling his assertion racist but not RNATB's accusing me of posting while drunk.

Marley may have a difficult time believing this, but I actually like him(at least as much as it's possible to like someone on the internet you've never met and who's name you don't even know) and respect him, but that was a really awful moderator decision, particularly since he and the other mods have made it clear it's perfectly permissible in GD to call other posters argument "racist" or "sexist" and even, on rare occasions when doing so can be seen as something other than insulting, call another poster "racist" or "sexist" in GD.

Beyond that, if Marley and the other mods are going to decide not to moderate posts such as:

Posting drunk last night?

then what else is not going to be moderated,

Are you retarded?

Are you a virgin?

Do you have problem getting laid?

Or other questions when they are phrased in a way that is meant to be insulting as RNATB's question was clearly designed to be.

Furthermore, mods have previously declared that it's okay to accuse posts or arguments of being "racist" but Marley seems now to be saying that we can't call other posters arguments "racist" even when such arguments are rather obviously "racist".

Now, I'll end this by saying that yes, obviously many are going to argue that RNATB's claim that Jibral Rajoub's perception of events can't be trusted because Jibril is Palestinian just as many argue that the arguments put forward by the "race realists" that "blacks" are less intelligent than "whites" aren't racist and that RNATB's claim that "Jews control US foreign policy" isn't anti-Semitic but to suggest that claiming his assertions are "baseless" is demonstrably false.

I'd also ask that someone moderate RNATB's post accusing me of posting while drunk, which was a direct personal insult and to rescind the moderation of my post calling his racist assertion a "racist assertion".

[Darth Nader]

Title: I didn't realize that it was considered okay to accuse posters of being drunk

Content: Blah blah blah. Some shit about Israel, Palestine and how fat yo momma be.

Conclusion:I'd also ask that someone moderate RNATB's post accusing me of posting while drunk


Just stop it, okay?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

Just stop it, okay?

Who is this directed at and what does "it" refer to?

[Darth Nader]

You. Also: "Them" and "They"

"it" would your personal war. Don't diminish something so important by screwing around online.

Get killed, already.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

You. Also: "Them" and "They"

I'm sorry, but this comment is somewhat incoherent.

Would you mind explaining it better.

"it" would your personal war.

Huh? Again, this is a bit incomprehensible. Would you mind clarifying.

I'm not in a "war" with anyone. I think Marley made a horrible decision and I'd like an explanation as to why accusing someone of posting while drunk is not considered an insult that deserves being moderated but is merely "somewhat inappropriate" while calling a racist assertion a "racist assertion" is considered a violation of board rules.

Get killed, already.

With all do respect, such insults reflect far more on you than me.

[Darth Nader]

Okay. "Horrible" is an orphaned child being carved up by zombie gourmands, right?

I'm just saying accused intoxication is not that big of a thing in your world of pain.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

Okay. "Horrible" is an orphaned child being carved up by zombie gourmands, right?

What does this mean?

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to communicate?

I'm just saying accused intoxication is not that big of a thing in your world of pain.

Really, you don't think asking a poster "are you drunk" is an insult?

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

How about asking,

"Are you sexually repressed"?

"Do you have tough time picking up women/men"?

"Do you have a small penis"?

"Are you mentally retarded"?

"Do most people consider you stupid"?

You don't think that any of those are insults?

If not and you think that such arguments are insults, please explain.

Thanks.

[Darth Nader]

I'm pretty sure this isn't ATMB anymore.

I really don't think think asking a poster "are you drunk?" is an insult. People get drunk sometimes. "Are you a pedophile?" is an insult.

Here we go with the list:
In some ways.
Yes, of course.
Smaller than yours, I'm sure.
No. If I am, I'm not aware of it.
And no.

An insult is: You smell bad. It's your unwashed feet And your momma does do the footjob thing. Perv.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

I'm pretty sure this isn't ATMB anymore.

What is this comment supposed to mean?

I really don't think think asking a poster "are you drunk?" is an insult.

Really, then is "are you retarded" an insult?

If not, why not.

If it is, then why is it an insult whereas "are you drunk" isn't?

[Darth Nader]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

What is this comment supposed to mean?

ATMB means About This Message Board. I think we've gone beyond that.

Really, then is "are you retarded" an insult?

If not, why not.

If it is, then why is it an insult whereas "are you drunk" isn't?

Because being drunk is a choice for me, as being retarded is not one for you.

[Emiliana]

Palestinian is a national identity, not a racial or ethnic one.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

Get killed, already.

Wishing death on other posters is not just personal insult, but a direct violation of the rules. Do not do this again. I'm not issuing an Official Warning, on the off-chance that this is some sort of quote or reference with which I am unfamiliar.

Originally Posted by Registration Agreement

Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.

Link to Registration Agreement: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=650726

On the issue raised by Ibn Warraq, I'll let Marley comment since he was the moderator involved. Generally speaking, saying that the opinion expressed in a post is racist is different from saying that a person is racist. (A non-racist person can inadvertently make racist remarks.) However, context is everything.

My personal view is that the question "Are you drunk?" can be an insult, but can also be a straight question, and can also be a joke. Depends on context.

[Baal Houtham]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

which was obviously silly since as everyone admits had the murdered athletes been anything but Israelis and the killers been anything but Palestinians we wouldn't be having such a discussion.

Sometimes a bad postulate will stop me near the beginning of an essay/argument and take away my motivation to follow the remainder.

I'm part of the set of "everyone" and I don't admit what you say everyone admits.

A similar situation could have arisen involving many different conflicting populations and, if the issues were still polarizing, the Olympic Committee could be hesitant to bring renewed attention to the tragedy.

So, no, this issue is not dependent on the parties being Israelis and Palestinians. That's where my eyes glazed over, and I apologize if I missed anything important.

[Steophan]

Is it ok to ask if posters are posting while stupid? I'd like to know before I ask, erm, anyone, that question.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Emiliana

Palestinian is a national identity, not a racial or ethnic one.

Well for starters "race" is a myth. Second, "Palestinian" most certainly is an ethnic identity.

By the standards you're setting then it's not "racist" to say "fuck the Japs", "I hate Puerto Ricans" or "Mexicans like to steal" since none of those groups are "races".


Now, RNATB after I referred to a statement by Jibril Rajoub declared:

A Palestinian says it's an Israeli/Palestinian thing. No shit. Mr. Rajoub probably thinks the sun rises in the east to make a political statement about Palestine.

That is not fundamentally different from if after Finn quoted a Jewish historian(let's say Bernard Lewis) someone declared.

Of course Lewis thinks that. He's a Jew. Lewis probably thinks the sun rising in the East is anti-Semitic.

Would anyone think it "baseless" to call such a statement "anti-Semitic"?

[Bob Ducca]

Asking if you were drunk was the kindest interpretation of your posting behavior.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Darth Nader

Title: I didn't realize that it was considered okay to accuse posters of being drunk

Content: Blah blah blah. Some shit about Israel, Palestine and how fat yo momma be.

Conclusion:I'd also ask that someone moderate RNATB's post accusing me of posting while drunk


Just stop it, okay?

That is a very clear and concise summation. Thanks my eyes glazed over. See also: tldr.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

My personal view is that the question "Are you drunk?" can be an insult, but can also be a straight question, and can also be a joke. Depends on context.

As Marley pointed out, it wasn't really a question, but more of an "allegation"(Marley's word not mine).

Anyway, here is where RNATB made his statement.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=106

I don't see how a reasonable person could interpret it, particularly when taken in context with the conversation as anything but an insult.

Similarly, I'm sure you would see someone asking a poster "Are you retarded" as an insult unless it was clearly intended as a joke.

[Loach]

So....were you drunk? Let's clear that up first.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

Asking if you were drunk was the kindest interpretation of your posting behavior.

As Marley pointed out it wasn't a question but more of an allegation.

Moreover, how is calling a racist assertion a "racist assertion" a sign of being drunk?

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Who is this directed at and what does "it" refer to?

You honestly don't understand? The point is that in this forum you don't need to ideologically recapitulate the discourse just to discuss posting protocol. It was shamelessly gratuitous.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Loach

So....were you drunk? Let's clear that up first.

No.

FTR, had the post he was responding to been filled with misspellings and grammatical errors and basically incoherent, I think it would have been fine to ask it the way you're doing, however that wasn't what happened.

RNATB said

A Palestinian says it's an Israeli/Palestinian thing. No shit. Mr. Rajoub probably thinks the sun rises in the east to make a political statement about Palestine.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...0&postcount=82

I responded by saying.

Please don't make racist assertions.

Not only is it disgusting and reprehensible, but making them doesn't make you look good.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...8&postcount=88

He then responded by accusing me of posting while drunk.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=106

I honestly don't see how any reasonable person could see it anything other than an insult particularly in the context of the conversation and I also don't understand why Marley felt that it was somehow less objectionable than referring to a racist assertion as "a racist assertion".

[FinnAgain]

RNATB's statement was pretty obviously racist (or, if the standard dodge is to be used, "it wasn't racist you offenderati, it was bigoted!"). The suggestion that a Palestinian cannot render proper judgement on the issue simply because he's a Palestinian is, indeed, stating that a person's individual merit does not matter and that his group determines his cognitive capabilities. That RNATB has a history of supporting racist ideology makes it even less of a "groundless" observation.

Marley, you fucked up on that count. "Your argument is racist" or "that claim is racist" is and has been allowed in GD for as long as I've been posting here. "You are posting as if you're drunk" is, however, not.

On a side note, Ibn, the mods/admins here have been known to craft unique rules to deal with behaviors they don't like. Your "your post is stupid" (or what have you) is evidently fast approaching the point where the crafting of a unique rule is becoming increasingly likely. You'd probably be well served to start picking apart arguments, which you're generally pretty good at, without resorting to pejorative descriptions of those arguments. Even though it should be perfectly street-legal to call an argument stupid, the mods are angling to make it a rules violation in your case.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by guizot

You honestly don't understand? The point is that in this forum you don't need to ideologically recapitulate the discourse just to discuss posting protocol. It was shamelessly gratuitous.

Ok, I see what you're referring to.

I'll add that I didn't type up the long post because I enjoyed doing so(I didn't) but merely to explain the context. The reason being is that I generally don't like it when someone says "X happened on this post and the mods did nothing" without providing context because context is everything.

In retrospect, I should have made the first post vastly shorter for people perusing the forum.

For that I do apologize.

[Loach]

It was condescending. It wasn't an insult. If you don't like condescension stay out of GD.

[FinnAgain]

Yes, it was an insult. Trying to pretend that 'you're posting as if you're drunk' isn't an insult is beneath you.

[Emiliana]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Well for starters "race" is a myth. Second, "Palestinian" most certainly is an ethnic identity.

By the standards you're setting then it's not "racist" to say "fuck the Japs", "I hate Puerto Ricans" or "Mexicans like to steal" since none of those groups are "races".

I'd just as soon not weaken the term "racist" by calling all derogatory references to groups racist. But I suspect this is your thing, so go for it.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Loach

It was condescending. It wasn't an insult. If you don't like condescension stay out of GD.

You think "are you drunk" isn't an insult?

If someone responded to a post by saying to another poster "are you retarded" or "I'm guessing you've never been laid" would you also argue that those aren't insults but merely examples of "condescension".

I can pretty much guarantee that if you make such comments outside of the Pit and they would most certainly be considered insulting.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Emiliana

I'd just as soon not weaken the term "racist" by calling all derogatory references to groups racist. But I suspect this is your thing, so go for it.

So then you think it's wrong to use the term "racist" to refer to the statements "Mexicans always steal", "Arabs can't be trusted" and "the Chinese are monsters"?

Also, it's not my "thing". It's generally understood that such statements are racists and I've never heard any victims of racism make the arguments you're making.

For example, I've never heard any black people object to classify anti-Mexican or anti-Puerto Rican comments as "racist". In fact, I've heard more than a few use that term.

[Marley23]

I did say that Really Not All That Bright's comment about posting drunk was not appropriate for GD. I added that Ibn Warraq's accusation of racism was also unwanted - partly because it seemed to have nothing to do with anything, which meant it was probably going to lead to a hijack. And as a reminder, this is not the place to argue the thread topic all over again; ATMB is for discussions of the rules.

We now continue with another string of insult analogies.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

On a side note, Ibn, the mods/admins here have been known to craft unique rules to deal with behaviors they don't like. Your "your post is stupid" (or what have you) is evidently fast approaching the point where the crafting of a unique rule is becoming increasingly likely. You'd probably be well served to start picking apart arguments, which you're generally pretty good at, without resorting to pejorative descriptions of those arguments. Even though it should be perfectly street-legal to call an argument stupid, the mods are angling to make it a rules violation in your case.

I actually don't get upset about being asked to tone down the use of terms like "stupid" when describing arguments and have been making a point to instead rip apart arguments or if I classify them as stupid going into detail as to why they're stupid.

I know some may find this hard to believe, but I do like both Marley and Tom(at least as much as you can like someone you've never met and probably never will meet), don't like giving them headaches by having people constantly report posts they view as personal insults, and with rare exceptions, generally agree with their decisions.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I did say that Really Not All That Bright's comment about posting drunk was not appropriate for GD.

Actually, you only said it was "somewhat inappropriate for this forum" which is a bit of a tepid response, whereas you claimed my referring to his assertion as "racist" was both "inappropriate and seemingly groundless" which seems to indicate that you found it more obnoxious to call a racist assertion a "racist assertion" than to accuse another poster of being drunk.

This is compounded by the fact that you moderated my post but have specifically refused to moderate his post.

Now I don't see why it's worse to call a racist assertion a "racist assertion" then to accuse another poster of being drunk particularly since you have repeatedly ruled that is okay to refer to posts or arguments as racist but have gone further and ruled that it is permissible, in some circumstances to call other posters racist or sexist.

I added that Ibn Warraq's accusation of racism was also unwanted

I didn't accuse him of racism I said his post was racist, which it was. There's a massive difference and you yourself have repeatedly said there is a difference.

Also, you went a bit farther than just saying my comment was "unwanted". You claimed it was "inappropriate and groundless" and felt the need to moderate it but not an allegation of being drunk.

I'm sorry, but as Finn said, "you fucked up on that count".

You can't argue that it's okay to call arguments "racist" which you have repeatedly done so and then say "no you can't" particularly when the post in question was clearly racist, as pointed out by Finn who no one would mistake for being an apologist for the Palestinians.

[mhendo]

Ibn Warraq, i like you; you're a smart guy, and i agree with a lot of the things you post on this board. Not all of them, but a lot.

But if you're going to get into a rules-lawyering debate about borderline insults, you probably need to look a bit more closely at your own posting style.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Apologies.

I did not realize how ignorant you were of Israel.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

This post is jaw-droppingly stupid.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

That's bigoted, ignorant bullshit.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Thank you for admitting then that your definitions are illogical and based on pseudo-scientific bullshit rather than anything that could be described as logical or objective as well as being hopeless provincial and based on a rather narrow-minded, ignorant, Americo-centric view of the world.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

This comment is moronic.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

That of course is another example of ignorant, racist bullshit.

All of those are from the last couple of months.

Yes, yes, i know: the mods have made clear that you can call the post "racist" or "ignorant," and maybe even moronic (not sure on that one). But if you leave the rules-lawyering aside for a moment, and be honest with yourself, you really have to admit that accusations of posting drunk are no more offensive or insulting than accusations of ignorance, racism, or being a moron. You give at least as good as you get in GD, and this petulant whining about a snarky comment is rather unbecoming, given your willingness to deliver thinly-veiled insults.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Ibn Warraq, i like you; you're a smart guy, and i agree with a lot of the things you post on this board. Not all of them, but a lot.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
Apologies.

I did not realize how ignorant you were of Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
This post is jaw-droppingly stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
That's bigoted, ignorant bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
Thank you for admitting then that your definitions are illogical and based on pseudo-scientific bullshit rather than anything that could be described as logical or objective as well as being hopeless provincial and based on a rather narrow-minded, ignorant, Americo-centric view of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
This comment is moronic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq
That of course is another example of ignorant, racist bullshit.
All of those are from the last couple of months.

And I will happily defend every one of those claims. Most those are snippets of posts in which I did go into detail as to why such phrases were used. Furthermore, the context is important. I don't want to hijack the thread, but with two exceptions those were arguments with "race realists" who were making statements which were rather clearly and obviously racist and stupid. In fact, the strongest of those was directed at New Deal Democrat who was eventually banned for his behavior.

And yes, I see nothing wrong with calling most of his posts stupid, racist, or a whole host of other adjectives because they were. I'm pretty sure the mods agreed with me and several made similar comments on those threads as well.

The two exceptions was Valteron, who was making one of his periodic Islamophobic polemics for which he was in danger of getting banned until recently. I would defend my statements about his post on that thread as well and I'm pretty sure the mods would agree. The other was al27052 who was accusing me of being untrustworthy when it came to Middle Eastern affairs simply because of my nationality, for which he was modded.

Again, I would defend my statements to him.

Those were also rather extreme circumstances which are not normally replicated.

be honest with yourself, you really have to admit that accusations of posting drunk are no more offensive or insulting than accusations of ignorance, racism, or being a moron.

Yes, but my comments were in each and every case not directed at the people personally, but at their arguments. There's a massive difference between "you're argument is stupid" and "you're stupid".

RNATB was directing his comments at me personally not at my posts or my argument.

You give at least as good as you get in GD, and this petulant whining about a snarky comment is rather unbecoming

It wasn't "a snark comment" it was an insult. Furthermore, what I'm upset about is that Marley decided that it was less objectionable than calling a clearly racist assertion a "racist assertion" and decided to mod note my post, which was not an insult, but not RNATB's post which was rather clearly an insult, not at being accused of posting while drunk by a person on the internet whom I've never met and never will meet.

given your willingness to deliver thinly-veiled insults.

Except I don't "deliver thinly-veilied insults". Calling a post "stupid" or "racist" is not an insult. Accusing a poster of being stupid or drunk is.

The golden rule of board is supposed to be address the post not the poster. I directed my comments RNATB's post not at him whereas his insult was very clearly directed at me.

[Morgenstern]

If people would only learn to use better insults, like Lirpa Sloof, we'd all be better off. I'm really tired of the same old boring ones.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

If people would only learn to use better insults, like Lirpa Sloof, we'd all be better off. I'm really tired of the same old boring ones.

That's true. Accusing someone of posting while drunk isn't terribly original.

I'd actually have been more amused if he'd been a bit more creative with his insults.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

And I will happily defend every one of those claims. Most those are snippets of posts in which I did go into detail as to why such phrases were used. Furthermore, the context is important. I don't want to hijack the thread, but with two exceptions those were arguments with "race realists" who were making statements which were rather clearly and obviously racist and stupid. In fact, the strongest of those was directed at New Deal Democrat who was eventually banned for his behavior.

None of this makes any difference to my argument.

For what it's worth, i agreed with basically every one of your posts. The statements you were criticizing were, in my opinion, racist and ignorant and moronic. But that doesn't change the fact that calling them that is insulting. Even if something is true, that doesn't mean it's not an insult.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Yes, but my comments were in each and every case not directed at the people personally, but at their arguments. There's a massive difference between "you're argument is stupid" and "you're stupid".

I recognize that the board makes such a distinction in the rules, and that there is a certain difference between them, but that doesn't mean that saying "you're argument is stupid" isn't insulting.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Except I don't "deliver thinly-veilied insults". Calling a post "stupid" or "racist" is not an insult. Accusing a poster of being stupid or drunk is.

Again, i'm not interested in the rules-lawyering aspect of this. I'm interested in what people actually find insulting. For me, having one of my posts called "stupid" or "ignorant" would be at least as insulting as being accused of being drunk.

YMM—and obviously does—V, but you can't pretend that there is some absolute, objective line that's been crossed here. So you are insulted when someone accuses you of being drunk? Big deal. I'm not. So whose feelings should the definition of "insult" defer to?

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

The golden rule of board is supposed to be address the post not the poster. I directed my comments RNATB's post not at him whereas his insult was very clearly directed at me.

One could easily argue that an accusation of drunkenness might imply something like, "Hey, this post is really dumb, and i don't expect that from you. Are you drunk or something?"

But again, as i've said before, i'm not interested in the rules-lawyering aspects of this. Even if you're right within the letter of the rules, you skate so close to them, in a manner that's clearly intentional and designed to offend people, that i don't think you have much cause to complain.

None of this changes my opinion about your more general contributions to the board. I just think you should be willing to get as good as you give. And i say that as someone who has, myself, skated close to the line in GD in exactly the same way that you do.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

You think "are you drunk" isn't an insult?

If someone responded to a post by saying to another poster "are you retarded" or "I'm guessing you've never been laid" would you also argue that those aren't insults but merely examples of "condescension".

I can pretty much guarantee that if you make such comments outside of the Pit and they would most certainly be considered insulting.

It may be insulting but it's not an insult. I could write a very long post that puts down your ideas without resorting to insults. Sure there is sometimes a fine line but I don't think it was crossed.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Loach

It may be insulting but it's not an insult. I could write a very long post that puts down your ideas without resorting to insults. Sure there is sometimes a fine line but I don't think it was crossed.

How is it "insulting but not an insult"?

since you think it's not an insult to ask "are you drunk" then how about "are you stupid" or "you don't get laid very often".

Beyond that Dex clearly thinks it's an insult unless meant as a joke or simply as a genuine question though Marley has refused to say whether he thinks it was an insult or not.

Beyond that, arguing, as Marley seems to, that calling a poster's assertions "racist" is more objectionable than accusing another poster of being drunk and such a ruling is hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.

As Finn noted, this board has always ruled that it's permissible to call another person's arguments "racist" but has always said that personal insults are a violation of board policy.

Now perhaps Marley could better explain whether or not he considered accusing another poster of posting while drunk an insult as well as why he found it less offensive than calling a racist assertion a "racist assertion"(unless one wants to try the standard dodge of "It wasn't racist it was bigoted!").

Unfortunately he hasn't.

[kayT]

Is being drunk a terrible thing to you, Ibn Warraq? Do you not drink? Maybe this is the reason it seems so insulting to you. Because to me, being accused of posting drunk is not a big insult, but if you don't drink, maybe it is. Just curious.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by kayT

Is being drunk a terrible thing to you, Ibn Warraq? Do you not drink? Maybe this is the reason it seems so insulting to you. Because to me, being accused of posting drunk is not a big insult, but if you don't drink, maybe it is. Just curious.

Yes, I do drink, but I don't see how accusing another poster of "posting while drunk" isn't considered an insult, and I'm certainly not alone in feeling that way as Dex he thinks that unless done as a joke or an honest question it's clearly an insult and Marley may or may not believe since he felt that RNATB's post was "somewhat inappropriate" though apparantly less offensive then using the term "racist" to refer to a post that was clearly "racist."

For a moderator who has flat out stated that he doesn't even consider accusations of racism or sexism insults his decision was hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.

Beyond that, if the mods feel that they shouldn't feel the need to mod posts where others are accused of drunkenness" then what else is ok.

If someone makes a post that I interpret as suggesting a certain hostility towards women can I ask, outside the pit, "I'm guessing you don't get laid too often" or "did a girl laugh at you when she saw how small your penis is".

I certainly don't see how such comments aren't insults.

Beyond that if you really think that "Are you posting while drunk" isn't an insult just direct it at someone in GD other that me and see how the mods react.

[Simple Linctus]

Why is being drunk an insult? I have had a few pints over the last ninety minutes at the pub in my new apartment complex and am certainly not fit to drive a car. It is no problem if you call me drunk. I would not feel offended.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Why is being drunk an insult? I have had a few pints over the last ninety minutes at the pub in my new apartment complex and am certainly not fit to drive a car. It is no problem if you call me drunk. I would not feel offended.

Then I suppose you can accuse another poster of posting while drunk, but unless you do it within the Pit, I suspect the mods won't be happy.

I suspect that unlike you they would perceive it as an insult.

[Ibn Warraq]

Incidentally, I should add that to his credit RNATB did publicly apologize to me for making the comment for which I will salute him for doing so since many people on the internet would refuse to do so, and I accepted his apology.

Also, he has clarified his post on Rajoub saying it was more about "ethnocentrism". I do think my statement that his comment was racist was clearly correct, but it's very possible for people who aren't racists or stupid to make comments that are and I suspect most people have done so. I certainly have.

As far as I'm concerned the matter between him and me is dropped and while I'm still annoyed that Marley did feel the need to mod my post referring to RNALTB's assertion as "racist" while refusing to do so for a clear personal insult, but C'est la Vie.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The distinction you draw between calling a post stupid or racist and calling a poster stupid or racist is a distinction you share with the mods, but it's not one I think is especially valid. The only way to know a person is stupid is through their words or deeds, so calling a person's post stupid is saying that you have evidence that they're stupid. Same thing applies to racism. In each case, it's possible there's other evidence that they're not stupid/racist, but you're talking about evidence that they are. I think permitting the one but not the other is a poor decision (and yes, I'm thereby saying there's evidence that the mods make poor decisions), and does not improve the quality of discussion.

That said, there's a difference between calling someone drunk and calling someone stupid. In the morning, so the saying goes, I'll be sober, but you'll still be stupid. One is estar, the other is ser; one is temporary, the other is long-term. Personally I'd find it less insulting for someone to ask me if I'm drunk (with the implication that my post is not evidence of any sort of long-term stupidity) than for someone to say my post is stupid. Both, however, would be insulting.

Edit: As to "please don't make racist assertions," that's not good argument form. I agree that his post had racist overtones (and yes, that RNATB might have some unexamined racism, as do I). But this sort of response is singularly ineffective. Rather than making snippy comments like that, wouldn't it be better to say something like, "Actually, suggesting that Palestinians by their nature are untrustworthy in discussions of this conflict is kind of a racist thing to say; you can't group and dismiss people by ethnicity like that"? A longer explanation makes clear what the flaw is with the post you're responding to and is less likely to lead to snippy responses.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The distinction you draw between calling a post stupid or racist and calling a poster stupid or racist is a distinction you share with the mods, but it's not one I think is especially valid. The only way to know a person is stupid is through their words or deeds, so calling a person's post stupid is saying that you have evidence that they're stupid. Same thing applies to racism. In each case, it's possible there's other evidence that they're not stupid/racist, but you're talking about evidence that they are.

I'd respectfully disagree.

For starters, the former is directed at a person's argument while the latter is directed at the person hence the phrase "personal insult" and "Ad Hominem."

Moreover, it's very possible to have stupid ideas or believe stupid things without being stupid.

To use some very obvious example, Eugenics, Phrenology and countless other ideas that were and still are extremely stupid were believed by virtually everyone at one point including both people who were stupid and people who weren't.

Similarly, lots of people have made racist statements without themselves being racist.

For that matter, it's also very possible to be a racist without being stupid, evil, or even necessarily a bad person. To use one obvious example related to the thread we were discussing, most Palestinians in the Occupied territories were they asked would probably express attitudes and opinions that most of us would consider virulently anti-Semitic.

Does that mean they're all evil or stupid?

No, they believe such things because of the background they come from and how their information has been filtered. To a large extent, the same is true for the Israelis.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

To use some very obvious example, Eugenics, Phrenology and countless other ideas that were and still are extremely stupid were believed by virtually everyone at one point including both people who were stupid and people who weren't.

I'm not clear on what you mean when you say eugenics was stupid--do you mean something besides "incorrect"?

When I say "stupid", I mean something along the lines of "incapable of effective thinking." Not to get all obnoxiously dictionary on you, but I'm not sure what definition of stupid can apply to a post without reflecting on the poster.

Consider the opposite. If someone says, "That post was brilliant, Ibn Warraq," haven't they just complimented you?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'm not clear on what you mean when you say eugenics was stupid--do you mean something besides "incorrect"?

I think it's rather obvious what I mean.

When I say "stupid", I mean something along the lines of "incapable of effective thinking." Not to get all obnoxiously dictionary on you, but I'm not sure what definition of stupid can apply to a post without reflecting on the poster.

Certainly, "lots of brilliant people, including the Presidents of every Ivy League college in the early 20th believed in an extremely stupid idea that is known as eugenics".

The people who believed in Eugenics believed in a very stupid, bigoted belief but that didn't mean that they were stupid or evil. It simply meant they were wrong.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I think it's rather obvious what I mean.

I'm not trolling you. I can imagine using the word to describe an idea in such a way as to reflect poorly on the holder of the idea. I can imagine using the word (in an unusual fashion) to say that an idea is incorrect. But I don't know what meaning you're ascribing to the word if you don't mean for its application to an idea to reflect poorly on the idea's holder.

I would not describe the idea of Eugenics as stupid, for example. I would describe it as incorrect. I would describe most variants of it as racist (and would be happy to call its adherents racist, for the most part). I'd call it pernicious.

But if intelligent people reached the idea of eugenics after careful consideration, I don't think it makes sense to call the idea stupid.

What does "stupid" mean in that example sentence you gave about Ivy League etc.? I'm seriously asking, because I don't know of a meaning that fits.

[TubaDiva]

IbnWarraq, this is a community of lively discourse. You seem to be easily offended ... perhaps too much so. Not every situation is an outrage.