Is this a "Pit comment"? second try

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Link

" all the Obama-haters here recently, the unreasoning, largely racist but wholly irrational and unhinged people . . . "

To me it's a dead-accurate characterization of a certain type who harbors an irrational, largely race-based hatred of President Obama. Are you saying that it's not an accurate portrait of these types, or that these types don't exist, or that I can't refer generally to the "Obama-haters" who post here because that is itself a "Pit comment"? Which part specifically would you warn me against going into outside of the Pit? The part where I cite that there are Obama-haters posting here? The part where I attribute their motives largely to racism? The part where I note that they are irrational? The part where I point out that they are unhinged? What am I permitted to say outside the Pit? I would have thought all of that was ok, especially since I'm not calling out specific posters by name. If anyone wants to decline being painted as the type of Obama-hater I'm referring to, all he or she needs to is denounce racism, irrationality or being unhinged.

[tomndebb]

The comment was posted in a way that appeared to indicate that it was directed against posters on the SDMB, accusing them not only of racism, but of being "unhinged."

If it was directed against some great unwashed mass of humanity outside the SDMB, that should have been made more clear.
If you would like to claim that it was not intended as an insulting remark, I will note that you cannot possibly defend that claim.
If you would like to claim that it was not directed against SDMB posters, I would say you did a poor job and suggest that you be more clear in the future.

[Munch]

Tom, I think it's pretty clear from the linked OP that "here" refers to PPR's physical location (Pennsylvania, which is mentioned several times in his post). Unless you're aware of phone banks, canvassing efforts, and fundraising campaigns that specifically target the SDMB in the state of Pennsylvania, then you have - once again - managed to make several leaps of logic that missed several steps along the way.

[tomndebb]

Since prr typically hangs out in New York City, rather than Pennsylvania, and McConnell is from Kentucky, his comment looks much more like a reference to the SDMB, (regardless where he goes to engage in democracy in action).

[Munch]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Since prr typically hangs out in New York City, rather than Pennsylvania, and McConnell is from Kentucky, his comment looks much more like a reference to the SDMB, (regardless where he goes to engage in democracy in action).

Try again, but this time swallow your pride first.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by Munch

Tom, I think it's pretty clear from the linked OP that "here" refers to PPR's physical location (Pennsylvania, which is mentioned several times in his post).

But pseudotriton ruber ruber phrased it this way (emphasis mine):

Are you saying […] that I can't refer generally to the "Obama-haters” who post here because that is itself a "Pit comment"? Which part specifically would you warn me against going into outside of the Pit? The part where I cite that there are Obama-haters posting here?

Sounds to me like “here” refers to “these boards”, or at least that PRR isn’t disputing that.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

But pseudotriton ruber ruber phrased it this way (emphasis mine):

Sounds to me like “here” refers to “these boards”, or at least that PRR isn’t disputing that.

Yeah, that's pretty much the nail in the coffin as to which group of people he is referring to.

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I would have thought all of that was ok, especially since I'm not calling out specific posters by name. If anyone wants to decline being painted as the type of Obama-hater I'm referring to, all he or she needs to is denounce racism, irrationality or being unhinged.

Hmm, let me try this on.
"If anyone wants to decline being painted as the type of Wife-beater I'm referring to, all he needs to do is denounce misogyny, spousal abuse or being unhinged"

Pretty sure that isn't going to fly, but if you want to add that denunciation as your sig I might change my mind.

[Munch]

Damn, you're absolutely right. Tom, I'm terribly sorry for the snark.

[John Mace]

What's so hard to figure out about the fact that calling posters "racist" outside the Pit is against the rules? We've been over this numerous times before-- it doesn't matter if you think they really are racist. If I think you really are stupid, I still can't call you "stupid" outside the Pit.

[Irishman]

At first I thought the comment, while a bit harsh, was within the rules. But looking more closely, and interpreting "here" to me the SDMB, then I think where it fails the line is that negative comments are allowed about groups of people that include SDers, but not about groups of SDers. Correct?

Of course, that's if you're the rules lawyer type to pin down exactly how harsh you are allowed to be without an official warning. The overall general tone of that comment was not really conducive to reasoned exchange.

[Smeghead]

Oh, look. PRR has a complaint about the moderating.

[Eutychus]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

Oh, look. PRR has a complaint about the moderating.

Oh look, the sky is blue.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So let me get this straight: calling an unnamed and unspecified group of SD posters "largely racist" outside of the Pit is not allowed? If there's been a discussion of this policy, I missed it. Could someone direct me to a previous discussion of this subject? Thanks. This I gotta see.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

So let me get this straight: calling an unnamed and unspecified group of SD posters "largely racist" outside of the Pit is not allowed? If there's been a discussion of this policy, I missed it. Could someone direct me to a previous discussion of this subject? Thanks. This I gotta see.

Of all the options available to you, I honestly didn't think you'd pick "D. Go back and get a bigger shovel."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Of all the people I was thanking in advance for a link to the discussion, I honestly wasn't expecting you to provide any material.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

So let me get this straight: calling an unnamed and unspecified group of SD posters "largely racist" outside of the Pit is not allowed? If there's been a discussion of this policy, I missed it. Could someone direct me to a previous discussion of this subject? Thanks. This I gotta see.

Good job of misdirection, but as long as you included "unhinged" among a series of unflattering comments, you can rest assured that the word "racist" was not the actual trigger for the Mod Note. When you find posts in which "unhinged," "unreasoning," and "wholly irrational" have been accepted without comment as remarks directed toward other posters, we can go back and revisit the "racist" remark.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

So let me get this straight: calling an unnamed and unspecified group of SD posters "largely racist" outside of the Pit is not allowed? If there's been a discussion of this policy, I missed it. Could someone direct me to a previous discussion of this subject? Thanks. This I gotta see.

How about "Don't be a jerk"? Does "Don't be a jerk" work for you?

[amanset]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

How about "Don't be a jerk"? Does "Don't be a jerk" work for you?

Nice to actually agree with you for a change. Shall we hug?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Good job of misdirection, but as long as you included "unhinged" among a series of unflattering comments, you can rest assured that the word "racist" was not the actual trigger for the Mod Note. When you find posts in which "unhinged," "unreasoning," and "wholly irrational" have been accepted without comment as remarks directed toward other posters, we can go back and revisit the "racist" remark.

Thanks for the attempt to clarify. I thought from John Mace's post (#10), the objectionable phrase was "largely racist."

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Thanks for the attempt to clarify. I thought from John Mace's post (#10), the objectionable phrase was "largely racist."

I don't think there's a "the", singular, objectionable phrase...

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Thanks for the attempt to clarify. I thought from John Mace's post (#10), the objectionable phrase was "largely racist."

John Mace doesn't have "Moderator" under his name.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

yes, but there was a marked absence of people chiming in (or a Moderator clarifying John's point), so it remains open whether one can assert that there are unnamed and unspecified posters who are "largely racist." Seems pretty indisputable to me that there are, but maybe we've discussed this at length, in which case I'm asking for a link to the discussion.

If someone said, "All these atheists on SD..." I wouldn't have a problem with that, other than saying something that follows which isn't true of all us atheists here. If someone says "All you baseball fans on the SD..." I'll identify with that group and read what they have to say about us baseball fans. IS the official position that there are no racists here? I find that difficult to defend.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Thanks for the attempt to clarify. I thought from John Mace's post (#10), the objectionable phrase was "largely racist."

Actually, I would like tomndebb to clarify further. Is he saying that the mod note came only because there as a string of insulting phrases used? That if only one phrase (or word) had been used, alone, it would have been OK? If so, how many insulting words or phrases does it take to get a mod note?

Point being, an insult is an insult, whether one word is used or 100. This is, afterall, a mod note and not a warning. One important function of a mod note is to keep things from getting to the warning level.

[raspberry hunter]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

so it remains open whether one can assert that there are unnamed and unspecified posters who are "largely racist." ...If someone said, "All these atheists on SD..." I wouldn't have a problem with that

Ooh, let me try that one!

" all the Christianity-haters here recently, the unreasoning, largely atheist but wholly irrational and unhinged people . . . "

...no, still sounds kind of jerkish. (Sure, there are racists on the SDMB, as well as people who hate Obama and other people who hate Christianity. So?)

[Bozuit]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group.
ACCEPTABLE: "Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music."
NOT ACCEPTABLE: "You like Enema's music? Then you're soulless and have no taste in music."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven
And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group.
ACCEPTABLE: "Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music."
NOT ACCEPTABLE: "You like Enema's music? Then you're soulless and have no taste in music."

??? and which one, the group or the individual, does "all the Obama-haters here recently, the unreasoning, largely racist but wholly irrational and unhinged people . . . " seem to you to belong to?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Actually, I would like tomndebb to clarify further. Is he saying that the mod note came only because there as a string of insulting phrases used? That if only one phrase (or word) had been used, alone, it would have been OK? If so, how many insulting words or phrases does it take to get a mod note?

It only takes one to catch a Mod's attention. That there were several simply made the need for a Mod's intervention more obvious.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

And who was being insulted by one, or several, of those phrases? Can you tell me which poster or posters I was insulting?

[John Mace]

I think the idea is that it's OK to say "Christians are idiots", which is a general insult to all Christians, although the mods reserve the right to ask you to stop if that's all you're adding to the debate. It's really thread-shitting.

But you can't say: "All Christian posters on this Message Board are idiots".

Maybe that seems like a weird rule, but that's the way I see it. The first is sort of an indirect insult because it's sweeping and impersonal. The second version is directed at specific posters, even if no poster is actually named. If you're a Christian poster, you just go called an idiot.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

If it's against the rules to say someone is racist, that's idiotic. Someone who happily describes their use of racist epithets to disparage other people is inarguably racist, and we do no services in the fight against ignorance to sugarcoat that plain fact. It came up in a thread recently (since moved to the Pit). We should be calling out the racists more, not less.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

If it's against the rules to say someone is racist, that's idiotic. Someone who happily describes their use of racist epithets to disparage other people is inarguably racist, and we do no services in the fight against ignorance to sugarcoat that plain fact. It came up in a thread recently (since moved to the Pit). We should be calling out the racists more, not less.

That's what the Pit is for.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by John Mace

That's what the Pit is for.

It should also be acceptable in every other forum, if someone's actually being racist.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

It should also be acceptable in every other forum, if someone's actually being racist.

Nah. That is just saying that the pet beliefs or causes of some people should take precedence over the causes of other people in permitting--actually, encouraging--feuds to destroy any and all discussions.

Name-calling leads to feuds and warfare, nothing else. One is permitted to point out that an idea is racist. Calling people names does nothing but encourage them to call you names. In case you have failed to notice, most advocates of racist positions have long since found arguments that they insist "prove" that those who oppose racism are the "real" racists. So allowing posters to be called racists simply lets everyone sit in a circle and hurl epithets at each other.

And, while you are convinced that racists must be fought and denigrated on every occasion, there is liable to be someone on the board who possibly considers the fight against racism to have been largely won, but who considers you to be a sexist or an ageist or a speciesist or some other holder of terrible and unjust opinions. If we allow "racist" to be used as an epithet, then we should let all the other epithets fly, as well.

Again: there is no prohibition against pointing out how a statement expresses racism; the prohibition is against name-calling.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Again: there is no prohibition against pointing out how a statement expresses racism; the prohibition is against name-calling.

A racist is a person who says or does racist things. Someone who says racist things is racist. Being able to say, "that's a racist statement," but not being able to say, "you're being racist" is a distinction without a difference, as though I'm allowed to say, "that is a lie," but not, "you are a liar," or as though I'm allowed to say, "you have a US passport" but not "You are American."

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

It should also be acceptable in every other forum, if someone's actually being racist.

"You are a racist"----The Pit.

"What you are saying is racist because...."----every other forum.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

A racist is a person who says or does racist things. Someone who says racist things is racist. Being able to say, "that's a racist statement," but not being able to say, "you're being racist" is a distinction without a difference, as though I'm allowed to say, "that is a lie," but not, "you are a liar," or as though I'm allowed to say, "you have a US passport" but not "You are American."

There is a big distinction. In the Pit you don't have to back up your accusation with reason. There is and should be a higher standard in the other forums.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

A racist is a person who says or does racist things. Someone who says racist things is racist. Being able to say, "that's a racist statement," but not being able to say, "you're being racist" is a distinction without a difference, as though I'm allowed to say, "that is a lie," but not, "you are a liar," or as though I'm allowed to say, "you have a US passport" but not "You are American."

Simply not accurate. It is a distinction with a difference. A person may, through ignorance or misunderstanding, hold a particular view that is racist without actually basing his or her entire attitude toward other people on racist ideas.

Regardless, even if the poster is a racist, telling another poster that he or she has stated a racist viewpoint, (preferably along with an explanation of why it is racist), will do far less to incite people to engage in name-calling and feuding. On a message board, particularly, name-calling and feuding is pretty much the death of any discussion. If one would like to hurl insults at other posters, we have provided a forum in which you can do just that. Allowing posters to start fights in other fora just so that they can vent their spleens serves no purpose except to allow the angry to dominate, and ultimately destroy, the message board.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Allowing posters to start fights in other fora just so that they can vent their spleens serves no purpose except to allow the angry to dominate, and ultimately destroy, the message board.

Without matching your completely apocalyptic vision, let me direct you back to one of my original questions here: Whom did I direct the epithet "racist" toward? If I can't assert outside of the Pit that there are unnamed and unspecified racists on the SD, may I assert that there MIGHT be racists on the SD? May I assert that there are posters on the SD who are racists if I specify that I believe that there are racists everywhere? How about if I assert that it's impossible IMO for anyone on earth to be completely without racism, including you and me? Since you and I are Dopers, haven't I just called two Dopers racists, thereby ignoring a Mod note and subject to all sorts of Modly hassles?

Where does this world-destroying nihilistic madness end, IOW?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

... If I can't assert outside of the Pit that there are unnamed and unspecified racists on the SD, may I assert that there MIGHT be racists on the SD? May I assert that there are posters on the SD who are racists if I specify that I believe that there are racists everywhere? How about if I assert that it's impossible IMO for anyone on earth to be completely without racism, including you and me? Since you and I are Dopers, haven't I just called two Dopers racists, thereby ignoring a Mod note and subject to all sorts of Modly hassles?

Where does this world-destroying nihilistic madness end, IOW?

Extension to Absurdity is not convincing argument. You DID say "all the Obama-haters here..." That specifies a specific group of posters. And, in addition to racist, you called them "unreasoning" "wholly irrational" and "unhinged." Once you've identified a specific gorup of posters, you've crossed the line. And this is not a new line, it's the guideline we've followed on "group" insults for years and years.

(I will not post to this thread again. Beating a dead horse is not a game I enjoy.)

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

You DID say "all the Obama-haters here..." That specifies a specific group of posters.

So would it have been ok if he left out the "here" and instead said, "all Obama-haters are blank blank blank..."?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Extension to Absurdity is not convincing argument. You DID say "all the Obama-haters here..." That specifies a specific group of posters. (I will not post to this thread again. Beating a dead horse is not a game I enjoy.)

"specifies a specific group of posters"? Really? Who? I'm curious. Tell me who I had in mind.

Oh, I forgot you're not posting here anymore. Thanks for your partial help in resolving this issue, then. Nice talking to you,Dex.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

So would it have been ok if he left out the "here" and instead said, "all Obama-haters are blank blank blank..."?

And if not, why is Der still here?

[Bozuit]

One could argue that someone who actually hates Obama probably is either unreasoning, racist or unhinged. Unless some Dopers know him personally?

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Without matching your completely apocalyptic vision, let me direct you back to one of my original questions here: Whom did I direct the epithet "racist" toward? If I can't assert outside of the Pit that there are unnamed and unspecified racists on the SD, may I assert that there MIGHT be racists on the SD? May I assert that there are posters on the SD who are racists if I specify that I believe that there are racists everywhere? How about if I assert that it's impossible IMO for anyone on earth to be completely without racism, including you and me? Since you and I are Dopers, haven't I just called two Dopers racists, thereby ignoring a Mod note and subject to all sorts of Modly hassles?

Where does this world-destroying nihilistic madness end, IOW?

Here's the deal prr...you can say whatever you want.

You can call all dopers racist or some dopers racist or just call RaftPeople a racist...after all it's America and you can do what you want.

But, again because it's America, the Single Most Free Country in the Universe of All Time Bar None (TM) - the mods can tell you not to and/or ban you.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

So would it have been ok if he left out the "here" and instead said, "all Obama-haters are blank blank blank..."?

He probably would have been told to dial back the invective. Might not have received an actual warning, but his rhetoric was too strong for Elections.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

"specifies a specific group of posters"? Really? Who? I'm curious. Tell me who I had in mind.

"All the Obama haters here". There don't have to be specific names for the rule about groups to apply.

Originally Posted by Bozuit

One could argue that someone who actually hates Obama probably is either unreasoning, racist or unhinged. Unless some Dopers know him personally?

You don't have to know Obama personally to be affected directly and indirectly by his actions as President, and thus have a reason to be unhappy (or happy). I suppose one could argue that hating itself is inherently unreasoning, but if you allow it in personal interactions, then there's no reason not to allow it in impersonal interactions.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Irishman

"All the Obama haters here". There don't have to be specific names for the rule about groups to apply.

So who is this "specific group" then, if there are no individuals who comprise it? I can't write "All the crazy people on the Dope are unpleasant and pay little attention to personal hygiene, in my experience" outside of the Pit because I'm referring to a group? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Am I referring to a group in offensive terms when I ask about obstructionist Republicans in another thread? I'm pretty sure there are some Republicans who thinks the people I'm calling "obstructionists" are patriotic heroes, and who consider themselves aligned with them--am I being offensive to a group here on the SD in labeling them thus? There's a thread on "Tramp stamps" current. Surely there are women with such tattoos on the SD who don[t appreciate being labelled as tramps--is this not insulting of a group here on the SD? If so, why is this allowed, but "racists" on the SD is not? Please explain.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

If so, why is this allowed, but "racists" on the SD is not? Please explain.

Tom already explained that allowing "racists" [edit: the word, not the people] would ultimately destroy the board. I can't imagine a response to that claim.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Tom already explained that allowing "racists" [edit: the word, not the people] would ultimately destroy the board. I can't imagine a response to that claim.

Calling Dopers "tramps" wouldn't create the apocalyptic environment though? That's what I'm curious about.