"Don't be a jerk" means "Don't gloat when people have cancer."

[tnetennba]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=477290

Just the latest in a series of gloating over people suffering.

I think making fun of people with cancer is rule number one in the being a jerk handbook. So either the mods stop it now or never cite that moronic rule again. Thanks.

[Drain Bead]

So anyone who gets cancer is off-limits from reproach?

[Boyo Jim]

I agree with the OP. I have, however, been known to dance happily on graves, but not while people are still alive and suffering.

[tnetennba]

Another rule of not being a jerk is not grossly misreading and mischaracterizing a really short and easily comprehended post.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Another rule of not being a jerk is not grossly misreading and mischaracterizing a really short and easily comprehended post.

Nah, that just violates the less-frequently quoted board rule, "don't be stupid."

[Mr. Moto]

No. But we shouldn't jump for joy at their illness either. Knowing where this line is isn't hard.

But getting this board to enforce it would be. I'm not holding my breath.

[Moirai]

I always interpreted the rule to mean "don't be a jerk to other posters." Posting fucked-up things about public figures is covered by other rules, if it is deemed harsh enough.

Right?

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by Drain Bead

So anyone who gets cancer is off-limits from reproach?

You're an extremely intelligent person. Surely you understand the argument being made well enough not to supply such a disingenuous reply.

Rush Limbaugh gets this. Why don't you guys?

Regarding Kennedy's illness he said words to the effect of:

"While we at EIB strongly disagree with many of the Senator's views, this is a tragic event and our sympathies and good wishes go out to him and his family."


Why the fuck do some people have such a hard time with this?

[tnetennba]

If that was a rule, Q, it would end the posting careers of many of us.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by cricetus

If that was a rule, Q, it would end the posting careers of many of us.

Well, just like the "jerk" rule, the word "consistently" is understood.

[What Exit?]

Why do you get to decide what passes for being a jerk?

While I don't go into these thread and celebrate some scumbag getting cancer, I don't get why you find this so offensive and why the entire board should be expected to agree with you.

Am I allowed to celebrate when Cheney kicks the bucket? I think he has done more harm to my country than any other man in my lifetime. Apparently some people feel this way about others.

Good Og, if that particular scumbag had died of one of his first heart attack, this would be a much better world.

How about child rapist, would it be jerkish to be happy that a child rapist got cancer? How about a pure hate monger like Phelps?

Are we never allowed to express joy in a monster getting cancer. Cancer sucks, but then so do a few of the people that get it.

Jim

[tnetennba]

I think that it's pretty obvious to most normal people that gloating about a terminal illness is being a jerk. I don't think it's some random idiosyncracy of my own. And I think a good litmus test is this: would any one of you say the same thing to a room full of colleagues? At a family reunion?

I doubt it. The Internet gives people this feeling of no accountability for being complete and utter assholes. At some point you have to ask yourself if you want this board to be about fighting ignorance or just the kind of mean, hateful, stupid shit you read on youtube comments. And having made that decision, whether or not you are making it so.

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Are we never allowed to express joy in a monster getting cancer. Cancer sucks, but then so do a few of the people that get it.

Jim

No. I'm very sure that you should never take joy in the suffering of other people. This is especially true when you think ill of them.

Why? Because you are opening your heart to hatred, nursing and indulging it, and to do so over reflects on your measure as a human being. It is not an easy thing to turn off, and it lessens your quality.

Then there's the old joke:

Young man goes out in the woods to work at a lumber camp. After a couple of days he complains to the foreman about the lack of female company. The foreman say "Yeah, we solved that problem. You see that barrel over there? Well, there's a knot hole on the other side. Use that after dark."

The young man does this and the next day he says to the foreman "I was pretty skeptical at first, but I can't beleive it! That was amazing. It was the most incredible experience of my life."

The foreman says "I'm glad you like it, because tonight is your turn in the barrel."

[tnetennba]

I find that joke oddly appropriate. Good one, Scylla!

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

While I don't go into these thread and celebrate some scumbag getting cancer, I don't get why you find this so offensive...

Wow, are you actually that dense? Seriously?

[tnetennba]

I don't get why you find this so offensive...

It must have to do with my upbringing as a human being.

[samclem]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...04&postcount=1

Originally Posted by cricetus

He's facing misdemeanor charges. One can only hope he'll get the maximum penalty with some jail time... so I can offer a carton of Kools for the first meth freak who will do anything for a carton of Kools.

.
So, you can wish a horrible end to some scumbag who got arrested by the Justice system, but I can't wish a horrible end to some scumbag who................

forget it.

[tnetennba]

Wow, you went back three and half fucking years to find one such example? I apologize for that comment (which I don't remember making.) I actually hate it when people make cracks like that and am disappointed in myself.

But holy shit, did you read the story I was responding to?

It's pathetic that as a moderator you'd rather play gotcha than explain how your asinine and arbitrary rule jibes with this jerkish behavior. The only thing your game of gotcha does is prove I'm guilty of being a jerk myself.

[Count Blucher]

Originally Posted by cricetus

If that was a rule, Q, it would end the posting careers of many of us.

With McCain's face being wittled down like a No.2 in an electric pencil sharpener during tax season, it might end all debate in the up coming election as well.

Sarah Connor: [to The McCaininator] Will these heal up?
The McCaininator: Yes.
Sarah Connor: Good, because you're no good to us if you can't pass as human....

[Aquila Be]

Originally Posted by cricetus

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=477290

Just the latest in a series of gloating over people suffering.

I think making fun of people with cancer is rule number one in the being a jerk handbook. So either the mods stop it now or never cite that moronic rule again. Thanks.

Perhaps SDMB might consider doing what some leftist sites do and block or delete celebratory comments following news of the death or illness that involves non democrats.

Huffpo has already done this with its Novak thread as they have enough sense to be at least a little bit embarrassed by the kind of stuff many of its more deranged and politically bigoted members tend to write when something like this happens.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by samclem

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...04&postcount=1

.
So, you can wish a horrible end to some scumbag who got arrested by the Justice system, but I can't wish a horrible end to some scumbag who................

forget it.

Wow, hoisted by his own petard. How fitting.

Q.E.D., I have no respect for Cheney, I wish he had died years ago. If I can feel this about this man, than I have to understand how others can feel that way about Ted Kennedy or Novack.

We just found out that cricetus himself is a hypocrite, I am surprised, but no matter what people claim in this thread, there is someone, somewhere, that you will be happy when he/she dies.

I think I am being honest and so I cannot condemn others that express their opinions on the board.

Jim

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Aquila Be

Perhaps SDMB might consider doing what some leftist sites do and block or delete celebratory comments following news of the death or illness that involves non democrats.

Huffpo has already done this with its Novak thread as they have enough sense to be at least a little bit embarrassed by the kind of stuff many of its more deranged and politically bigoted members tend to write when something like this happens.

Why? We are balanced, we have had people celebrate both Kennedy and Novack now. Not to mention some scumbag child rapist that the world will be better off without.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

We just found out that cricetus himself is a hypocrite, I am surprised, but no matter what people claim in this thread, there is someone, somewhere, that you will be happy when he/she dies.

Mine was not about anyone dying.

And "one of us! one of us!" is a crappy defense. I was being a jerk then and you're being a jerk now. Tu quoque.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Mine was not about anyone dying.

And "one of us! one of us!" is a crappy defense. I was being a jerk then and you're being a jerk now. Tu quoque.

Why? I have never celebrate anyone's death on this board. I am just be honest enough to admit, that I will be happy when Cheney either dies or goes to jail.

By the way, your extreme snide remark, "It must have to do with my upbringing as a human being." is also bullshit as in polite society people are also suppose to refrain from talking about God and Politics. So where does this declaring something jerkish end.

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by samclem

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...04&postcount=1

.
So, you can wish a horrible end to some scumbag who got arrested by the Justice system, but I can't wish a horrible end to some scumbag who................

forget it.

That's great! You can instantly search back over a poster's entire career searching for that one instance of hypocrisy. You're that good. But let the boards go down for two days you just sit around uselessly with your thumb up your ass playing title chat.




(I can't seem to find the appropriate mildly facetious yet slightly sarcastic smiley to go with that post. There is no emoticon for what I'm feeling. I'm going to have to mix and match: + = the smiley that would perfectly describe my feelings.)

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Why? I have never celebrate anyone's death on this board. I am just be honest enough to admit, that I will be happy when Cheney either dies or goes to jail.

By the way, your extreme snide remark, "It must have to do with my upbringing as a human being." is also bullshit as in polite society people are also suppose to refrain from talking about God and Politics. So where does this declaring something jerkish end.

I don't hesitate to talk about politics at work or family gatherings.

[Scylla]

Samclem:

Oh, and since I know from experience how much you enjoy searching for hypocrisy (remember the fun we had when you got the whole board searching for a post by me that didn't exist?) I will save you the trouble and stipulate that somewhere in my posting history is an instance where I wished ill on someone, and just respond as if you found it:

So what? Big deal. We are all hypocrites and your mama should have taught you that two wrongs don't make a right.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by cricetus

I don't hesitate to talk about politics at work or family gatherings.

But you are making up the rules. You also accuse me of being a jerk, when I haven't actually posted anything as bad as you did.

I know I don't talk religion at work* or at family gatherings, that must be the second favorite topic at his board.

So why is it OK to talk religion but not what DtC seems to enjoy?






* Except with one or two other non-religious friends if they bring it up first. I make sure I don't have confrontations with the faithful. BTW: I did do this when I was 18. I decided it wasn't worth it.

[Aquila Be]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Why? We are balanced, we have had people celebrate both Kennedy and Novack now. Not to mention some scumbag child rapist that the world will be better off without.

It's as pointless to (1) celebrate (2) mourn (3) discuss.

To do either (1) or (2) if you don't have a personal stake in the matter displays a twisted psyche of some kind.

As for (3) the subject is no more compelling than the news of that other TV person who died recently amidst much tears and flapdoodle (M.T.). (oddly enough, I can't for the life of me remember his name, but then I'm a furner).

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by samclem

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...04&postcount=1

.
So, you can wish a horrible end to some scumbag who got arrested by the Justice system, but I can't wish a horrible end to some scumbag who................

forget it.

Listen, I'm sure you can go over my posting history and find numberless examples where I don't live up to values I espouse.

Does that invalidate those values? Probably not by itself. Does it make me a hypocrite? Only if it can be shown that I really don't believe in them by making it a pattern. Does it show that I am human and may mess up from time to time? Probably.

You seem like you'd like to duck all of this, though, and just skip right to hypocrisy and avoid answering questions like this. Might be too hard.

This is a moderated board. You are a moderator. Countless times I've been admonished by you and your ilk for causing a debate to get too hot, or insulting someone in an inappropriate way, or violating a rule of some kind. Few warnings, but a lot of little nudges to shape up. Frankly, I appreciate this - it helps these debates and discussions to be better ones.

I think you should do your job in this instance as well, and not duck it.

[tnetennba]

Jim, you're right that you didn't participate in the offending thread. Your defensiveness on the issue led me to casually say "you" were being a jerk, which was careless. But I don't care to argue why gloating over sickness and death is jerkish; either you're like 99.99% of the population and you think it is, or you think it's fine and you'll go on doing it until you get cancer, or someone you care about does, and you'll feel sick at the very thought of somebody high-fiving others. It's a gut-check response, not a science.

To compare that mere social propriety is kind of disingenuous. I don't think for one second you're really confused about the difference, but merely trying to engineer the "pile on the op" pissing match that often occurs in pit threads*. I feel the best response is to just ask people to address the OP and move on, not assail the five-year perfection of the poster of the thread or go into semantic nitpicking like so many Socratic bullies. I'm not here to get into a critique of morals themselves, I'm willing to make a priori the position that being smug about cancer is a jerkish behavior.

*I've tried that myself recently in a Scylla thread and failed miserably, so I guess I'm a hypocrite, and if that disclosure saves samclem some time from combing my posting history that he can spend actually moderating, I'm happy to be of service.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by cricetus

I think that it's pretty obvious to most normal people that gloating about a terminal illness is being a jerk.

Darn right it is.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Jim, you're right that you didn't participate in the offending thread. Your defensiveness on the issue led me to casually say "you" were being a jerk, which was careless. But I don't care to argue why gloating over sickness and death is jerkish; either you're like 99.99% of the population and you think it is, or you think it's fine and you'll go on doing it until you get cancer, or someone you care about does, and you'll feel sick at the very thought of somebody high-fiving others. It's a gut-check response, not a science.

To compare that mere social propriety is kind of disingenuous. I don't think for one second you're really confused about the difference, but merely trying to engineer the "pile on the op" pissing match that often occurs in pit threads*. I feel the best response is to just ask people to address the OP and move on, not assail the five-year perfection of the poster of the thread or go into semantic nitpicking like so many Socratic bullies. I'm not here to get into a critique of morals themselves, I'm willing to make a priori the position that being smug about cancer is a jerkish behavior.

I am honestly not trying for a pile on the Op. In fact as most of the posters in this thread agree with you, I would be rather foolish to think that was possible. I think you have me confused with some other poster.

I honestly don't agree with your mini-campaign to restrict what other posters are allowed to do in the pit over this issue. You raised a concern, I feel I would be a hypocrite to agree with you. I am expressing my disagreement. This is no different for me from the fact that I would like to see pot legalized despite the fact I have no desire to use it again and I gave it up when I was young.

So while we might disagree, please don't assign ulterior motives to why I am doing it. You posted a thread demanding a change, I am challenging your reasoning.

Jim

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by cricetus

I think making fun of people with cancer is rule number one in the being a jerk handbook. So either the mods stop it now or never cite that moronic rule again. Thanks.

As I do sometimes when it's late or early, I breezed through a thread little too quickly and missed the serious point here.

[Geoffrey Rush]It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules[/GR]

I don't think this is where we want to take the capital-J Jerk rule. It's identified in the rules as a "guiding principle" and should be understood as such. Basically, the other rules we have are supposed to be extensions of that principle.

Short version: I think EJsgirl summed it up properly. The rules here apply to what you can say about fellow posters.

There are uncountable instances in which a post here would get them called a jerk or worse in real life. But this isn't your office or the dinner table. If everything that would get you called a jerk (or any similar name) in a real-world conversation was against the rules here, there would be no Pit and disagreements with anybody would either be mild or verboten. How would we either fight ignorance or have fun if it went that way?

I don't approve of gloating when people are sick at all, but the rule basically is that you can say what you like about people who aren't on this board. They are basically fair game. With very rare exceptions, what right do we have to regulate what people say about people who don't post here?

[tnetennba]

How do you know he doesn't post here?

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by cricetus

How do you know he doesn't post here?

Well, we are talking about dead people aren't we?

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by Marley23

If everything that would get you called a jerk (or any similar name) in a real-world conversation was against the rules here, there would be no Pit and disagreements with anybody would either be mild or verboten. How would we either fight ignorance or have fun if it went that way?

Nobody's talking about "everything that would get you called a jerk in a real-world conversation," but something that is clearly being a jerk, in any context or situation, that isn't fun and isn't fighting ignorance. It's creating ignorance, and moving the mission of the board towards re-creating the kind of nauseating low-brow bullshit that is simply everywhere on the Internet.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Nobody's talking about "everything that would get you called a jerk in a real-world conversation," but something that is clearly being a jerk, in any context or situation, that isn't fun and isn't fighting ignorance. It's creating ignorance, and moving the mission of the board towards re-creating the kind of nauseating low-brow bullshit that is simply everywhere on the Internet.

You know what keeps this board from being low-brow bullshit like everywhere else on the Internet? It's not the moderators. It's you guys. If you take exception to something someone posted, you can call them out on it like you have in this thread, and start a community-wide discussion.

I'm not saying this to duck responsibility, I'm saying it because I think it's the strength of this board. Instead of us rigidly controlling and shaping discussion from on high, we throw out the spammers and the obvious troublemakers and let debate and reasoned arguments from you guys handle the rest.

Originally Posted by Scylla

That's great! You can instantly search back over a poster's entire career searching for that one instance of hypocrisy. You're that good. But let the boards go down for two days you just sit around uselessly with your thumb up your ass playing title chat.

You know we have no more access to the technical and administrative parts of the board than you do, right?

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Originally Posted by Scylla

No. I'm very sure that you should never take joy in the suffering of other people. This is especially true when you think ill of them.

Why? Because you are opening your heart to hatred, nursing and indulging it, and to do so over reflects on your measure as a human being. It is not an easy thing to turn off, and it lessens your quality.

I dunno. I'm a pussy-assed liberal, and even I suspect (although I haven't thought it through, and could be persuaded otherwise) that hatred is a morally okay emotion sometimes. I don't have a problem with hating someone who is evil, like Phelps. Hatred is my recognition of that person's abandonment of all moral decency, which is (almost by definition) the worst thing you can do and the worst kind of person you can be. Oh, I suppose in an ideal world nobody would hate anyone. But in any ideal world, nobody would be like Fred Phelps. Just like in an ideal world, nobody would kill anybody in self-defense; but in an ideal world, there wouldn't be violent attacks requiring defense in the first place. In the real world, hatred has a place.

But Novak doesn't quite cross the line to hatred and gleeful dancing on his grave. I think he is a morally disordered piece of shit, but I don't hate him.

[Suse]

Originally Posted by EJsGirl

I always interpreted the rule to mean "don't be a jerk to other posters." Posting fucked-up things about public figures is covered by other rules, if it is deemed harsh enough.

Right?

I think you're right, per the actual rule. But what it says to me about the person posting it is that they are very young in an emotional sense. Once a person has experienced real loss or tragedy, it's hard for me to believe that they could wish that on someone else, or happily celebrate loss or tragedy for someone else.
But I guess I'm naive enough, even at my age, to want to believe the best of people, including Dopers.

[cochrane]

Originally Posted by EJsGirl

I always interpreted the rule to mean "don't be a jerk to other posters." Posting fucked-up things about public figures is covered by other rules, if it is deemed harsh enough.

Right?

I always interpreted the rules the same way. As for public figures, "the don't be a jerk" rule may also apply. For example, in a Cafe Society or MPSIMS thread, gloating over a person's death is considered threadshitting. But if you come to the Pit to do it, gloat away.

Note, this is my interpretation as regards public figures. As for other Dopers, there should be limitations on jerkishness, even in the Pit. I would frown on gloating over another Doper's illness.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by cricetus

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=477290

Just the latest in a series of gloating over people suffering.

I think making fun of people with cancer is rule number one in the being a jerk handbook. So either the mods stop it now or never cite that moronic rule again. Thanks.

"Don't be a jerk" also means not accusing people of stuff they haven't done. I refer readers to post #10 in the linked thread.

[essell]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Nobody's talking about "everything that would get you called a jerk in a real-world conversation," but something that is clearly being a jerk, in any context or situation, that isn't fun and isn't fighting ignorance. It's creating ignorance, and moving the mission of the board towards re-creating the kind of nauseating low-brow bullshit that is simply everywhere on the Internet.

You keep claiming this isn't an ambiguous matter, and you even quoted 99.9% of people would agree with that. Despite the dissenting voices in this thread and despite the numerous people in the first thread that brought you here.

Clearly there are a lot more than 0.1% of people who think it's okay to laugh at someone with cancer sometimes. It's not even close to "jerkish" for some of us.

I don't know Novak from Adam. Never heard of him, but I know if I was in his position I'd be fine with people taking the piss. Main reason: It's have absolutely no bearing on the progress of my illness. Doubly so for people talking about it on an internet message board. Talk is cheap.

The board has it's strengths and weaknesses but it is not a Microcosm of the world. Normal rules of etiquette need not apply. Not to say there are no standards of conduct, just that you can't automatically apply your existing rules

And for the record; If a hypothetical person I didn't like got cancer and I was glad, I would mention it at work and at the dinner table as much as I would on these boards. But then that's me and I'm an irreverent bastard. To be thinking it but not saying it because of sensitive people imposing their arbitrary rules seems dishonest to me.

[tnetennba]

My rule of thumb was for what happens in the real world, not what happens when people are anonymous, and especially not what happens among of self-selecting group of a particular stamp of obnoxious people. The fact that it would be considered especially "sensitive," to complain, or that people insist on seeing this as somebody laying down new "rules," shows how unreflective, emotionally stunted, adolescent, and socially maladapted this community is. In the real world, among emotionally mature adults, nobody does this kind of thing, and if they do, nobody defends it.

As for "people on this board," you might very well ask yourselves if it's jerkish to gloat about tumors or cancer if someone "in the room" actually has cancer at the time, or a tumor that is possibly (even probably) malignant. Or if anyone has a friend or loved one currently dying of cancer. How will your glib little comments go over? And how much will you save face by bitching about "arbitrary rules" and

[tnetennba]

Incidentally, this thread is as much about the uselessness of "don't be a jerk" as a rule, or even a guideline. I think the rule is meaningless and invoked at arbitrary times. I would rather people just realize that this is jerkish behavior and stop, than be prohibited from doing it. You can't mandate emotional intelligence.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by cricetus

Nobody's talking about "everything that would get you called a jerk in a real-world conversation," but something that is clearly being a jerk, in any context or situation, that isn't fun and isn't fighting ignorance.

I think this is contradicted by your later post about "what happens in the real world."

Again: the rule is about how you treat other posters. I think that's about as restrictive as it should be. Beyond that, it's better that posters shout it down instead of asking us to forbid it. Think about how this rule would read. "Don't wish ill health on public figures?" "Don't celebrate the misfortunes of famous people?" You're welcome to propose it here or in ATMB, but I think any rule on this topic is either going to get so vague that people will be concerned about stifling discussion or so specific it'll be useless. Call people on their shit if it bothers you. You're not the only one who is bothered by this stuff, as demonstrated by the fact that the Tony Snow thread lasted six or eight pages.

It's creating ignorance, and moving the mission of the board towards re-creating the kind of nauseating low-brow bullshit that is simply everywhere on the Internet.

Mind if I ask where else on the 'net you spend your time? One cold thread each about Jesse Helms, Tony Snow and Bob Novak (and the condemnation was not universal in any of those) does not constitute "moving the mission of this board" in my opinion. It doesn't create ignorance, it's just rudeness. Let's not confuse this issue by making those the same thing.

[tnetennba]

The opposite of ignorance is not information, it's wisdom. I would posit that part of wisdom is tact and emotional maturity.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

Originally Posted by cricetus

My rule of thumb was for what happens in the real world, not what happens when people are anonymous, and especially not what happens among of self-selecting group of a particular stamp of obnoxious people. The fact that it would be considered especially "sensitive," to complain, or that people insist on seeing this as somebody laying down new "rules," shows how unreflective, emotionally stunted, adolescent, and socially maladapted this community is. In the real world, among emotionally mature adults, nobody does this kind of thing, and if they do, nobody defends it.

As for "people on this board," you might very well ask yourselves if it's jerkish to gloat about tumors or cancer if someone "in the room" actually has cancer at the time, or a tumor that is possibly (even probably) malignant. Or if anyone has a friend or loved one currently dying of cancer. How will your glib little comments go over? And how much will you save face by bitching about "arbitrary rules" and

Uh huh. Dude, were I in a room with Cheney, I'd happily tell him to his face that I'm glad he's kicking off and taking his insane evil with him. This doesn't mean that just because I simply don't like someone that I'd gloat about their misfortune. That's reserved for people who actually make the world a worse place by their being in it. It also doesn't mean I'd go up to Cheney's family and laugh at them. But people need to expect to be judged by their actions, and I have not one ounce of sympathy for some people in this world.

Would you hold that it's jerkish to celebrate anyone's misfortune? Kim Jong Il? Hitler? Mass murderers?

If so, I'd say you're the one who's emotionally stunted.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed

If so, I'd say you're the one who's emotionally stunted.

The "I know you are but what am I" defense! Well, i guess that's as good a "last word" as any on the topic.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by cricetus

I would rather people just realize that this is jerkish behavior and stop, than be prohibited from doing it.

That's not the same as what you said in your OP. Or are you okay with the prohibition if they choose not to stop?

You can't mandate emotional intelligence.

Exactly. And I'd rather we don't try.

Originally Posted by cricetus

The opposite of ignorance is not information, it's wisdom. I would posit that part of wisdom is tact and emotional maturity.

Are we fighting igorance or just mandating it away now? And unfortunately, you're wrong regardless. Emotional maturity is not related to knowledge about any particular subject.