Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:15 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I might buy that if it, say, you making the point. The poster in question? Not so much, no.
Yeah, but I wouldn't make that point.

(Granted Reagan wasn't the only reason -- that bitch across the pond had a bit to do with it as well, I'd say)

Last edited by Guinastasia; 03-15-2019 at 02:16 AM.
  #52  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:22 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Sure, but the issue being addressed at that point in that thread wasn't "who do you have good reason to hate", it was "There's no good reason to hate Reagan."

Which, yeah, someone makes fun of 10 extra years of Apartheid under "constructive engagement", apparently not enough to earn mod empathy when actual Apartheid victim boils over. Just gets one accusations of truth-twisting from other mods, apparently.

Acting out because someone says something boneheaded about language usage? Have a mild "tsk, tsk" and a hug, buddy.

Note that that was my first warning, so this "we go light on first offenders" sounds like so much bullshit to me.

Last edited by MrDibble; 03-15-2019 at 04:24 AM.
  #53  
Old 03-15-2019, 05:06 AM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Did you read the whole of my post?
Yes, they did. Not in so many words, but that was the inference of what they did say:
Them: Hatred for Reagan is unreasonable
Me: My reason is he prolonged Apartheid by 10 years.
Them: It has to be good reasoning.

Implication: prolonging apartheid isn't a good enough reason to hate Reagan i.e. it was not a bad thing.

But go on, by all means, continue to interpret it differently. That's you privilege, no doubt.
How about a link to the thread in question. I can't find anything on a search.
  #54  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:50 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
How about a link to the thread in question. I can't find anything on a search.
Here.
  #55  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:37 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Thank you for once again confirming that the poster in question didn't say what you claimed he said. Rather, as you've explained here, you were responding to what you imagined he meant. If you have to explain your reasoning, then the meaning of the post you were responding to clearly wasn't explicit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
MMVed. I won't say the identity of the poster in question wasn't the reason it Ved, because it totally was.
That in itself would have been good reason not to cut you any slack on the response. As mentioned above, moderators take into account a poster's history in deciding on a response. When you have a history of animosity with a particular poster, you're not going to get much allowance on insults.

Last edited by Colibri; 03-15-2019 at 10:38 AM.
  #56  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Thank you for once again confirming that the poster in question didn't say what you claimed he said. Rather, as you've explained here, you were responding to what you imagined he meant. If you have to explain your reasoning, then the meaning of the post you were responding to clearly wasn't explicit.

That in itself would have been good reason not to cut you any slack on the response. As mentioned above, moderators take into account a poster's history in deciding on a response. When you have a history of animosity with a particular poster, you're not going to get much allowance on insults.
I'm not sure what your point is -- are you saying that if the poster in question had indeed explicitly said that extending apartheid for another 10 years was a good thing, then the "Fuck you" response would not have been moderated? Or are you just disagreeing for fun (not that there's anything wrong with this)?

For the record, I think MrDibble's interpretation is a reasonable one. It doesn't mean that he's definitely 100% correct about the poster's intention (that would require mind-reading), but taking everything into account, I also believed at the time (and still suspect) that the poster in question was saying that (at best) it wasn't a big deal to take action that extended apartheid.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-15-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #57  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:19 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not sure what your point is -- are you saying that if the poster in question had indeed explicitly said that extending apartheid for another 10 years was a good thing, then the "Fuck you" response would not have been moderated?
No. Mr. Dibble's argument is irrelevant to whether he should have received a warning for that post or not. He is complaining because one poster got a lesser response now to an offense than he got five years ago. However, he made a false statement about what another poster said, which in effect is insulting to that poster, and I felt that the record should be corrected.

Last edited by Colibri; 03-15-2019 at 11:22 AM.
  #58  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
No. Mr. Dibble's argument is irrelevant to whether he should have received a warning for that post or not. However, he made a false statement about what another poster said, which in effect is insulting to that poster, and I felt that the record should be corrected.
He didn't make a false statement -- he interpreted a statement differently than you did. People really can disagree on things like that. Especially when the original poster doesn't explain what he meant.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-15-2019 at 11:25 AM.
  #59  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:09 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Dark Gods forbid we have consistent moderating...
Seems pretty consistent that a poster is going to get at least a Mod Note for telling another poster "Fuck You" in some forums. So, don't do that.
  #60  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:21 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He didn't make a false statement -- he interpreted a statement differently than you did. People really can disagree on things like that. Especially when the original poster doesn't explain what he meant.
In other words, the poster didn't actually say what Mr. Dibble claimed he said. He put words in his mouth that weren't in his post, and didn't ask for an explanation. And as he admits, his response was based on personal animosity.

Last edited by Colibri; 03-15-2019 at 12:22 PM.
  #61  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:35 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Thank you for once again confirming that the poster in question didn't say what you claimed he said.
I didn't claim "he said" it.
Quote:
Rather, as you've explained here, you were responding to what you imagined he meant.
No, "imagined" implies it was not a good inference from his actual words. I responded to the clearest literal interpretation. Interpretation is not imagination.
Quote:
If you have to explain your reasoning, then the meaning of the post you were responding to clearly wasn't explicit.
Not explicit =/= different meaning.
Quote:
That in itself would have been good reason not to cut you any slack on the response.
Like I said before, that's your privilege.
Quote:
As mentioned above, moderators take into account a poster's history in deciding on a response.
...but Gods forbid us posters get uppity and do exactly the same thing...
Quote:
When you have a history of animosity with a particular poster, you're not going to get much allowance on insults.
I didn't have a particular "history of animosity" with that poster. Before that post, obviously. But I was quite familiar with his stances on things.
  #62  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:37 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
And as he admits, his response was based on personal animosity.
Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

Last edited by MrDibble; 03-15-2019 at 12:37 PM.
  #63  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:40 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Seems pretty consistent that a poster is going to get at least a Mod Note for telling another poster "Fuck You" in some forums. So, don't do that.
Naah - consistency would be making this one a warning.

I'm not arguing that my warning wasn't valid. I said "Fuck you" to someone in IMHO, after all. Justified as it was, it was against the rules.

I am arguing that the reasoning given why this isn't a warning is post hoc bullshit.
  #64  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
In other words, the poster didn't actually say what Mr. Dibble claimed he said. He put words in his mouth that weren't in his post, and didn't ask for an explanation. And as he admits, his response was based on personal animosity.
By your definition, you just put words in his mouth (he didn't state is was "based on personal animosity"). It was an interpretation, which is necessary for much of communication. Just like your interpretation that he meant that his angry response was "based on personal animosity".

It really is possible to interpret something in different ways, and that doesn't necessarily mean putting words into someone else's mouth.

(Cue for a long discussion about what it exactly means to "put words into someone's mouth")

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-15-2019 at 12:45 PM.
  #65  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:07 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
By your definition, you just put words in his mouth (he didn't state is was "based on personal animosity").
Fine. That means you agree that he put words in the other poster's mouth (to put words in your mouth).

Quote:
It really is possible to interpret something in different ways, and that doesn't necessarily mean putting words into someone else's mouth.
But "interpreting it" means that the poster said something different than he actually said. So you agree that the poster's literal comment was different from what was attributed to it.
  #66  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:10 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,010
Hi. Well, I'm glad the conversation has shifted away from me now.

Listen, what I said was wrong and I admit it. Had I been given a warning I would have agreed to it, but a mod note was sufficient for me to take a step back and calm down.

The OP of that original thread, to which I replied, has a transgender step-son. I have a transgender daughter. The OP and I sometimes communicate via other media and as you can imagine some of this stuff regarding homophobia, etc. is quite real to us and downright hurtful to experience.

Mea culpa. I shan't do it again and once again, I apologize. Thank you engineer_comp_geek for your patience and understanding.
  #67  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:18 PM
Mona Lisa Simpson is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Unceded Salish Territory
Posts: 2,944
And weirdly, just as I was about to post to this thread, as the OP of the thread that is in question, Leaffan posts. I disagree with Leaffan about many aspects of politics, 9Plus, he's a Toronto Maple Leafs fan....I live in Vancouver...) but I respect him because he is upstanding in his human rights stances, immigration, rights for the transgendered, etc.

I was concerned when I saw Leaffan's post I did not want him to go to SMDB jail, get warnings etc. I messaged him privately. I saw it was a Note, and I was confused but relieved.


Anyway, carry on with your hijack.
__________________
Shut up brain; I've got friends now. I don't need you.--Lisa Simpson
  #68  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:19 PM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,310
Statement quoted : ten more years of Apartheid would have been a good thing.

Statement actually made: the final ten years of Apartheid aren't a good reason for disliking Reagan.


Yeah, I see a huge distinction there. Bad boy for misquoting him.
  #69  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
But "interpreting it" means that the poster said something different than he actually said. So you agree that the poster's literal comment was different from what was attributed to it.
Interpretation is about what was meant, not what was said. He said X -- by saying X, I think it's clear he meant Y.

But that's not really the meat of why I challenged you -- I challenged you because you said MrDibble made a false statement about that other poster. Unless you can read minds, you don't know that either. You might think he interpreted it wrong, but you can't know for sure (and neither can he). Since you're a moderator, I think that's an important distinction to make.

Also, I wanted to make it clear that MrDibble isn't the only one who interpreted those words as he did. Reasonable people can disagree on such things, and IMO reasonable people are disagreeing in this case.
  #70  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:47 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Thank you for once again confirming that the poster in question didn't say what you claimed he said. Rather, as you've explained here, you were responding to what you imagined he meant. If you have to explain your reasoning, then the meaning of the post you were responding to clearly wasn't explicit.
That's a bad argument. Explaining something simply means that you don't think the person you are explaining it to understands. It's extremely common that what is obvious to one person is not obvious to another. I've had to explain post that were obvious to me several times.

MrDibble is the closest thing on this board we have to an expert on Apartheid, as far as I know. He lives in the area where it happened, and is himself black. He is also well educated, and is an online activist, and thus experiences the tactics of the other side a lot.

It's entirely expected that he would notice something that you guys wouldn't related to the subject, and then have to try and explain what is obvious to him.
  #71  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:01 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
I'm not Black. I'm Coloured.
  #72  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:02 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm not Black. I'm Coloured.


Me too. I’m sort of a beigy-pink.
  #73  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:17 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm not Black. I'm Coloured.
You've just got to use the "u", don't you?
  #74  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:24 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
You've just got to use the "u", don't you?
It's a proper name for the ethnicity, it'd be wrong to spell it "Colored" even if you're an American. Even Wikipedia gets that.
  #75  
Old 03-16-2019, 05:59 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
It's a proper name for the ethnicity, it'd be wrong to spell it "Colored" even if you're an American. Even Wikipedia gets that.
Ouch. I did not know that.

Sorry. We coul?
  #76  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:29 PM
Enola Gay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm not Black. I'm Coloured.
Mr. Dibble, does Coloured have a negative, positive, or neutral connotation? I was in South Africa during Apartheid (1982) & heard the term a lot & as an American (who would also be classified as Coloured under SA's definition), I found the term to be quite offensive. So I'm curious as to how it is perceived today.
  #77  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:08 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,821
It's completely neutral to most people. Some people do prefer other terms, especially when they can be certain of more specificity, but most Coloureds can't, and don't care. The term's never carried the offence of the American "colored folk" here, there were much worse terms for that (hence my problem with the username Hottentot Venus a few years ago) plus it was never applied to Black people, so wasn't really the same usage as "colored".
  #78  
Old 03-17-2019, 03:58 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

Also, I wanted to make it clear that MrDibble isn't the only one who interpreted those words as he did. Reasonable people can disagree on such things, and IMO reasonable people are disagreeing in this case.
I agree. I think his interpretation was correct.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017