Okay, that’s a totally different argument than the one I thought you were making in that last post.
The rule against personal insults doesn’t apply to off-board individuals, such as Donald Trump or Barack Obama. However, I am a member of the message board. So if the insult is directed to me, it is against the rules. Which brings us back to the point I thought you were making, which was that I wasn’t personally within the scope of the insult. And when I say no, I really am within the scope of the insult, as I understand it your response is: I should re-evaluate my views because I’m defending the indefensible, on the wrong side of history, Der_Trihs was reasonable to insult me, and I should learn from that feedback.
If you are not directly insulted, then somehow represent yourself as one of the insulted, do you think that counts as “That person insulted me personally”?
ETA: If you are insulted indirectly, then somehow represent yourself as one of the insulted, do you think that counts as “That person insulted me personally”?
If you are under the misapprehension that all personal insults must be direct insults, please see the following:
“Do not directly insult or personally attack other posters.”
The word “or” indicates that not all personal attacks are direct insults. Example, “only a racist would say such a thing”.
The difference, as I see it, is that it’s permissible to insult a group of people as operating with malice, and that’s not outside of the rules, irrespective of whether you identify as part of that group. If someone said ,” @Max_S , you are operating with malice,” that’s a personal insult. If they insult a group to which you happen to belong, it’s within the rules because you’re not being singled out.
I’m of the opinion that they aren’t being consistent. And this is the place for me to make that claim.
For example consider this mod note, and this goes to @superdude’s point as well (thank you for making it):
Why was it against the rules for Ruken to say bringing up irrelevant source materials constitutes fear-mongering? Because this was a backhanded insult against Stranger_on_a_Train. The latter member had cited the source materials. Fear-mongering is an accusation of bad faith, purposely exaggerating a claim to create unnecessary fear. Since Stranger_on_a_Train clearly made the cite, and one can reasonably infer that Ruken was referring to him since the post quoted Stranger_on_a_Train directly. Ruken did not explicitly single out Stranger_on_a_Train in that remark but he was clearly the target. It follows that Ruken indirectly accused him of fear-mongering. What_Exit described the post as attacking the poster, not the post.
There is no difference between what Ruken wrote and “people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers”. Now look what happens when I do a little substitution. People who think being gay is a choice are malicious. I’ve replaced “bring up source materials” with “think being gay is a choice”, and “fear-mongers” with “malicious”. What if instead of “people who think being gay is a choice”, I just write “conservatives are malicious”? What have I done that makes the rule no longer apply? What difference is there?
Yes it does make sense Superdude. The board has always permitted broadsides against groups for reasons given upthread. Unless they are protected groups - which liberals and conservatives are not.
It’s a debate about what conservatives as a group believe. One example of what one conservative believes is of limited use. For perspective, I’ll quote from the OP:
These are questions about what conservatives as a group believe. Now I grant that there could be a thread entitled, “In what sense is being gay a choice? In what sense is it not a choice?” Indeed when I joined this message board I seem to recall that we had such debates (though the board was considered by and large gay-friendly at the time). We certainly had discussions about homosexuality. I didn’t find Max_S’s posts to be objectionable, just mildly uninteresting. Miller’s remarks were more insightful IMnecessarilyHO (this isn’t my wheelhouse).
Anyway, it sounds like Max_S has a beef with Der: I don’t know how serious it is. This board has an escape valve for such situations: it’s called the Pit. I’m not trying to be overly snarky here: that really was the Pit’s original purpose.
Not entirely incidentally, conservative posters from time to time advocate a higher civility bar for this message board. Back in the early part of this century, 2 boards spun off from this board: one had higher civility, the other had lower civility. Conservatives voted with their feet and largely favored the lower civility satellite board, though I’m happy to say the higher civility one is still in service. This disparity between conservative words and actions has been noticed by myself.
I believe you miss my point here. Best practice when discussing why society shouldn’t cut more slack towards an oppressed group is to pause to take note and measure of the oppression. It’s good manners and displays self awareness.
(Are conservatives an oppressed group? No more than liberals I believe.)
The statement you referenced by Ruken, incidentally, wasn’t indistinguishable from“people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers.” The implied subject was (you). He was addressing Stranger directly, and it’s clear it was not an indirect attack on a group he believes Stranger to be in.
I believe mine was a 100% appropriate statement and the mod note isn’t credible given that mod’s performance. But I’m assuming being quoted wasn’t an invitation to litigate inaccurate statements that cause fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger.
Curious if @Max_S would also forbid statements like:
Klansmen are racist.
Hamas supporters wants Jews to die.
Sovereign citizens are some dumb motherfuckers.
Should I, before posting things like this, worry whether there are Klansmen/Hamas supporters/Sovereign citizens on the board? Should I stop myself because there might be someone in the Klan who really just likes how he looks in white, and who disagrees with all the lynchings? If a sovereign citizen shows me her Ph.D from MIT, must I apologize and retract?
When a person is part of a group that they’ve joined willingly and that’s defined by a set of beliefs, they should expect criticism of that group.
It only just occurred to me to look further into the Terms of Service. The TOS also say [bolding mine]:
Rants. Criticism of off-board parties, including the occasional insult, is permitted in all forums. Rants and abuse, on the other hand, should be confined to the BBQ Pit.
The term “parties” generally connotes the singular or the plural, as in the Wikipedia definition:
A party is an individual or group of individuals that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law.
ISTM, based on the responses you’ve gotten from the moderators, that the intent of the rules – with the notable exception of ‘protected classes --’ IS to permit some level of disparagement of off-board individuals or groups in all forums.
I stand ready to be corrected if this is not the case.
I also think my Florida examples would probably stand the test, even if you responded by indignantly pointing out that you live in Florida.
Nobody’s extrapolating from the tens of millions to the one, nor is anybody extrapolating from the individual to the tens of millions. And – again – if you feel that’s happening (to you) in GD, then why not call out what you see as a logical fallacy?
To be fair, I think Max_S is also arguing for making conservatives a protected class (via the don’t-attack-the-poster route). This isn’t the first time I’ve seen such a proposal, though this is more explicit than is usually the case.
To be doubly fair, Der Trihs’ de facto posting privileges in GD have fluctuated over time. During his problem poster days he was one of the few or only member of that category that scrupulously obeyed moderator instructions. I believed at the time that his now vindicated posts were unhinged, but I did notice his iron discipline and absence of line dancing.
Why not raise the civility bar and disallow broadsides in GD? Left_Hand_of_Dorkness provides one downside upthread: it becomes more difficult to criticize groups if you regulate broadsides, hampering the fight against ignorance. I provided another perspective: nothing stops anyone from forming a board with a higher civility bar - and doing so is trickier than it may first appear.
Here’s another more fundamental point: this is a pseudo-anonymous message board. The civility bar is set higher IRL whether it be a scientific conference or the military. Reputational considerations and a wider range of sanctions regulate behavior there in ways impossible on the internet. It’s just a very different context.
It’s irrelevant no matter how many came in. No one read that statement and actually thinks it means literally every conservative is malicious in everything they say or do. That would literally be impossible. It’s obvious hyperbole.
My point is that Max’s beliefs are esoteric and unusual for conservatives. No one when they talk about “conservatives” in general is talking about someone as many liberal beliefs as Max has.
Except in the Pit as a form of venting, I do still think that Der_Trihs’s style of communication is more harmful than helpful. These sorts of comments are easier to dismiss by anyone who actually needs to be convinced, as they just read like partisan swipes.
But it doesn’t change that Max’s own reasons aren’t really all that relevant unless he can establish they are actually common amongst conservatives.
Yeah, that’s how I interpreted the thread. When I go to a debate the host will often give a quick intro explaining how one prominent group or other stands on the issue, then introduces a participant with some tie to the group. I can see how you might say this debate thread is not about the actual substance of the questions put forward, but rather how conservatives poll on the question. I consciously chose not to interpret it that way because the thread was in Great Debates, not Politics & Elections.
But even if the thread was about the political aspect, the claim made was universal,
It is a valid counter example to a universal proposition of the form, conservatives are always X.
Even putting that aside and assuming it is only an insult if the target is specific rather than general, we run into the problem - raised in-thread and which I acknowledge: You say these people are always malicious, I say I’m in the group but I’m not malicious, and then what do you do. You aren’t allowed to say I’m malicious. This is the actual sequence of events from the linked thread. The moderators who have chimed in in this thread have not actually weighed in on that problem, so far as I can tell.
I don’t, actually I generally value Der_Trihs’s contributions more than most other posters precisely because his viewpoint is so far from mine. I cite him so much here because he made the other posts in question. Those are real posts, and real views, as opposed to hypotheticals.
Here’s a non-Der_Trihs hypothetical. Saying “all adult My Little Pony fans are perverts” would be inappropriate in a discussion about some aspect of My Little Pony, because it’s insulting to call someone a pervert. A fan could reasonably object, “I’m not a pervert.” This objection is within the bounds of civil discourse. Normally the first person would then say something like, “oh, present company excluded.” Thus clarifying their argument is that most My Little Pony fans are perverts. They have to go through the motions or it becomes an uncivil discussion.
Does that mean the first person has to lie, if they honestly believe all fans are perverts? No. But if one is unwilling to except present company from a general insult, one shouldn’t make the general insult in polite company. Great Debates is polite company, good sportsmanship, Marquess of Queensberry rules and such. A good sport does not impugn the motive of his opponent, or if he does, he is willing to take it back. We have the Pit for no-holds-barred discussions.
First I’m assuming you are in a debate where it is relevant to question the motives of Klansmen or Hamas supporters, or the intelligence of sovereign citizens. Otherwise you have the hijack rule.
Then I’m assuming the thread is in GD. Not P&E or the Pit. So if you make a claim, even in passing, it has to be debatable - with a few explicit exceptions (scientific racism, climate change denial, men’s right activism). A political discussion in P&E is a different context than a debate in GD, so some generalizations of political groups which would be perfectly acceptable hyperbole in P&E, could be taken more literally in GD.
The question, if you make any of these statements, is whether you are speaking generally or universally. Are you saying all Klansmen are racist? Probably. Are you saying all Hamas supporters want Jews to die? Probably not. Are you saying all Sovereign citizens are some dumb motherfuckers? Probably not, in the literal sense.
So in the one case you might have someone come out and say he is a Klansman but not personally racist. Out of the three that’s the only statement I’m guessing you would be uncomfortable saying something like, “present company excluded.” And if we do have a Klansman on these boards trying to argue that the KKK isn’t racist, well, we have a rule against posters that are more trouble than they’re worth. So you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
The context in which that quote appears makes clear that it refers to individuals, such as public figure X:
Rants. Criticism of off-board parties, including the occasional insult, is permitted in all forums. Rants and abuse, on the other hand, should be confined to the BBQ Pit. For example, if you want to argue that public figure X is a jerk based on some recent revelation, this might unobjectionably be posted in any of several forums. If you simply want to testify to X’s continuing jerkitude, do so in the Pit. Threads that degenerate into rants may be closed; the OP (original poster) may request it be reopened in the Pit.
In this particular instance, i.e. “with conservatives it’s always about malice”, the conclusion is actually based on deduction and not a generalization at all. Conservatives are people with such and such views, which views are by their very nature always malicious, therefore it’s always about malice.
I did, in fact, object to the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization in-thread. Which was criticized, and not without reason.