Additional Straight Dope Forum Suggestion

The BBQ Pit
21

What the hell, I’ll give it a shot:

Ace, it is possible to have a discussion on a sensitive topic without being rude or mean. This does not imply that one must always say nice things no matter what. It means that considerate adults work to avoid being unnecessarily insulting or cruel. It’s called tact.

For example, it is possible to have a discussion on the problem of obesity in America, without saying (e.g.): “And when I met Doper X at a Dopefest, it was pretty clear she had done all the things we’ve talked about: wearing vertical stripes, getting a flattering haircut, toning up at the gym. And yet, I could still tell immediately that she was really fat, and had a huge ass. So these things aren’t solutions to the problem.”

A non-asshole is able to express the same sentiment without saying something so directly offensive. It’s called tact. (I repeat myself as it’s clearly a concept with which you are utterly unfamiliar.)

These are just the normal rules for being a considerate human being. This has nothing to do with being online, except that anonymity gives people like you the freedom to act like assholes without consequence.

22

If we could hold off with the multiple thread hijacks for a moment, that would be great.

23

Yeah, that would be great, just fine. While were at it, why don’t you just go ahead and move your desk over there, back in the utility closet? That would be great. Oh, and…
I’ll just take this stapler.

24

That is, IMHO, untrue and incomplete.

It’s incomplete as the person who gets to choose what is “rude or mean,” by our standards, may not be a considerate or reasonable interpreter. See my link regarding whether DCU was a racist for not in advance calculating the possible offense of unknown posters.

It’s untrue as some subjects here are unapproachable from a true vector as they are completely shielded by “tact”. Multiple persons have been told at the end of one of these pittings that people with their viewpoint should Just Shut Up.

I don’t mind that being the standard, but I think for honesty’s sake we should list those opinions in advance as banned as Hurtful speech, right alongside the No Hate Speech requirement.

It’s not quite as sensitized. If your e.g. were “have a discussion about recombinant strains of AIDS in the gay community,” the odds of having that discussion plummet, owing to the excess sensitivity to the truth involved.

I disagree, and I think it’s chicanerous. In thread after thread the point has been made “well, how would YOU state this opinion, then,” and the most frequent answer again is, “Having that opinion means yer an Asshole and should Just Shut Up.”

IMO, again, Your best chance to be a non-asshole on the SDMB is to run from the contentious threads before anyone has a chance to distort your honest statement and beat it like a rented mule.

You believe that our community standard is the same offline and on? Why?

The purposes are completely different, and anonymity completely irrelevant. Why couldn’t I be a direct, honest person on a board dedicated to the same, and a get-along happy go lucky fellow at the Dopefests, which are dedicated to having a good time? What on earth should we expect our behavior at Dopefests to be the same on the SDMB when the purposes are so vastly different?

This shocks people all the time and it is intuitively obvious.

25

It is of course impossible to post regularly and avaoid any risk of offending others. But people should always post so as to try and minimise that risk. And should you be called on a post that you did not believe was offensive, you should review what you say and then appologise for the misstaken offense. I don’t believe JersyDiamond meant offense talking to Eve, but when the offense was pointed out politely by Eve herself, she did nothing to rectify the problem. Thus JD shows herself to be deseving of the scorn she received.
You Ace seem completely unable to understand that. Thus showing yourself to be deseving of the scorn you are receiving.

Bippy, deserving of his own scorn for numerous other reasond.

26

Balls. Self-importance and compassion are frequently at odds, sure, but truth and compassion hold hands and dance all over the damn boards every damn day. Truth (and that’s small “t” truth I think we’re talking about here) is valueless. The value is in how you use it, and you seem to be advocating using it as justification to be a prick.

27

I was going to speak my mind about the OP, but then I saw that the Hive Mind had already determined that he’s an attention-whoring jerk with a major fetish for martyrdom. And I dare not contradict the Hive Mind.

All hail the Hive.

28

Ladies and Gentlemen, here’s proof that THE GREAT FENRISI is ALWAYS right! Not 20 minutes ago I predicted this “Lone wolf who SEES THE TRUTH that the rest of us are too STUPID to understand” comment! Only one such as I, with powers to see beyond the veil of mortal men, could have done such a thing!

I’m available for weddings, birthday parties and bar-mitzvahs.

On a more serious note, has anyone else noticed that the only people who object to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule because it’s allegedly "opaque and counter-intuitive."are those who are notorious for trying to skirt the edges of it if not break it entirely. They want the boundaries more clearly defined so that they get ever closer to that thin line that seperates jerk from not-jerk. Luckily, the overwhelming vast majority of posters seem to understand what “Don’t be a jerk” means.

Fenris

29

No, no, Ass.

You were not being funny. You were being your normally snide and insipid self.

Why do you and those like you remain on the board except to get your jollies at the expense of others.

Don’t hide behind a facade of wanting truth when all you seem to do is hide behind bigotry and lies.

30

The truth is offensive when it contradicts our deeply cherishied illusions.

Sooner or later, Ace and those other two losers will see the truth that they are obnoxious, destroying the illusions that support their self-righteousness.

31

Complete nonsense. At the situations where the most compassion is called for – at one’s deathbed, for instance – are the situations where the most lying and avoiding of the truth are most definitely called for.

Clearly, no cite would convince you of the obvious, so permit this assmonkey to amuse himself: Mark Twain’s Was it Heaven or Hell that argued compassion to a dying relative even outweighed any religious strictures to tell the truth.

32

The offended seem to have a lot of rights: The right to determine offense, the right to an apology, and the right to force you to parse your own statements for unintended offense possibilities.

Do they have any responsibilities, like the responsibility to be reasonable, and to minimize what they are possibly offended by, and to judge for intent, or can anyone be offended by anything?

Suppose I was offended by the word “cabbage” as it was against my religion. Knowing this, would you per your own logic, have to contort to not use the word – this sounds like the opposite of an objective standard, not to mention an erosion of language and communication.

33

Just thought that clever multiple allusions to the films of Edward D. Wood, Jr. should not go by without at least a tip of the aluminum foil hat, as endorsed by Acehole.

In any event, I’m certain that Acehole is happy knowing that he has gotten such a response, since I’m sure his sad, bleak little life must afford him so few pleasures apart from tormenting small animals and tearing the wings off flies.

What an adornment he must be to the intellectual and cultural life of the New York Dopers’ circle.

34

Ace is probably one of those people who is incapable of having a discussion and not being an asshole.

So because he can’t do so, we MUST change the rules JUST FOR HIM.

See?

35

Well, on the one hand, I can agree that one should not take umbrage where no harm is meant. If one asks a question clumsily or makes a comment in a tactless manner but without any desire to hurt, then the audience should try to clarify the poster’s intent before going on the attack.

But, see, that has nothing to do with Jersey Diamond’s malicious comment to Eve, which was deliberately meant to wound. But, of course, you know that, Ace, andf all this is just smoke and mirrors in order to provoke trouble with plausible deniability.

36

Dear Fenris,

I hadn’t noticed that – though I had noticed you disrupting a thread intentionally. How jerkish is that?

We’re discussing the meaning of community standards here. If you can’t keep on topic, please open up a new thread where you can get your rant on.

37

I don’t see “clashing community standards.” I see a community standard, and one individual who disagrees with it.

What’s so hard to understand? You’re unbelievably abraisive on the board, so why wouldn’t it be a surprise that you are a “get-along happy go lucky fellow” at fests?

And why don’t you understand that people who despise your on-line behavior probably aren’t too interested in hanging out with you in real life? I couldn’t let my hair down around someone that I knew was a judgmental, narrow-minded, inflexible person who thinks that his own opinion is the only truth.

38

**
I was hoping someone would get that!! :slight_smile:

39

Exactly. And what about the initial responder – should they be intending to find offense, intending to ignore it, or attempting to reasonably evaluate it?

It is just what I’ve said it is; an attempt to define community standards to that we all can hew strongly to those standards, and that none are left wondering if they’re in a grey area.

It’s got nothing further to do with the J’s beyond them being one of the examples.

I perceive a growing grey area extending above the bedrock of hate speech, and the soil of “don’t be a jerk”, now into the air of GD: the concepts that “lying may be neccessary” or “Hurt speech is banned.”

Communities do change – and I’m ok with that, as long as we’ve discussed it honestly. We’ll all follow whatever standard the community sets – even if it is indeed a dramatic change.

I’m just curious if this is the direction that we wish to go?

40

The example is valid, as it is almost exactly what happened in the GD thread you refer to in your OP. JerseyDiamond offered opinions about transsexuals, and then included an observation about Eve, based on having met her in person. This observation was hurtful, and completely irrelevant to the point being made. A tactful grownup discussing the issue would have kept that observation to his/herself. Everyone has thoughts and opinions that would be hurtful if they were expressed. Not everyone feels duty bound to express them.

Expressing certain thoughts makes you an asshole. Even if by objective standards, they are accurate. It’s just a fact of living in a decent society. If your only contribution to a discussion is to vocalize a negative opinion about people in the thread, then you shouldn’t participate in that discussion, regardless of whether or not the Board rules expressly forbid or allow you to.

Want explicit clarification on a case by case basis? Board rules which spell out what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t? Too fucking bad. Most people seem able to act with decency and common courtesy without a manual. It’s too bad you aren’t one of them.