So any behavior that went “unpunished” in the past, even when due to no Mod noting it, is therefore to be the de jure standard for what is permitted behavior?
Dinsdale, as a former Catholic myself, I agree with your post and your complaint about being warned. You were asked for an opinion and you gave it. Also, the OP in that thread specifically asked for non-Catholic opinions, which would seem to indicate (to me at least) that the OP was possibly looking for critical comments.
I think you drew the distinction yourself. I think the mods have always differentiated between “I think you’re an idiot” and “I think your post is idiotic”. If you say that Dopers participating in Lent are idiots, that’s different from saying that Lent is a stupid thing.
Please . . . the other thread asked for an opinion on the practice of the imposition of Ashes, not an opinion about whether Christians are idiots. :rolleyes:
Yes, and the response was that the ashes helped him spot the idiots. Maybe not going to win any points on Family Feud, but it was a legitimate answer.
Dinsdale is just another douchebag who is indicative of the decline of civility in our culture.
To Dinsdale-Your post was threadshitting, plain and simple. What others may or may not have gotten away with in the past is neither here nor there.
To Ellis Dee-You sound disappointed that we don’t respond automatically to posts that you deem offensive, even though we haven’t seen them personally and no one has gone through the effort of clicking on the “Report This Post To The Moderator” button. Would you prefer we get rid of the Moderators and just use some sort of editing program?
And several mentioned that they do get ashes.
Only if you are a complete idiot who expects the moderators to read every single post.
Our job is not to read every single post. And we do strive to be consistent and objective. But if you expect that every single offense is going to be seen, and if it is seen responded to exactly and precisely the same way, then you are bound to be disappointed.
If that’s what you are attacking, then I must conclude you are a moron.
I know I have threadshat in the past (hopefully, not too terribly often.) And while I knew it was impolite, I was not aware that it is forbidden around here. There’s really little constructive in posting to say - in essence - “I think this thread is stupid.” Like someone said, turd in the punchbowl. So was I simply “being a jerk” sufficient to warrant a warning?
In this case, I didn’t think I was doing that in this case. I was expressing my personal thoughts, feelings, and experience. I am an ex-Catholic, with all the benefits and luggage that come along with that. As such, I was specificaly invited into the thread and asked my opinion. And when I walk downtown Chicago once a year and see folks with smudges on their foreheads, the main thought that honestly goes through my head is, “What an idiot.” “What an idiot.”
Is it not of some value/interest to Catholics to know that their display has that response, at least in the eyes of one cranky old nonbeliever? Of course appearing silly has never played much part in dissuading anyone from follonwing their chosen “faith.” And I certainly have no expectation that a fear of looking silly in my eyes will change much of anyone from doing much of anything. But IMO most outward dress reflecting religion looks silly. Idiotic. Foolish.
Certainly you realize (don’t you?) that I am in no way seeking to “defend” my actions. Heck, IMO the moderators are the unappealable judge and jury here. They said I did wrong, therefore, by definition I did wrong. All I was seeking was some clarification/explanation.
I really respect the effort the administration puts forth here. And I strive to be a somewhat constructive member of these forums. Which in large part means I try to express my thoughts/opinions/beliefs honestly, openly, and clearly. And I guess I am enough of a rules player that it kinda bothers me to get my wrist slapped. So, I’d like to know specifically what I did wrong, so as not to repeat it in the future. If it simply reflected moderator whim, hell, I can deal with that. Just wannna know, ya know?
Make no mistake, I firmly believe there is something idiotic about anyone who believes in and supports Catholcism, transubstantiation, pedophile priests, original sin, and yes, dirty foreheads once a year. Don’t even get me started on keeping Kosher! 
I am well aware, however, that the overwhelming majority of my species seems to share this type of idiocy. Enough so that I personally feel constrained in the times and places that I feel able to express my true feelings on the subject. I had thought that these forums were somewhat of an exception.
Speech is one (perhaps the only) issue on which I personally draw a bright line. And that means I often find myself wrestling with how to justify allowing offensive speech. I also know these boards are not a public forum, so this is not literally a free speech issue. Again, just trying to clarify where I’m coming from. As one who values language and communication, I feel very strongly that that value is significantly reduced if folks feel the need to “play nice” all the time to avoid potentially offending their listeners.
By citing what I considered precedent (and not looking too far to find it) I was explaining on my part why I thought my post was within the bounds of acceptable posting behavior. I never have and never will attempt to suggest that my post was polite or respectful, or that I did not expect someone to be offended.
But I guess I didn’t realize that the standard for meting out warnings was whether someone got offended and complained. I’m assuming that is is not so simple as 1 person complains, 1 warning gets issued. Therefore, when czarcasm received this complaint(s), he/she must have applied some standard for finding my post unacceptable. That’s all I’m asking for. And pardon me for saying, but your response isn’t all that helpful to someone simply seeking clarification.
Religion is legally and socially a kinda special “thing.” Up there on a short list with race, sex, and ethnicity. But I was unaware that I couldn’t post that I thought - say - Muslims were idiots for hiding their women under bedsheets. Or Jews looked dumb wearing beanies. (Not sure those reflect my opinions. Possibly. Probably. But presented here for illustration.) Sure, those opinions might be ignorant, offensive, any number of other things. But I’m not sure they ought not be respected in a forum requesting the frank exchange of “opinion.”
Again, I’m not really complaining. Heck, going in with any thread I initiate or post I submit, I know that I cannot control the responses I’m gonna get, and that some of them might cause me discomfort or even distress. But ya know, that is one of the things I find thrilling about these boards, and the free exchange of ideas in general.
I know that in some instances folks post in a manner desirous of insulting - even hurting - others. And I’m big enough to handle that, because I know it going in. Sticks and stone, my friends. Sticks and stones.
And I assume I feel much the same about the folk who insult me as the religious folk feel about this post of mine. But its been a few decades since I went crying to momma because someone hurt my feelings or called me names. Call me goofy (even an idiot!), but the fact that there is at least a possibility of getting dinged or shaken up, makes certain things - including these boards - that much more exciting to participate in. 
Would you be so kind as to define threadshitting, and direct me to the prohibition against such behavior. Thanks in advance. I did a little searching yesterday, and don’t recall seeing it.
In my ignorance, I honestly did not intend my response as threadshitting. But I am not the most net-savvy guy around, so I certainly acknowledge that my definition of that term may be incorrect. A clear definition and direction to the prohibition will allow me to avoid that offense in the future.
In my ignorance, I thought threadshitting was the type of behavior that was sorta informally dealt with by other posters telling the shitter they thought he/she ws a dick, rather than an official warning. Yet another thing I value about these boards is the ability of the members to informally “discipline” behavior that exceeds the admittedly loose bounds of these forums.
I did not realize that in every instance where I thought “Hmm, someone somewhere might be offended by that,” the poster was “getting away with” something. I’m surprised it strikes moderators as unusual that forum members look to what appear to be patterns of behavior to discern what is and is not acceptable. At least when interpreting a rule as open to interpretation as “Don’t be a jerk.” As many posters, I am blissfully ignorant of the mechanisms by which behavior gets disciplined. I guess I had hoped it was something other than a kneejerk response to some whiny jerk who got their feelings (or their g/God) hurt.
Also, just trying to be a good forum member, but I did e-mail czarcasm for clarification. If I had received a response, I might not have started this thread. Is there any ballpark for how long one ought to expect to hear a response in a case like this? Again, not trying to impose unreasonable burdens on the mods. Just curious to guide my future behavior.
Dinsdale, if you had included that background and context with yoiur statement, you probably wouldn’'t have been warned. Simply posting a bald and sweeping insult, completely devoid of any context or explanation looks exactly like threadshitting, regardless of your intent.
FTR, the most devout Catholic I’ve ever known (my high school history teacher), said that you weren’t supposed to walk around all day with ash on your forehead. I don’t remember the exact official reasoning, but the impression I got was that Catholics who knew their shit would have said the exact same thing (“it allow[s] me to easily identify the idiots”) if asked about the practice of walking around all day with it.
I’m going out on a limb here and guessing that threadshitting goes under the “Don’t be a jerk” rule. You know, the one they put in to prevent rules-lawyers like yourself from saying “Oh, but there isn’t a rule against it.”
Unless you happen to be in the class being insulted, eh?
Wasn’t Mr. Dibble the one who pubically appealed to the Mods to force another member to change her user name? I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.
The very same; it was precisely this that I had in mind when I posted, in fact.
The recent talk about Scientology, the dottiness of Mr. Cruise’s recent video, all that… it got me thinking.
This, I realized, is exactly how I look to atheists.
It’s not just the way I looked at Christians when I was a pagan or an agnostic. It’s not the mild annoyance. It’s quite beyond that: something between sadness that a person can be so deluded, anger at them that they let themselves be so fooled, and serious anger at the people who have used them.
So I get that, I nod, I move on. If I was horribly concerned about what everyone thought of what I believed, I’d never get anything done. I do sigh a little when I see a thread like “What are you giving up for Lent?” or anything at all religious because I know it’s going to be full of people shitting all over it. And often some of us are, in fact, polite toward people who have lunatic beliefs. We try to coax them with rationality and sanity instead of pointing and laughing.
Some of us do, at least.
I get where you’re coming from, Dinsdale. But you can see, can’t you, where threadshitting could be considered jerkish?
Another perspective from a different former Catholic: I consider it a heartening sign of my ongoing recovery that I don’t feel a need to view Catholics or Christians as my enemies.
As such, I was able to see the post as a threadshit. I note that Ellen Cherry characterized the post as an insult; Czarcasm made no such mention. As for myself, I saw the warning as a consequence for a reported threadshit, rather than for an insult.
Who was that, and what was the original name?
