Thanks GreysonCarlisle, the intent was satire/exasperation as noted above, it won’t happen again.
No, please. Do so again. Just do it in the Pit and make clear you’re going for humor. We need more humor and exasperation these days.
Johnny L.A., I think you might be misunderstanding what a “moderator note” is. It’s not any sort of formal sanction; it’s just a mod saying something. “I’m closing this because it’s in poor taste” would be a mod note.
YES! We sure do.
Thank you.
I thought the response by anomalous was even worse. You mean we can now, with impunity, declare in a post that another poster is in urgent need of professional psychiatric attention? Are certain opinions by themselves evidence of certifiable insanity?
This also raises another question in my mind. Assuming for a moment that the OP was serious, is there a list of opinions on timely topics that it is impermissible to express? If so, is that list accessible for the guidance of posters? (Having said that, it is likely in this case that troll was a correct analysis.)
As for the case in point, say someone offered the argument that a school shooter is making a political statement and the act ought to be seen in that light, analogous to an act of war, rebellion, or revolution, and not necessarily the act of a madman. Would this be a board-prohibited representation, simply because most of us find the deed to be abhorrent, or personally object to the political motive or methods?
I’m not taking a stand on this or any other issue, but just asking how restraining the board is on unpopular opinions. And how tolerant it is on assertions that the holder of unpopular opinions is certifiably insane.
Though I agree this wasn’t trolling, I don’t find that interpretation hard. There is a type of trolling that uses humor. It’s somewhat advanced. The idea is to joke about something that a good portion of your target will find offensive to joke about, while another good portion will find the idea that there is any offlimits humor to be just as offensive. Then you can get them all arguing with each other, sitting back and fanning the flames.
Granted, this is hard in and of itself to distinguish from someone actually just telling a gallows humor joke that they think will be okay. I definitely can’t tell from a single post.
I know you withdrew this, but I wanted to point out that, when it comes to this type of humor, the quality is actually important. If you don’t do a good job, it’s easy to come across as very offensive. It’s easy for people to miss the joke altogether.
You take that risk when you try dry satire like this, no matter how obviously absurd you think you are being. I’d personally recommend being more explicit. For example: “So, it seems that politicians are still not going to do anything about these tragedies. I’m surprised they’re not telling us to look on the 'bright side,” followed by the same jokes.
Yeah, it loses some punch, but it keeps things clear–you’ve directly specified who you are making fun of, and made it clear you’re not speaking for yourself. And, honestly, for collecting these types of responses, I think it still works. The OP won’t really matter after the second reply, anyways.
jtur88: I would assume that anamalous8’s posts falls into the unwritten rule that emotional reactions in the moment to particularly egregious posts may not be moderated if the moderator deems them an understandable reaction.
You can’t count on it (as monstro’s recent warning shows), but it’s not uncommon.
Furthermore, if a thread actually belongs in the Pit, a lot of times Pit-style responses will be ignored even if they were made before the move. And this type of satrire-as-rant would properly go in the Pit. This also is not something to be relied upon, but I’ve seen it countless times.
Point is, there is no reason to think that such posts are generally accepted.