Continuing the discussion from Should Bork have been borked?:
Why is this post modded? I attacked the post. Others go on about 3/5ths and attack motives, but I get a note for attacking an argument?
It was your characterization of another poster’s argument as “horseshit.” That might fly in another forum, but not GD. Civility is a requirement. I encourage you to have a squiz at the rules.
We can’t attack the argument? I thought that was the rule…attack the post, not the poster.
You can attack the post. In a civil manner.
So these other thousands of posts that attack Trump supporters personally are civil?
“Attack the post, not the poster” is a stupid rule that makes people they can get away with being jerks.
Telling somebody that they’ve made a horseshit argument is a jerk thing to say. Don’t be a jerk.
Attacking Trump supporters in a general way is entirely different than calling a single poster’s argument a “horseshit argument”.
So that is no longer the rule? Despite the hundreds of times mods have said it? What is the rule? Don’t be a conservative?
Who said that, other than you?
What I am saying is that the two rules are in conflict. When you “attacked the post,” you were a jerk.
Since “don’t be a jerk” is the primary guiding rule of the SDMB, you were noted. It was appropriate. Don’t be a jerk in the future. It shouldn’t be difficult to abide by. 
You know what? I’m done with this fucking board for a while. It has lost its way as noted by this comment. You can insult white Republican Trump supporters in a constant stream. I can’t insult an argument. I’m done.
Well, bye…
Are you a Mod?
Are you a doctor?
I have to side with @UltraVires. Since when has referring to arguments as “horseshit” been a problem? People often refer to an argument as the equivalent “bullshit” in GD and have for a long time. I’ve used it and so have others. It’ll often be the first word of the post, calling out something they consider bad, e.g. “Bullshit. One lone crackpot can’t disprove climate change.”
I know @UltraVires is often quite frustrating in how he argues. There is a reason I didn’t go back to the thread after I replied to him. But I cannot see how “horseshit argument” is worse than the things other posters say all the time. It especially isn’t so obviously worse that it makes sense for @Aspenglow to tell the poster to acquaint himself with the rules.
That said, UV’s argument about “Trump supporters” is a bad one, because it is indeed a different class of insult. It’s a group insult, and those have always had more leeway here. The exception is only if someone says it in a way that is clearly designed to target a particular poster. But, seeing as UV said he stopped supporting Trump after January 6, 2021, we don’t even need to check and see if that applies.
But the fact that argument is a bad one doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point. It does seem like he’s being treated differently than other posters on this subject.
As much as I generally despise the views that @UltraVires espouses, I have to agree that what he said wasn’t really any worse than what a lot of members of this board (myself included) have said about a lot of conservative arguments over the years.
In my completely unasked-for opinion, there shouldn’t have been a note about his post specifically. A note to everyone to ease up would have accomplished the same thing without making someone feel like he was being singled out because of his ideological views.
If civility is required in GD, it’s the least modded rule ever. And “squiz”, really?
Amen. It just allows the rules lawyering that mods always say they hate.
Don’t be a jerk has been ignored forever. The mods didn’t even use it on the guy that said drunk women were asking for rape.
How is it different, rules wise? What rule allows the Trump thing, but disallows the horseshit thing?
Yes, all the time. I can’t believe that even drew a mod note. No matter what you call the forum, what goes on in it is rarely great and never a debate. It’s closer to a bunch of people arguing back and forth at a bar.
Totally agree, and I’m not a fan of @UltraVires. I haven’t even read his posts for the last couple of years because they are so predictable.
This should happen more often in GD. More modding in general and less to specific posters. Maybe that would keep it in the debate arena rather than a bunch of people arguing past each other over and over again.
The horseshit part I agree shouldn’t even warrant a second mod glance and is par for the course in GD. I’m a frequent user of the technical term bullshit, and I don’t see any difference just based on the animal chosen.
However, I don’t agree with everyone else saying the post shouldn’t have been modded at all, and that’s entirely based on the second part, the " a terrible attempt at sarcasm". That’s, IMO, more personalized and just a little over the line for GD. Enough for a mod note, at any rate.
That may be valid, @MrDibble. I was taking it as a whole, and not breaking it down in sections.
Yeah, I thought he was modded for the sarcasm part, too. So, I’m surprised the mod came in and said it was for the horseshit part.
“Terrible attempt at sarcasm” seems like it’s attacking the poster.
I’m afraid I’m just not seeing it. Saying an argument is a “horseshit” argument is criticising the post, not the poster, just like saying it’s a “bad argument” or a “stupid argument” or an “illogical argument”. How are we supposed to be able to criticise an argument without adjectives? Is “bullshit argument” off the table now too? Or is there a difference between criticisms based on bovine excrement and equine excrement?
As for the sarcasm comment, that too is a critique of the post, saying it is a bad rhetorical attempt.
Not seeing any reason for moderation here.