you really don’t see the difference between “attack the post” and “comment on the content”?
or heck, between an attack and a comment?
They do. But we are talking about words in the rules, not in the posts. If you say that my posts are garbage, it doesn’t matter if we call that a “comment” on my post or an “attack” on my post. You said what you said. Why does the rule language make a difference?
Because the rules can help to set the tone. If you want to keep conversation civil, don’t present imagery that brings to mind violent conflict.
The point isn’t about changing the substance of the rules. It’s about setting expectations.
To use your example, a person is more likely to say they disagree with a post than to call it “garbage”, when the guidance for conduct uses neutral language. Neither is a violation of the rules, but the former is more conducive to a productive conversation than the latter.
I’d still prefer to see it go away altogether, but changing it to “comment on content” or similar is vastly preferable to leaning it unchanged.
So, if I’m clear: some people think it would positively change the tenor of conversation. Some people, like you, think it would have no functional change whatsoever.
In that case, is there any argument for not changing it other than inertia?
To put it differently, would it be unreasonable that a brand new poster may view “attack the post” differently than “comment on content?” Do you believe that their tones are absolutely, unequivocally identical to one another?
I know I started here in 2007, but I was under the belief that this board was special in that you could blast the living fuck out of someone’s post…but be respectful to the poster. So “attack” is (as is/was my understanding of the board) the right word.
And it is because, as I said above, so long as we aren’t playing linguistic games, I shouldn’t get upset if you eviscerate one of my posts as we can all be wrong or short-sighted or posting drunk. I should get upset if you eviscerate me. I think it a very important distinction.
I think it IS okay to eviscerate a post, respectfully. But I also think that if the guidance is phrased as “comment on the content” people are more likely to react in a respectful manner than if the guidance is phrase “attack the post”.
I think you’re confused. I’m not talking about rules enforcement. I’m not talking about what gets a mod note or a warning. I’m not talking about changing the substance of anything. I’m not talking about attacking a person. I’m talking about language choice within the rules.
But I think this is maybe the 4th time I’ve tried to convey this, and it isn’t working, so I think I’m dropping this subject with you. (And I’m not upset with you, I am taking this as a failure on my part.)
Turns out that you may, you just can’t.
Attack the post is taken as a command to be hostile, to try to get under other poster’s skin. It is not taken as a suggestion to not get personal about it.
We should be debating the merits of eachother’s arguments, instead, it seems as though we are just trying to get as much an insult in as we can without being sanctioned.
Not a fun game, IMHO, others may find it more entertaining.
And eventually, only those who find entertainment in trying to piss off other posters while claiming a shred of civility will be all that’s left.
I don’t know why this is so controversial.
POST: We should cut taxes on the rich so that more investment will be made and the economy will thrive.
RESPONSE 1, attacking the post: That is the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard. Statistics (cite here) show that your idea is terrible and would cause much economic trouble. That idea is horrific and nobody should listen to it.
RESPONSE 2, attacking the poster: You must be one of those rich fucks who just want to not pay your fair share.
RESPONSE 3, playing lawyer ball with the rules: Your post suggests that some should not pay their fair share and people (not you) espousing that belief are likely living in gated communities and want to keep buying more yachts for their children who have trust funds set up.
I think the mods can sort through those.
Again, this is not about changing the rules. It’s about how we present them.
Or response 4:
We have tried cutting taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy a number of times in the past. It has not worked as intended. Here’s some cites:
No need for any of the extraneous commentary that you added, without even bothering to address the actual merits of the post.
I think you would have carpet bombed at least 95 percent of the posts in GD with this rule. The rule can’t be that the poster made a “bad” argument.
once again, not a rule, just a suggestion for creating a more conducive environment for discussion, rather than hostility.
Should I point out how stupid your post is for continuing to repeat a claim that has been repeatedly debunked, or just point out that it has been?
And if people took the suggestion, it wouldn’t “carpet bomb” 95% of the posts in GD, most of them are made by people who are looking for discussion rather than a fight. Now, there are some posters who may find 95% of their posts contrary to that, but to be honest, those stupid, hostile, and irrelevant posts don’t add anything of use to the board, and won’t be missed.
Couldn’t have said it better. There’s a difference between a debate and an argument. Unfortunately, argument seems to be winning.
I wouldn’t miss them, but I don’t think they are going anywhere soon.
Not all comments are attacks. Some are lighthearted jokes, for example,
Let’s hope you remember to use verbs in your Supreme Court briefs!
See also, “penis ensues”.
~Max
When I was very small, I had Spiderman Underoos, but these are next level.
Then it makes sense to remove the attack word but not the rule. Comment on the post but not the poster makes sense.
It might also be pointed out that when you resort to commenting on the poster, you have lost the argument.
Yeah, I’ve started using that language in mod notes. I don’t see it as any change to the current rules, just a new way of stating the old rule.
Not to those that consider capitulation/abandonment on the other side to be a victory. More and more often these days the goal isn’t to convince others-the goal is to get applause from others…be they real or imaginary.
Sure, that is a lighthearted joke and if someone takes personal affront to that, then they really have an issue with society itself. I don’t think anyone is advocating banning such comments. The issue would be that if we were in a heated debate and you made the same statement as some sort of gotcha towards me, and when I protested, you feigned ignorance and complained that I just couldn’t take a joke.
I’ll give up the argument as it isn’t really important, but it just seems like woke PC rewording of things for really no reason. Instead of worrying about the wording of the rules, I think the board should go further in enforcing the spirit of them such that insults towards Republicans or religious people should not be tolerated, knowing that they are poorly veiled personal attacks on any poster in the thread who doesn’t subscribe to the liberal orthodoxy on the boards.