# Bone I need a better explantion than what you wrote.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bone-i-need-a-better-explantion-than-what-you-wrote/842621>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [October 28, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bone-i-need-a-better-explantion-than-what-you-wrote/842621 "2019-10-28T21:06:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bone-i-need-a-better-explantion-than-what-you-wrote/842621/2 "2019-10-28T21:29:56Z")

</div>

> [@BwanaBob](#):
>
> I disagree with this call out 99%. Someone asked for solutions for current societal problems. I correctly pointed out that there are solutions and that they’ve worked elsewhere but those solutions would not be accepted by the right. I did not mention any dope member nor did I imply the reaction of joy would be from any dope member. Are you saying I was calling out a specific poster because of my “drawl” comment? No way, I feel the typical person with that mindset is from the poorly educated southern masses and was mocking them. Again, not allowed?
> 
> As for the last 1% If you are saying we cannot be graphic in saying that some people would be overjoyed physically at the prospect of seeing people punished, well I guess I will let my subscription expire and take my money elsewhere because that’s ridiculous.

Here was your post:

> [@Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructive-political-compromise-possible-desirable/841983/73):
>
> Because the methods to address those issues would not be accepted by the Right because they are not based on “Old Testament - punishment methodology” or the ever so lovely “I got mine, screw you ideology”. The war on drugs, how’d that work out? Other nations have addressed these issues through treatment of the users and punishment of the suppliers. News flash: no one wants to be an addict. Oh but there’s that pesky mantra of those who just cum in their pants over the concept of “punishing those who made poor decisions”. Using my best drawl…“that’ll learn 'em”.
> 
> Job loss? Well there’s training. Ah, again here’s the rub. Businesses want a well trained efficient work force but don’t want to spend a penny seeing that it exists. They’d rather let foreigners in who had their higher educations paid for by governments who actually support education than pay to see education actually made a priority here.

The basis for my note is two fold:

[ol][li]The first is that when having a discussion, moving from the individual to the general can be a way to criticize other posters without running afoul of the rules. In a previous thread I said this:[/li]

> [@Disputing the warning](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputing-the-warning/791661/23):
>
> Group insults do not lend themselves to bright line rules. In discussions all across the Great Debates and Elections there are disparaging comments towards groups that it is clear from past posting history that some of our posters are members of. Insults towards Republicans, Democrats, and libertarians abound and while I personally am not a fan of sweeping generalizations, it’s not something that I’d prefer to moderate.
> 
> It is when the attack on a group is inseparable from an attack on a poster where a person can run afoul of the rules. This would be context dependent. I gave an example in post #3 where a group insult would be inseparable from a personal insult towards another poster.
> 
> On the other hand, we often have posts along the lines of _‘Democrats are thieves because they want to tax all our money away!’_, or _‘Republicans are racists who hate the poor!’_. Both of those are childish and add little to productive discussion, but probably not something I’d moderate for personal insults (withholding judgment for other potential violations). However, depending on the direction of the thread, if it’s clear that the intent is to disparage other posters by adding the veneer of the group insult, then that would be moderated. In general I’d avoid sweeping generalizations since they are often false.

So then the question is whether or not your post which attacks the right is inseparable from an attack on a poster. I don’t think it was exactly, but it was a judgment call - though not super close in my estimation. But given the nature of the comment, I thought it was a good idea to remind you and others about a different rule in GD and Elections. That leads to the second reason:  
[li]Characterizing people with opposing views as cumming in their pants is pretty crass. We don’t want to have debate peppered with discussion about who is cumming, how often, where, etc. This combined with #1 merited a note as a reminder of the rules of the forum.[/ol][/li]  
That being the case, the next step is what should the note say or direct. I identified the issue you raise here, that you did not mention any dope member, but nevertheless the implication may be there. Combine that with the nature of the commentary offered, and I instructed to refrain from this type of base sexual commentary. This means we can stunt threads that may resort to discussing who cums, where, when, and how much.

If you want a forum in GD and Elections where you can discuss the cumming patterns of those that you disagree with, then I’m going to say you’re going to have to get used to disappointment. Maybe try the Pit to talk about cumming if that’s your cup of tea.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bone-i-need-a-better-explantion-than-what-you-wrote/842621)._