i’m sure he intends to.
Perhaps, though, he’d like some guidance on when to complain if the posters he talks to do not observe this guidance so scrupulously.
Would you care to explain why you think there is any contradiction? No, wait, I take that back, this conversation has gone on WAY beyond reasonableness in any case.
Example of use of the word racist that is not a rules violation: “Your argument is racist.”
Example of the word racist that is a rules violation: “You are a racist.”
I think I’ve said this about sixteen dozen times. I’ve also said that it DEPENDS ON THE FUCKIN’ CONTEXT. (Capitals for yelling, in hopes of being heard.)
I do not enjoy beating dead horses (nor any other dead animal, I don’t want to be thought of as species-ist). So I’ve said my say, which (largely) represents majority moderator opinion as well, and I’m done here.
I think we have reached the point where we really having nothing more to say.
We’re saying the same thing over and over again.
Treat your fellow posters as you would like to be treated.
Criticize the content of the posting, not what you perceive as the personal failings of the poster.
Don’t name call or negatively characterize a somebody, especially if you’re in a forum area where people are expected to be civil, which is most of this site.
I’m not sure why you’re upset at him nor do I understand why you’re accusing him of being unreasonable.
You made some fairly contradictory statements. On the hate speech thread you said
I was confused because another mod had said that calling other posters racist was discouraged but not automatically a punishable offense.
On this thread you seemed to reconsider by first agreeing with Mr.Dibble who specifically that calling someone a racist wasn’t an insult but a description of someone’s beliefs and then by stating.
Most reasonable people reading the above quote would think that what you’re saying is that you’re agreeing with the first mod that calling someone a racist can sometimes be an insult but not always.
So please explain the contradiction. If calling someone a racist isn’t necessarily an insult, then why is it automatically a violation of board policy instead of something that is sometimes a violation of board policy?
Also, if you wouldn’t mind, once more please explain why you think the term “sexist” is less harsh than the term racist?
Similarly, since you’ve said that it’s okay but borderline to say “you’re being sexist” is it also okay but borderline to say “you’re being racist”?
Again, I’m not trying to manipulate the rules, find a loophole to get away with insulting people(I shall not call people racists or sexists outside of the Pit regardless of your answer).
I’m just looking for some clarification on what are and aren’t considered insults and violations of board policy.
Yes, but only from your side. He’s explained it quite well. You have said both “Thus, yes, you can call someone’s argument racist, but you can’t call the person a racist. It’s the diff between holding an irrational belief and being an irrational person; we can say the former but not the latter,” (italics mine) and "
So, Ibn Warraq: as I understand the situation, you feel that you were called a sexist and there was no warning issued against the poster who so called you. You are asking whether the word “sexist” (or “racist” etc) are insults, and the answer is: usually but not always. We would need to have a link to the specific situation, to see the context. And “racist” is more damning that “sexist” (the term “sexist” is often used lightly.)"
These are contradictory positions. The first says that calling someone racist is never acceptable, the other claims it depends on context.
The only reason this thread continues is that you haven’t said you were wrong, and are trying to argue that these two contradictory positions are somehow equivalent. In truth, it’s a form of backpedaling. We’re not asking you anything we wouldn’t ask of any other poster on this board.
Wow, take it easy man, that was my first post in this thread.
I thought you were saying that calling someone a particular word (sexist, racist, whatever) wasn’t necessarily an insult, but it seems like you’re saying that there are certain words that are automatically an insult if you directly call someone that (you are a racist, you are an idiot, you are a sexist) and would be considered a personal insult. But some phrases may imply that someone is one of things (“And you prolly thought you weren’t being…”) may be gray enough to not really rise to warn-able level.
So, to answer your question, that’s why I thought there was a contradiction. But if you’re thinking about it the way I think you, then there is no contradiction.
Yes, we all know that you’re supposed to attack the argument not the poster and most of us follow this.
I myself am always careful to criticize people’s arguments not launch personal insults.
The question is whether of not calling a poster “racist” or “sexist” qualifies as a personal insult and is a violation of board policy.
Several people have differing opinions on it, Dex has given contradictory positions and I’m just asking for clarification.
I would like to complain about the personal failings of a poster who called** Ibn Warraq** sexist. Who do I see about that?
So, if I understand it, this whole megillah is based on me making a GENERAL STATEMENT (“you can’t call the person a racist”) without bothering to footnote it to say that there can be some exceptions??? That any generalization I (or any mod) makes is ALWAYS subject to context and specific conditions???
I humbly apologize for making a general statement without appropriate footnotes. I’ll not make that mistake in future.[sup]1[/sup] Sheeeeeesh.[sup]3[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup]This is a generalization, because I might inadvertently have momentary lapses when I fail to fully explain in all detail. [sup]2[/sup]
[sup]2[/sup] This is also a generalization, because there could be other situations in which I fail to fully explain in detail.
[sup]3[/sup]The word “sheessh” here is used as an exclamation of disgust, and has no relationship to word “sheep” which might be interpreted as species-ist.