Of course there should be a bright line between insulting Dopers and insulting people who aren’t Dopers. But could we at least agree that if a reasonable person knows they’re debating against people who are anti-abortion, and they say “People who are anti-abortion are evil”, that they know damn well they’re insulting their opponents?
If Der saying “Republicans [who I am obviously now arguing with] are assholes” and that’s okay, would you be okay with me saying “People who take pro Palestinian positions are motherfuckers.” No, right?
Why would banning insults hamper GD? If you want to insult someone, go to the Pit. If you want to post in GD, how about making legitimate arguments?
I’m not saying that anything less that Harvard debate rules should be modded, but obvious, over the top type of insults like Der Trihs posts, should be banned against groups, IMHO. And even under your “a la carte” standards, he has skirted the rules many a time and only received mod notes.
Would it hurt GD to cut out the worst of the worst insults against groups?
I feel exactly the same way about posters who use the Bible as a basis for denying equal rights to others and frankly I don’t see how either sacred cow is deserving of special protection. No belief system is either promoted or protected from scrutiny here. It’s telling that no one is calling for a ban on a couple of the usual suspects who reliably fill up religious and social debate with baseless fluff and unintelligable witnessing, but instead demanding a behavior adjustment from someone who follows the rules, provides coherent arguments, and often cites his POV.
Why don’t we fall back on the “It’s ok to insult the post but not the poster” concept and extend it to groups? So - it would be ok to say that “The idea that life begins at conception and hence abortion should be outlawed is evil”, but not extend that to “Right wingers are evil because they think that life begins at conception and hence abortion should be outlawed”.
P.S: I reiterate - I don’t think additional modding is required or should be done. This is merely a suggestion in case this issue gains momentum.
I thought the issue was Der Trihs getting a lot of mod notes and not a lot of warnings. Where do whims play into that?
I’m not eager to start making guesses about what a reasonable person ought to know while making an argument.
Banning comments that could be taken as insulting any religion, political party, nationality, would hamper a lot of discussion. I think you’re overlooking how easy it is to insult a group like that in the course of even a civil conversation.
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind that argument and certainly if you were to decide that you’re not allowed to insult any group of people of which some are on the Dope lots of people, including ironically enough Finn*, would have been banned long ago for saying “birthers”, “truthers”, or a similar group were “stupid”.
Hell, for that matter, we have plenty of people on the Dope who are openly racist, yet I’m reasonably certain that many of those who initially nodded their heads at Finn’s question would hit the roof if you declared that people can’t say “racists are morons”, “racists are evil”, or words to that effect.
I’ll also admit to having dramatically different standards about what can be said about a group based on their political beliefs versus an ethnic or racial group(which sometimes includes a religious group and sometimes doesn’t) or gender or sexual orientation, which is why I find Der’s sexist comments vastly more problematic than his ones against say pro-lifers.
However, if you’re going to say it’s okay to insult groups so long as you’re not doing so for the point of trolling, then what is the point of having a rule against hate speech.
How so? You just banned a poster for (among other things) using the term “faggot.” That is an insult against a group of people, of which posters here are members, but there is no concern of stifling debate. I’m not talking about comments “that could be taken” as insulting. I’m saying to ban the ones that are obvious, over the top, and are absolutely meant to be insulting. You did it with the term “faggot.”
Well, we don’t have Dopers who self identify as racists. We do have Dopers who self identify as Pro-Palestinian, or Republicans, or Christians, or whatever.
I think I’ve actually stayed pretty close to avoiding group insults. And with how often my posts in GD are reported by my ideological opponents, I’m sure if there was much that was actionable, it would’ve been acted on.
Because that’s a slur. We don’t allow those in GD either. If Saraya had ideas about gays she could’ve communicated them without the slur; the slur only serves to illustrate the speaker’s hatred and disgust at his/her target.
I’ll freely admit that I find misogynistic comments about women vastly more offensive than people engaging in “witnessing” but YMMV.
Beyond that, if Der Trihs did follow the rules he wouldn’t have received around a dozen mod notes over the course of the year, claiming that his arguments are “coherent” is certainly problematic at best, and he almost never provides cites for any of his claims, even when asked and even when if his statements were correct it would have been easy for him to provide cites.
I wasn’t saying you had. I was alluding to the fact that you, and for that matter I and probably too many other people to count, have used words like “dumb”, “stupid”, or similar terms to refer to birthers, 911 truthers etc.
Now, when debating people who are open about for example believing that Mossad was behind 911 you do change your tone and wording.
And likewise, telling anti-abortion posters that they “hate women” only serves to illustrate Der Trihs’ hatred and disgust towards anti-abortion posters. He can also do that without such inflammatory language.
Again, as long as he stays away from the magic words that are called “slurs” he can insult with impunity.
I can’t claim to have read all of his posts as he and I disagree so vehemently I tend to skip a few, but he codes correctly, uses good grammar, is concise and easy to understand, and usually points to well-known legislation or popular opinion which shore up his arguments. Most people in the religion and abortion threads are well-versed in current rhetoric and keep up with him just fine. Asking for cites with regards to discussions of the Bible usually ends in a stalemate anyway as a pointless exercise in translation disagreement. He can hardly be faulted for that.
And mod notes are handed out pretty freely to curt, abrasive posters on the other side of the same issues, too, as evidenced by this thread.
The thread also documents that he simply racks up mod notes with no additional punishment for his repeated disregard of the mod notes.
I’m not out for his head, but Der Trihs’ behavior should comport to civilized standards in GD. If he wants to Pit me, anti-abortionists, or whomever, he is free to do that. But his inflammatory comments stifle debate instead of the moderation which you feel would do so.
I think that a great deal of the time, they’re a distraction people would do well to ignore. But it’s rare for his posts to be flagrant rules violations as opposed to simply annoying or absurd.