I think a number of posters get the impression that DT has the idea that he can rant and rave in GD because he’s gotten away with it so long and so often.
That’s not an impression, that’s a fact.
Huh. Seems pretty clear to me. After getting a similar warning already (see the posts linked in the thread Monty posted on reviving this one) and being told to dial back the hateful rhetoric, DT decided to call pro-life people the equivalent of the KKK, a group that hates women and wishes to torment them, and having a wish for women to die slow, agonizing deaths. He did this presumably knowing that there were people in the thread he was in who held that position, though I’m sure it was innocent hatred directed merely at a group, not at those he was ‘debating’.
Yeah, it’s a definite puzzlement as to why he’d be issued a warning for that in GD, right? 
Can we all agree that Terr was as bad as Der was in that thread?
He repeatedly (and inaccurately) called people who are pro-choice, pro-murder and even compared them to Hitler.
That got not so much as a mousefart of moderation.
Also, Der’s problem is he speaks in absolutes. “Conservatives hate women.” Instead of “Too many conservatives are motivated by hatred of women.”
The later is certainly true. The former demonizes sane conservatives. In whatever hidden grove those creatures live in. 
He didn’t compare them to Hitler. And the idea that DT’s and Terr’s posts are in the same league was debunked in the ATMB thread.
He said,
So people who are pro-abortion rights are as much murderers as the guys who supported the final solution? He’s drawing a comparison of abortion to state sanctioned genocide. If you think he’s not projecting Hitler-like qualities on people who are pro-abortion, you’re gullible.
It wasn’t debunked. It was asserted. Very different.
Terr said,
Which is saying, that people that support abortion support murder. Which, as a tangent, is wrong, since murder is illegal killing.
Compare that to saying that the GOP is driven by misogyny. That’s a fact for a depressingly large portion of the GOP. Legitimate rape, women should stay in the home, women should just bargain better instead of getting equal pay by law, and so on. These are elected officials and those running for office, not just yokels at the K-mart. Der was incorrect in degree, not in substance. The GOP does have a lot of misogyny. Certainly not all of them, but enough that it’s sickening.
Which is interesting, because DT is not by a far chance a feminist, he is very misogynistic. In other threads, in fact, you can see him almost agreeing (if not outright agreeing) with the GOP misogynistic positions, including some of those you mention.
It is just when it comes to the subject of abortion that DT all of a sudden becomes different. He accuses the GOP and anti-abortion groups to also be “anti-women”, yet he himself holds a lot of “anti-women” positions.
He didn’t compare them to Hitler. He used that as an analogy to illustrate why he felt it was OK to use the term "murder’, since most people would agree that “Hitler murdered Jews” is an accurate statement, even though it was technically legal at the time. That’s quite different than comparing people who get abortions to Hitler.
It was debunked. If you disagree, go report those posts and see if they get moderated.
His problem isn’t that he speaks in absolutes; it’s that he thinks in absolutes. It isn’t poor word choice or hyperbole on his part; when he says ‘conservatives hate women’ it’s because he honestly believes conservatives hate women. All of them. He becomes a blithering idiot on any topic involving religion or conservatives, and I say this as someone who isn’t particularly religious and is fairly liberal.
Well, that and his problem is he’s a spoiled child who wants to sling insults in GD but is too scared to actually put on his big boy pants and post anything in the BBQ pit.
Let’s not be delusional here. The central principle in GD is “Attack the post: don’t attack the poster.” Broadsides against ideological groupings are permitted. DT’s post was entirely within those parameters.
But there’s a new Sheriff in town and his name is Jon Chance. Sheriff Chance doesn’t take kindly to over-the-top rhetoric and he has an itchy keyboard for issuing warnings. Entertainment value doesn’t cut it any more.
Let’s deconstruct Der’s post. I think the middle paragraph was fine. The first and last were unhinged of course. The way to get across his point without violating SJC (Sheriff Jon Chance) standards is to pose them as questions and to consider other hypotheses. Another tact would be to use the word, “Misogyny”. Such a word is permissible in company that is both polite and trendy: “They hate women”, is acceptable in neither. See? That’s how it’s done.
Here’s one presentation:
[INDENT]The fact is that conservative concern for human life begins at conception, ends at birth and is indifferent to pre-natal care. There are exceptions (programs in Pennsylvania as well as the Catholic doctrine of the seamless garment) but those aren’t really part of mainstream modern conservatism: a Republican who espoused such views would be primaried out. So the issue is why? One hypothesis is that conservatives hate women and are the gender targeted equivalent of the KKK. Other explanations involve cognitive limitations arising from ideological addling. I cannot evaluate such views in this GD forum.
Perhaps there are others, but the reader should be cautioned not to take conservative pretzel logic at face value. That would be wrong. [/INDENT]
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Let’s not be delusional here. The central principle in GD is “Attack the post: don’t attack the poster.” Broadsides against ideological groupings are permitted. DT’s post was entirely within those parameters.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it was always a loop hole that a poster could use to take swipes at folks they are debating with and then look all innocent and say ‘well, I was just attacking this big group, not these posters who just happen to be in that group’…which is the game DT has been playing for years. But there were always limits, and ‘attack the post not the poster’ isn’t a license to say anything, just 'cause it’s a group or ideology and not the poster. You are supposed to attack the ARGUMENT, not broadside, over the top attacks at using inflammatory rhetoric aimed at large groups of people.
If you think this is all just coming from JC you are missing a lot. They are tightening up across the board, and every Mod is a former and current poster, so they know the score and the games that have been and are being played here. It amazes me that people think that this little under the table attack just goes unnoticed and no one realizes the actual intent here, which is to attack the poster(s) who you are supposedly debating with, but to do so by rules lawyer-ing and skating around the intent.
Right…'cause we all too dumb to know what ‘misogyny’ is and all. All DT needed to do was use big words and he’d have skated by the intent of the rule and gotten in his attack without anyone noticing!
Conversely, he could have made his points without resorting to broad brush attacks at not only all pro-lifers but all conservatives too, and done so by staying within both the letter AND intent of the rules. Other posters were doing fine in DEBATING the pro-lifer types without resulting to over the top insults.
Basically I stand by my claims (narrowly interpreted). The core GD rules are as I stated them. The mods appointed SJC for a reason - they thought things were getting out of hand. John Mace’s May 2013 quote shows this. It would be harder (though not impossible) to pull a quote from 2011 or earlier. Moderation in GD has never been limited to the core rule of GD (i.e. attack the post and not the poster).
FTR, I don’t. I just think Sheriff Jon Chance rolls off the tongue well. His policy is more like a symptom of an underlying shift in moderating emphasis. It’s just simpler to point to SJC standards, by way of contrast with the previous era.
I stand by my claim. You can use “Misogyny” in polite and trendy company. “Republicans just hate women”, will raise eyebrows and lead to (polite) qualification, if not a little derision.
The substantive point is that there is a serious case to be made that anti-abortionism is grounded more in the desire to keep women in their place than any sort of humanitarian concern and that this desire for control is profoundly misogynistic. But I don’t think DT is operating in the land of serious case making: he is an angry little tea kettle. But we knew that.
That said, it’s pretty obvious that DT’s posting style has been affected by the imposition of (mod approved) SJC rules. I think John Mace conceded that some months back: maybe XT did too.
As an aside, characterization of motives really belongs in the pit. But the topic of thread wasn’t abortion: it was why do conservatives oppose abortion. DT’s post was topical, though vitriolic (and unhinged).
Oh yeah, speaking generally.
While most pit threads consist entirely of flames, that really isn’t the best use of this forum. If you want to constructively criticize a posting style, you should propose alternative ways of presenting the same sort of substance. Otherwise you are just mouthing off.
That’s what I had in mind above. Given my temperament though, my thoughts almost invariably turn to irony when I am presenting perspectives I consider grounded in inanity. Another growth opportunity I suppose.
You are allowed to offer constructive criticism about a person’s posting style in GD. Happens all the time. There is no need to do that in this forum, which is specifically designated for “flaming”. Since it’s the only place to flame, the best use of it is to, well, flame.
Ahhhh, the defenderati are coming out.
Rules shouldn’t apply to posters who are interesting. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but constructive criticism about a posting style can become a hijack if it goes into any real sort of detail. If presented as a side point, it does happen in GD. But sometimes it’s not really a side point: hence the pit.
Somebody linked to the inaugural pit thread recently which might or might not demonstrate my point. (I couldn’t locate it.) Anyway, this forum was originally intended as a safety valve for cases when arguments were trending too personal. It still fulfills that function. Being a dick has never been mandatory here.
Then open a thread in IMHO. If you’re not going to rant, why waste electrons in the Pit?
So I would open “IMHO John Mace (or whomever) has a profoundly misguided perspective?” in IMHO? Really?
Well, ya gotta admit that’s one thing that hasn’t come up as a thread topic yet.