# Disputation and The Straight Dope Message Board **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 25, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977 "2019-11-25T18:20:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/581 "2019-12-13T03:15:28Z")
> [@divemaster](#): > > I’ve seen comments (don’t recall at the moment whether here on the SDMB or elsewhere) that suggest that some of Tulsi Gabbard’s support is due to the fact that she’s a looker. Is mentioning that, or agreeing with that verboten? No, because that’s actual argument. What is frowned upon is stuff like just posting how hot she is, or conversely, how ugly she is. Or comparing her attractiveness to other candidates. And you definitely shouldn’t make a thread where you rank who the hottest politicians are. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/582 "2019-12-13T03:21:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Although my join date is 2017, I didn’t start participating or even lurking here until 2019. Whatever these changes and mod guidance amount to, I want to see them written into the FAQ/rules as soon as possible. > > Even if I don’t like the rules, I strongly prefer that they are written down. It’s not commonsense that a “who would you rather bang” thread is trolling or hate speech or advocating violence, or even being a jerk. People have those sorts of conversations all the time. > > _Leges institutuuntur cum promulgantur_, the law is instituted when promulgated. > > ~Max Thing is, this board is run more like a common law system. The rules are there, but the actual law is made by the rulings of the moderators. And only rarely are the actual rules updated. That said, I have advocated that more things should be made explicit in the rules before, saying it would cut down on infractions if the things assumed to be obvious but people get mixed up on would be explicitly written down. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/583 "2019-12-13T04:46:26Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > … Whatever these changes and mod guidance amount to, I want to see them written into the FAQ/rules as soon as possible. > > Even if I don’t like the rules, I strongly prefer that they are written down. … That’s nice what you prefer. The mods, they appear to have other preferences. They have often expressed that they prefer that there be space for norms to evolve, some fuzziness, rather than what they see as lines that invite people to see how close they can toe up to it or over it without getting called out. It just gets rolled into don’t be a jerk. Specifying everything that counts as being a jerk and even how what qualifies as being a jerk changes as times change, is not something they have shown any interest in doing. I don’t blame them. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/584 "2019-12-13T07:32:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Although my join date is 2017, I didn’t start participating or even lurking here until 2019. Whatever these changes and mod guidance amount to, I want to see them written into the FAQ/rules as soon as possible. We’re a community, not a court of law. When are _all_ the norms and rules of a community ever written down? > [@](#): > > Even if I don’t like the rules, I strongly prefer that they are written down. It’s not commonsense that a “who would you rather bang” thread is trolling or hate speech or advocating violence, or even being a jerk. People have those sorts of conversations all the time. “Just locker-room talk”, eh? Well, not any more. It very much is being a jerk (even if not every mod would see it that way now, that’s the way the world is going) > [@](#): > > _Leges institutuuntur cum promulgantur_, the law is instituted when promulgated. The law \*is \*promulgated. It is “Don’t be a jerk” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/585 "2019-12-13T10:19:55Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > How is anyone being silenced if they can type their thoughts? By being suspended, banned, or intimidated into silence of course. Or driven away from the board. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/586 "2019-12-13T10:56:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > By being suspended, banned, or intimidated into silence of course. Or driven away from the board. We’ve had poll threads done before that indicate that liberals outnumber conservatives on this message board by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1. I don’t think there is any danger of liberals ever getting driven off the Straight Dope by conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Helena330](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/helena330/32/531_2.png) [@Helena330](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena330)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/587 "2019-12-13T12:03:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > By being suspended, banned, or **intimidated into silence of course. Or driven away from the board.** Bolding mine. Just like what happened with women here. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/588 "2019-12-13T12:36:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > We’ve had poll threads done before that indicate that liberals outnumber conservatives on this message board by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1. I don’t think there is any danger of liberals ever getting driven off the Straight Dope by conservatives. “Liberals” are not a monolith. People - no, scratch that - Conservatives have done a pretty good job of driving off trans posters and many women. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/589 "2019-12-13T16:50:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Sure, you can argue the wishes are not harmful. But what you miss is that we’re not talking about wishes alone here. At the very least, each of these wishes has to be something stated or acted upon for it to become the purview of moderation here. That is a good observation. I thought I had accounted for it but it is worth exposing my line of thought to you, and I hope you can point out some mistake and bring me in line. Please, let me attempt to explain myself. First, I approach the rules here from a viewpoint opposite of yours. Where you say, “there’s no reason to allow the blatantly bigoted opinions you gave”, you appear to rely on an assumption that speech is disallowed by default, and only allowed when there is a reason to do so. The way I look at it, I assume all speech is allowed unless there is a reason to _not_ allow that speech. So my default position and your default position appear to be at odds, but we can find common ground where we agree that there is a reason to disallow speech. I was pushing the view that bigoted wishes are not necessarily wishing harm upon others because I thought that was why **thorny locust** et. al were offended by them. In this spoiler I reproduced snippets of the exchange where I drew that inference: [SPOILER] > [@DocCathode](#): > > **Max S** You say that you would avoid threads you found offensive. Do you not understand that their very existence is offensive and that it shows the Dope allows such things? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t understand how their very existence is offensive. > > No, really. > > I’ve brought this up before, but if someone made a thread claiming that they are the only person who exists (a form of solipsism), I would not be offended. If someone told me to my face that they think I and those of my religion are going to hell, I don’t become irate, I just think that they are misguided. When someone tells me, to my face, that my race is inferior and deserves to be rid from the face of the earth, the primary emotion I feel is one of pity for the person in front of me. > > If someone were to say they wish harm to me or my loved ones personally, or if there is an actual threat, then I get angry. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > I’m going to guess that you didn’t have a large number of your relatives murdered by bigotry a handful of years before you were born. > > And that you don’t know anyone murdered by bigotry this year, or last year, or any of the years before. > > But don’t you read the news? > > Bigotry is dangerous. It isn’t just dangerous in the abstract. It isn’t just dangerous historically. It isn’t just dangerous to a couple of people a year, somewhere far away, who nobody on this board happens to know. **When someone tells me that people of my heritage are inferior and deserve to be rid from the face of the earth: they are saying they wish harm to me and my loved ones. When people say that people of any social group are inferior and deserve to be rid from the face ot the earth: they are saying they wish harm to my loved ones, or my loved one’s loved ones, and also that they may well be coming after me next. When people say that people of any social group don’t even exist, they’re saying that those people shouldn’t be on the face of the earth.** > > And, as a matter of plain fact, people die because of this. Boldface added for emphasis in **thorny locust** ’s post.[/SPOILER] Based on this exchange I came to understand her argument as, ‘discussions of bigotry should be censored because they lead to harm, because they make bigotry appear more commonly accepted, because they drive away non-bigots, because they offend non-bigots, because such discussions involve bigots wishing harm upon people, and non-bigots find that offensive.’ I agree that non-bigots find wishing harm upon people offensive. I don’t agree that people who present bigoted opinions necessarily wish harm upon others. But you are raising a different line of argument, a much simpler and direct one. You are saying that discussions of bigotry are harmful and cause harm of their own accord. In my mind, your argument looks like this: [ul][li]Discussions of bigotry should be censored, because[/li][LIST][li]discussions of bigotry are discussions that cause harm, and[/li][li]discussions that cause harm should be censored.[/ul][/LIST][/li]My question to you is this: in what sense do discussions of bigotry cause harm? The most straightforward response, which I can identify with and that I think fits the mother-child example, is that it hurts one’s feelings. So let’s flesh that out: [ul][li]C1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored[/li][LIST][li]C2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that cause harm[/li][LIST][li]C3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that hurt people’s feelings[/li][li]C4) Discussions that hurt people’s feelings are discussions that cause harm[/ul][/li][li]C5) Discussions that cause harm should be censored[/LIST][/LIST][/li]My response to this argument, which may well be a straw-man\*, is that hurt feelings are not the kind of harm that I would support censorship over (I think violence/physical harm would be necessary), and even if it were such a person could simply stay out of bigoted threads to begin with. After all, we have a whole section of the message board devoted to hurting people’s feelings. My read of the people on this message board is that they do not want to ban misogyny/racism/homophobia/transphobia because they want a safe space where feelings are not hurt. If people admitted that is what they want here, I could understand that and argue that it is counter to the purpose of these message boards (which I did in the previous misogyny thread, and earlier in this thread). But again, I get the distinct impression that people have some other more compelling reason to disallow bigoted speech on the Dope. And that’s what I want to understand. Why? When I look further upthread I find that this was my original position. > [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > And I do think it is worthwhile, possibly because I do not share, and cannot comprehend, the frustration. I might agree that individual instances are hijacks or advocate violence, but I would not go so far as to outlaw sincere and non-malicious positions that border on transphobia, mysogyny[sic], racism, etc. In threads about kittens or sports? Sure, leave that stuff at the door. But in threads about those very subjects? > > Maybe this makes me a bigot or something, but if I don’t understand it, I don’t understand it. I don’t want this to be a safe space for me and my cherished ideas, nor for you and yours. That doesn’t mean I’ll participate in threads that I don’t like, but I don’t take it personally if someone makes a thread questioning the intelligence or worth of my race or religion. I might not even read the thread. I put up with that stuff all the time, not nearly as much as my parents but still I think I have pretty thick skin. Seeing some random internet person open a thread to debate such topics just doesn’t bother me. > > The most stressful threads for me are political threads. Sometimes, I just can’t wade into a political thread. Politics isn’t a core interest for me and I tend to get piled on anyways. In that sense, I can sort of understand why people don’t like participating in political threads, or racist threads, or sexist or transphobic or what have you. But what prompts the leap to, let’s ban these topics entirely? - I beg you to correct me if I have misinterpreted your argument. I construct and counter straw-men to avoid the appearance of just-asking-questions, otherwise this entire post would be “In what sense do discussions of bigotry cause harm?” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/590 "2019-12-13T17:21:13Z")
[quote=“Max\_S, post:589, topic:843977”] The most straightforward response, which I can identify with and that I think fits the mother-child example, is that it hurts one’s feelings. So let’s flesh that out: [ul][li]C1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored[/li][LIST][li]C2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that cause harm[/li][LIST][li]C3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that hurt people’s feelings[/li][li]C4) Discussions that hurt people’s feelings are discussions that cause harm[/ul][/li][li]C5) Discussions that cause harm should be censored[/LIST][/LIST][/li][/QUOTE] The argument could be made that discussions of bigotry trigger a conditioned response possibly including discomfort, nausea, and stress, which can lead to actual harm. That was the theory I took away from the thread, “[THREAD=880135]I have a confession to make. When I see an attractive woman, in any context, my concentration shifts[/THREAD]”. But those harms are avoided entirely when the person in question stays away from threads about bigotry. Or at least, it can be considered a hijack (and thus warn-able) when bigotry makes its way into threads that aren’t about bigotry. Then again, there are a _lot_ of issues where a bigoted worldview is highly relevant to one’s stance. Like, most issues. Hmm. Avoiding threads places a lot of responsibility on the minority posters with thin skins. Maybe that isn’t fair. But then again, they are _minority_ posters, and it is not personally the fault of a bigoted poster that a specific minority poster is so distressed by the mere articulation of bigotry. A person with food allergies (such as myself) must take it upon themselves to avoid foods they are allergic to; an allergy is very much a problem of the person who is allergic, even if it is not their fault either; sensitivity to certain issues seems to me to be a problem for the person who is sensitive, even if society at large is to blame for the sensitivity itself. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/591 "2019-12-13T17:37:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Avoiding threads places a lot of responsibility on the minority posters with thin skins. Maybe that isn’t fair. But then again, they are _minority_ posters, and it is not personally the fault of a bigoted poster that a specific minority poster is so distressed by the mere articulation of bigotry. A person with food allergies (such as myself) must take it upon themselves to avoid foods they are allergic to; an allergy is very much a problem of the person who is allergic, even if it is not their fault either; sensitivity to certain issues seems to me to be a problem for the person who is sensitive, even if society at large is to blame for the sensitivity itself. If I am friends with a person with food allergies, out of respect for them I will avoid presenting foods they are allergic to. That is basic decency. We all respect women and homosexuals and racial minorities and transgender individuals, so basic decency says that we should avoid presenting opinions that would likely offend them. Ah, but the Straight Dope Message Boards is not like a meeting of friends, at least not in a forum such as Great Debates. To take the analogy and make it relevant to the Straight Dope as an institution, consider a restaurant which exists to serve the finest popular foods. It just so happens that some of the finest popular foods include common allergens such as nuts or shellfish. The restaurant does not cater to people with allergies by only serving allergen-free food. To do so is contrary to the stated purpose. Still, they respect people with food allergies, and so they make a food-sensitive menu and clearly mark which entrees may trigger an allergic reaction for people with common food allergies; despite the fact that only 10% or so of their customers might have food allergies. It is still the responsibility of the customers with allergies to order items which will not trigger a reaction. And so on the Straight Dope Message Boards, I continue to think the ultimate responsibility falls on people who are sensitive to certain topics. An outright ban on sensitive debate topics because they are sensitive is not in order, and I continue to think such a ban would be against the stated purpose of the forums. I think perhaps we can work out some sort of standard way to let people know which threads are especially sensitive. Maybe a plugin or a thread naming convention of some sort. Or maybe the Great Debates forum itself is warning enough. Just thinking out loud here. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/592 "2019-12-13T18:23:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, because that’s actual argument. What is frowned upon is stuff like just posting how hot she is, or conversely, how ugly she is. Or comparing her attractiveness to other candidates. > > And you definitely shouldn’t make a thread where you rank who the hottest politicians are. Even in IMHO or MPSIMS? Op in IMHO: “what do you think of Beto O’Rourke now?” Response:" I still think he’s hot af. He never really had a chance tho." Is that necessarily being a jerk? Op in MPSIMS: “Tulsi Gabbard is really hot for a politician” Is that necessarily being a jerk? In my experience, objectifying actors or public figures is commonplace, across gender and racial lines. I hear people say “I’d bang/hook up with [some celebrity]” or “[some celebrity] looks pretty (ugly)” to their spouse, children, friends, acquaintances. In restaurants, buses, on airplanes, in bathrooms, on couches, at dinner tables, in schools, at work, in kitchens, in movie theaters, at parties, while walking down the street, heck man, even on the radio. Fox News purposefully and infamously exploits the legs of their female anchors. Sexual objectification is literally everywhere. Not everybody thinks all sexual objectification is being a jerk. If you want to roll sexual objectification up into “jerkish” behavior, that’s fine, but please make this explicitly clear in the FAQ at least. It is not obvious. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/593 "2019-12-13T19:08:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > T… by the mere articulation of bigotry. … This is a clear disconnect. I would hazard a guess that few of us, including those who lean more towards the end of allowing more speech even if it is offensive, view the articulation of bigotry as any _mere_ thing. The articulation of bigotry is big deal thing, if consciously done an overtly hateful act, and even if done without awareness one with significant harms. Objectification and its casual acceptance is a behavior with significant harms, perhaps even especially in IMHO and MPSIMS, because it normalizes offensive behaviors. The fact that in some circles such behavior is considered “normal” and acceptable is a real harm. I would not say that there is _no place ever_ for considering someone’s appearance. There are some threads in CS for example in which the performer’s appearance is relevant. (See some of the discussion in The Irishman threads for example). And discussions on what we each find attractive or not are not I think off limits. Cultural norms of beauty standards male and female and their differences have often been interesting discussions. But the default of considering these things that commonly offend as “mere” leads to a different mindset than I have anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/594 "2019-12-13T19:51:46Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > This is a clear disconnect. To explain my mindset, I’m thinking there’s a range on just how harmful an individual act of bigotry can be. On one extreme you have a bigot killing another human being. Compared to that, articulation of ideas seems very much a _mere_ act to me. Yes, lots of expressions of bigotry can lead to bigots killing minority groups. But lots of bigots killing minority groups is even worse than lots of expressed bigoted ideas. I feel quite confident in saying actual violence and calls for violence are significantly more dangerous than discussion of ideas that could be used to justify violence or calls for violence. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/595 "2019-12-13T20:28:39Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, lots of expressions of bigotry can lead to bigots killing minority groups. But lots of bigots killing minority groups is even worse than lots of expressed bigoted ideas. I feel quite confident in saying actual violence and calls for violence are significantly more dangerous than discussion of ideas that could be used to justify violence or calls for violence. Having a hard time understanding what you thought the point of typing that out was. Who do you imagine would disagree that physical violence is more dangerous than written bigotry? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/596 "2019-12-13T20:47:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Having a hard time understanding what you thought the point of typing that out was. Who do you imagine would disagree that physical violence is more dangerous than written bigotry? The second paragraph, which you quoted, was a pre-emptive argument. I hope that nobody disagrees that physical violence is more dangerous than written bigotry. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/597 "2019-12-13T20:52:55Z")
Yes good thing we can all agree that an overt call for specific violence based on bigotry is clearly not something okay here. And compared to that mere calling someone a kike should be okay!! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/598 "2019-12-13T20:58:43Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The second paragraph, which you quoted, was a pre-emptive argument. I hope that nobody disagrees that physical violence is more dangerous than written bigotry. > > ~Max I don’t see any need for preemptive arguments that violence is bad before we continue discussing message board rules. Physical violence is not going to break out here. We don’t need rules about that. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/599 "2019-12-13T21:11:33Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And compared to that mere calling someone a kike should be okay!! I don’t agree with that, which is a form of red herring. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/600 "2019-12-13T21:15:02Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I don’t see any need for preemptive arguments that violence is bad before we continue discussing message board rules. Physical violence is not going to break out here. We don’t need rules about that. In post #594 I defended my usage of the word “mere” against **DSeid** ’s post #593. I was not using the relative dangerousness of violence/advocating violence versus written bigotry to make or refute any argument about the rules here. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=31)