# 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:** 36
**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 18, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/701 "2019-12-18T15:10:25Z")
I don’t think the word has maintained the meaning the way “harpy” has but “hysterical” basically means “crazy because of your uterus”. “Hyster” as a prefix means “of the uterus”. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/702 "2019-12-18T15:16:33Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I don’t think the word has maintained the meaning the way “harpy” has but “hysterical” basically means “crazy because of your uterus”. “Hyster” as a prefix means “of the uterus”. So saying “Amy Shumer was hysterical at the comedy club last night!” is sexist? ---
**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 18, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/703 "2019-12-18T15:21:23Z")
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/704 "2019-12-18T15:25:41Z")
Bleep bleep boop ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/705 "2019-12-18T15:48:54Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > If we were truly biased as you say we wouldn’t get such cries of bias from both sides, I’d think. This is not logical. The staff is not biased\* when measured against the spectrum of this board. But the board itself is skewed, relative to the country (and world) as a whole. \*[with the possible exception of anti-misogynist campaigners, who seem to get away with a level of personal attacks not tolerated elsewhere. But I suspect this is because the mods perceive this issue as a weak point in terms of the board culture, and that the board as a whole is broadly sympathetic to these people and their cause, such that sanctioning them would be unpopular.] > [@](#): > > That said, I doubt that will convince you that we’re not biased, nor that our policy of ‘fuzzy lines’ - which come from hard-learned lessons - is not somehow designed to allow for the bias you seem to want to perceive. “designed to allow” is something of a strawman. The policy is not designed to allow it (or at least that’s not the consciously chosen reason). But it has that practical impact. You’ll notice that fuzzy lines are a lot more popular with posters who are in the mainstream of this board, and therefore have confidence that the mods have their backs and will interpret their posts charitably (and those of their antagonists harshly - hence the constant complaints that such-and-such unpopular poster specializes in “going up to the line”, and should just be banned already). Those who have reason to think they might be less popular with the mods based on ideological grounds tend to favor sharp lines, due to the exact same dynamic. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/706 "2019-12-18T16:44:05Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Actually, the moderation staff here is one of the least biased I’ve seen anywhere on the Internet. That you can’t see that is, perhaps, more indicative of your own point of view than reality. > > If we were truly biased as you say we wouldn’t get such cries of bias from both sides, I’d think. You’ll note that the earlier statement about Trump supporters and death came from a poster and not from a moderator and has not been endorsed or adopted by any moderator and certainly not by me. > > That said, I doubt that will convince you that we’re not biased, nor that our policy of ‘fuzzy lines’ - which come from hard-learned lessons - is not somehow designed to allow for the bias you seem to want to perceive. If that’s really the case, that you perceive a deep bias where none exists, then I’m not sure you’ll ever be happy here. And if you can’t be happy here perhaps some thought could be put into why, indeed, you are here at all? I have said many times that for the _most_ part the moderators do a very good job. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement and that’s true for must human endeavors. I never said that there was _deep_ bias. Anyways, this is a thread on how disputes are to be dealt with and I gave my feedback on what I think is important. Concerning happiness or satisfaction, I’d say I’m about 90% satisfied with my experience here. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/707 "2019-12-18T16:54:28Z")
A common refrain on this message board is “language evolves, that’s how it works”. Nobody is referring to a uterus (or gender) when using the word “hysterical” any longer. Seems to me that people who get offended by the use of the word itself are looking for something to be upset about. YMMV. ---
**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 18, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/708 "2019-12-18T17:12:44Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > “Repent” of what? That’s the question you’re blithely ignoring. And its a **really** important one. You are talking about two different sins, as I understand it (I am not Baptist). The sin of carnal relations with another man, and the sin of lust. Only lust is a thought crime, and you are correct to point out that it may well be something the man has no control over. Again, as I understand it that is mainstream Baptist thought regardless of sexual orientation. I’m not sure how Baptists stand on whether it is possible to lust after one’s spouse, but they are generally against gay marriage too. And I think it’s debatable whether it is moral for any two consenting adults to have sex with each other. I personally think it is wrong for people who are closely related to have sex. As much as I may disagree with the sentiment, I do not think it is not beyond the pale to suggest sex is only moral because it is incident to marriage (or procreation). And I think that specific debate is one of the great debates of our time, where differences in opinion are based on axiomatic differences in moral belief systems. As an aside, do you think that debate should be allowed on these message boards? > [@Gyrate](#): > > How could this not be interpreted this way? How is this different than saying “you are an abomination before God”? To be absolutely clear, as I understand it, the sex act itself is the abomination. Lust is a separate sin which is still wrong and demands repentance, but is not necessarily “an abomination before God”. And while it may certainly sound unusual to label basic human sexual desire as sinful, as far as I am aware, this is normal for Christian religions. The basic premise of Christianity is that everybody is a sinner, and there is an original sin which applies to everyone so there is always reason to repent. Usually an exception is made within the context of marriage. But you appear to say that saying “basic human sexual desire is sinful” is cruel, and the outcome of such a view is hurtful and damaging. I will stipulate that such a view _may_ have the consequence of causing harm. I do not agree that the person saying it is necessarily cruel. Cruelty, like malice, describes a person’s state of mind. You cannot be unintentionally cruel. The Baptist minister in my example cannot be accused of being cruel unless you assume that he is lying. If that example was the opening statement of a debate, I think it is unreasonable to assume the Baptist minister was lying. And so I think it is unreasonable to say he was necessarily being cruel. The reasonable alternatives are that the minister either justifies the consequences somehow, or is ignorant of them. If you rule out the possibility that the consequences can be justified, you are only left fighting ignorance… * * * … Maybe I am overthinking this. Collective-you are saying homosexual men would reasonably walk away from a debate where Baptists attempt to justify a view that would lead to harm against homosexual men. Therefore the floor will be left only with people who want to justify views that lead to harm against homosexuals, which leads to people thinking the view is accepted, which leads to actual harm against homosexuals. Actual harm against homosexuals is wrong and therefore allowing Baptists to attempt to justify a view that leads to harm against homosexuals is wrong. To counter this I will make three assumptions. First is the assumption that we can censor people who argue in bad faith. Second is the assumption that in the absence of bad faith, ignorance can be fought. Third is the assumption that somebody will always argue against ignorance. I have shown above that, in the absence of bad faith it follows that the Baptist minister is either right (harm against homosexuals can be justified) or ignorant. If you are assuming that harm against homosexuals is wrong, then the Baptist minister _must_ be ignorant. If the minister is ignorant then somebody will be available to argue against him. If somebody is arguing against the minister the debate will not be one-sided, therefore people will not think the view is accepted, which refutes the above argument. ~Max ---
**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 18, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/709 "2019-12-18T17:14:56Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > A common refrain on this message board is “language evolves, that’s how it works”. > > Nobody is referring to a uterus (or gender) when using the word “hysterical” any longer. > > Seems to me that people who get offended by the use of the word itself are looking for something to be upset about. > > YMMV. Good grief. Knock it off. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/710 "2019-12-18T17:16:59Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > A common refrain on this message board is “language evolves, that’s how it works”. > > Nobody is referring to a uterus (or gender) when using the word “hysterical” any longer. > > Seems to me that people who get offended by the use of the word itself are looking for something to be upset about. > > YMMV. The same way that “gay rights” isn’t about the right to be happy. (Not directly 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 18, 2019, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/711 "2019-12-18T17:23:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Why would anyone give one wet fart what the guy “says”. He is lying (at the very least to himself) because he clearly does not respect the homosexual “as a human being” in any way, shape or form. Because his sexuality is part of his humanity, and the minister does not respect that. If I were moderating a debate between you and a Baptist minister, and you pulled a “he’s clearly lying/he clearly doesn’t respect homosexuals” in your opening statement, I would kick _you_ out of the room. ~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 18, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/712 "2019-12-18T17:36:00Z")
That’s because you seem to view “love and respect” and “an abomination under God” as perfectly compatible. Which, of course, is insane. ---
**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 18, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/713 "2019-12-18T17:38:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think this highlights a difficulty the SDMB experiences in achieving civil discourse. > > You mention that you don’t know the facts of the case. That’s OK. What’s not OK, in my view, is to read me say “based on the evidence” and then assume that means “based on bigotry” or generalization of women or alleged victims or men. IOW “I don’t know the evidence, therefore the statement must be based on bigoted assumptions about women” is not a valid syllogism. I did not admit ignorance of the facts of the case. I wrote, “Again, maybe there’s something you know that I don’t. I am not aware of any facts that disprove Dr. Ford’s allegation of sexual assault.” It may be the case that I am unaware of some relevant fact, and I admit the possibility, but I have not admitted that there actually _is_ some relevant fact I am unaware of. It is logically impossible for me to make such an admission in the present tense. Look. The only arguments that I am aware of which could possibly support your conclusion are based on bigotry. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, since I have not seen your argument specifically I cannot know for sure whether your argument is bigoted or not. But as far as I am concerned, the burden is on you to actually present an argument. In a private message or another thread, please. ~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 18, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/714 "2019-12-18T17:41:17Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > That said, **Max S.** has missed the obvious. That is, there are bigots who think Blasey-Ford is lying, and there are Republicans who think that she’s either lying, or mistaken about the identity of the perpetrator, or whatever else they need to tell themselves in order to make statements like “the accusation is probably false,” but they’re doing it because they _hate Democrats_. So we have bigots, and we have partisan Republicans, and they sure are cozy together. And the bigots can always put on that partisan Republican outfit and hide among them, so we don’t know what kind of wrong we’re talking to. The partisan argument is fallacious and I did in fact consider it to be an irrelevant argument. ~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 18, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/715 "2019-12-18T17:51:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not what I was saying. At all. Then your point has flown over my head completely. I went back and re-read our exchange but I’m not gleaning anything except “maybe **Shodan** thinks rape victims usually lie”. I don’t think all generalizations are bigotry, only generalizations of protected traits such as sex, race, gender, etc. ~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 18, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/716 "2019-12-18T18:02:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Emphasis in original. > > Another example of the kind of thing I believe works against civil discourse. “Based on the evidence” is interpreted as “you hate Democrats”, and it is asserted that this is obvious. > I agree with this. And I don’t think “you want to kill me” and “because they hate Democrats” and “because you are really saying that women should shut up and spread 'em” leads to genuine civil discourse. > > Apparently other people’s MVs. > > Regards, > Shodan I think **steronz** and I have the same opinion here. The only arguments we are aware of are either bigoted or irrelevant, therefore we feel justified in making the inductive argument that all arguments supporting that conclusion are either bigoted or irrelevant. Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy, yes. I don’t know about **steronz** but I have not been supportive of banning sensitive topics based on a hasty generalization. If that’s your only point in this exchange, you have communicated it poorly. ~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 18, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/717 "2019-12-18T18:11:12Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > When someone repeatedly claims that something is true “based on the evidence”, but the evidence does not show what they claim, and this has been demonstrated to them over and over, but they just double down on the same disproven “evidence” over and over, you are eventually forced to conclude that they are either willfully ignorant, simply dishonest, or blinded by their hatred and prejudice. I agree, if and only if the “someone”, “them”, and “they” refer to the same single person. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/718 "2019-12-18T18:30:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I agree, if and only if the “someone”, “them”, and “they” refer to the same single person. > > ~Max When it comes to the posters that people routinely complain about here in ATMB, you can easily find threads where all three criteria apply to each of them. ---
**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 18, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/719 "2019-12-18T18:32:04Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Max S.**'s cluelessness reaches a point that impedes discussion too. At some point it strains credulity to believe that he really thinks that “good faith” bigotry is okay, that someone for example, believing that [Group X] are inferior so it is their interest that we give them special training only and keep them out of colleges and otherwise look out for their best interests as they aren’t smart enough to do so themselves, is just fine, because it is “non-malicious”.\* Assuming\* he is making that argument in “good faith” it reaches a point where other discussion is diminished as the thread becomes focused on reducing his ignorance to the exclusion of much else. > > And I say that with full knowledge that I have been one of those feeding that process. > Some of these things may not be fixable. I don’t think all good-faith bigotry is _okay_, only that debates where one side is bigoted should not be banned. I certainly do not think any race is inferior, or that thinking such is _just fine_ even if the person presenting that argument does so without malice. Trying to tell me why it is wrong to endorse racial superiority is useless, because I already think it is wrong. It’s _just fine_ that we allow people to present those opinions. I think such a debate _could_ be useful insofar as the use of debates here is to fight ignorance. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/720 "2019-12-18T18:33:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > A common refrain on this message board is “language evolves, that’s how it works”. > > Nobody is referring to a uterus (or gender) when using the word “hysterical” any longer. > > Seems to me that people who get offended by the use of the word itself are looking for something to be upset about. > > YMMV. “Hysterical” in the sense of ‘that person is hysterically funny’ may be applied to any gender. The “hysteria” itself is, in that sense, being applied to the speaker and not to the comedian; it means that the comedian is so funny that the speaker laughs in an out-of-control fashion. “Hysterical” in the sense of ‘that person is just getting hysterical over that issue and therefore their opinion ought to be ignored’ is, IME, a gendered insult. Men are rarely accused of getting hysterical in that sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=37)