The verb is the insult. Rape is a not nice thing. “Let’s [not nice thing] Poster Z” is an insult.
Also, I don’t think “Let’s rape” is declarative. I think it is imperative.
OK so my memory was right 
The reason I thought it important, why I even noticed it at all in other threads, is that I thought your use of rhetoric in support of your arguments was strong, and in my experience with reading other attorneys in various places, in line of what I think attorneys are taught.
In this case, I thought your claim of not “getting it” belied that past history, and I speculated if it was in fact a rhetorical trick, or if perhaps I was wrong about you being an attorney, or maybe something else altogether.
I really and truly do not understand how “Let’s rape Poster X” is not an insult. If that makes me too dumb to practice law, I guess I’ll be hearing from the bar.
No, it’s an attack. As was Wesley’s remark about you in the thread in question.
I’m with Oak & Rand here.
I don’t know if it makes you dumb or not. I take you at your word you don’t follow. No big deal.
Only if it’s your local one down the street.
According to the “rules” of our fair message board, calling someone a bad name is an insult. Suggesting that a poster needs to be raped is a jerkish post, and might get you banned. But, it’s not an insult, IMHO, the way things are worded. It’s terribly, terribly, insulting, and I’d ban any one’s ass who did it, but it’s not “technically” an insult.
Surely a lawyer might be able to grasp this.
And, you’re correct, it was an imperative, not a statement. But, it still wasn’t an insult. You may have found the verbiage insulting, but it wasn’t an insult.
I don’t think it was a “joke”, he was calling out another poster, by name which (IMO) falls under the “no-stalking” or “no trolling” rule*. In addition, while it doesn’t technically fall under this rule, it feels like a “Let’s you and him fight” rule-breaking. It certainly (to me) invokes the spirit of it.
Wasn’t there a period where a poster got a warning for bringing up something that was a hot-button issue for another poster in an unrelated thread? (Sorry–being vague here intentionally)
Hell, remember when we were point blank told we couldn’t mention a type of cookie in unrelated threads because it would be stalking/harassing a poster?
Same deal here. If Rand was participating in the thread, fair game. Go for it. But to do a drive-by sideswipe strikes me as rule breaking.
I agree with Sam here. It’s not an “insult” as the SDMB (narrowly, but consistently) defines the term. It has, however fallen under the “don’t wish death on a poster” rule and gotten some severe wrist slapping.
I’m sorry. No grok. Waiting is.
How can something be insulting, but not an insult?
Putting that aside, whether we call the “let’s raise Rand’s taxes” line an insult or jerkish behavior, the offense is on the same level of culpability as Rand’s riposte, and should have received the same sanction. In my view, that sanction should have been a “Knock it off, no warning issued”. It bothers me to see one skate and the other get a formal warning. That’s not fair.
I probably should have worded that in a different way. It’s an insulting post, but not an “insult” to the poster in question. It’s almost like splitting legal hairs.
And there’s where you are raising a subjective argument.
Maybe in the sense that you decide if certain words are insulting to you and that can be separate and independent from whether the words are insulting to others, or whether the author intended either of those.
You are free to be insulted anytime, but that doesn’t mean the words are an insult simply because one listener/reader perceived a feeling of insult in them. It depends on the context of the judge, and to decide absolutely, assuming you can do that at all, you would need to show a pretty broad consensus I would think, that is a high bar to cross.
That may be. I am not sure why the focus on insult when the jerk rule is more likely to apply anyway.
Hey! Watch your back. Word could get around. 
Yeah, but I’m right.
And right here is why if I’d ever had to mod GD, I would have killed myself.
Nah. We’d have killed you. You appear to be a big game animal. Is it illegal to kill a giraffe? Not that I would do that.
You better not. Where the Hell am I gonna find a grill big enough for the neck? And who is going to pay for the charcoal, bbq sauce, and bourbon?
The hell?
“Let’s beat up Joe.” That’s not insulting, but it is inflammatory. It’s not insulting because it provides no characterization of Joe, which is what insults do.
“Let’s gently poke Joe with a stick”. That’s not insulting, but it is obnoxious, but less so than a call to beat him up.
“Let’s raise Joe’s taxes.” That’s not insulting, and in most cases would be merely bizarre. (Not this one though.) Or perhaps silly.
I can’t see how a call to violate Josephine is in any way comparable to a call to raise Joe’s taxes though. The scale is totally different. (Not that I have a problem with the thought experiment – I just find Oakminster’s argument to lack a proper sense of proportion. I don’t have a problem with feeling uneasy about what transpired though.)
Actually, Oak, the reason I think Rand gets a warning and Wesley did not is because Rand has a history. He’s admitted to trolling before. It’s the inherent problem with a subjective rule system–how you emotionally feel about the situation is often influeneced by other factors. If you don’t have objective to force, you will likely slip up.
The problem with the no personal attacks rule is that it is defined so narrowly as to be impotent. It’s very easy to intentionally insult someone without crossing it. Wesley’s post was clearly a dig at Rand–but that happens a lot here. I wouldn’t object if only things were consistent.
I suddenly flashed on Harper Lee fifty years ago trying to come up with just the right title for her book.
If “let’s rape Joe” is an insult, “let’s hug Joe” must surely be a compliment. But it isn’t.
“Let’s rape Joe” is an attack, however, IMO.