I always interpreted the rules the same way. As for public figures, “the don’t be a jerk” rule may also apply. For example, in a Cafe Society or MPSIMS thread, gloating over a person’s death is considered threadshitting. But if you come to the Pit to do it, gloat away.
Note, this is my interpretation as regards public figures. As for other Dopers, there should be limitations on jerkishness, even in the Pit. I would frown on gloating over another Doper’s illness.
“Don’t be a jerk” also means not accusing people of stuff they haven’t done. I refer readers to post #10 in the linked thread.
You keep claiming this isn’t an ambiguous matter, and you even quoted 99.9% of people would agree with that. Despite the dissenting voices in this thread and despite the numerous people in the first thread that brought you here.
Clearly there are a lot more than 0.1% of people who think it’s okay to laugh at someone with cancer sometimes. It’s not even close to “jerkish” for some of us.
I don’t know Novak from Adam. Never heard of him, but I know if I was in his position I’d be fine with people taking the piss. Main reason: It’s have absolutely no bearing on the progress of my illness. Doubly so for people talking about it on an internet message board. Talk is cheap.
The board has it’s strengths and weaknesses but it is not a Microcosm of the world. Normal rules of etiquette need not apply. Not to say there are no standards of conduct, just that you can’t automatically apply your existing rules
And for the record; If a hypothetical person I didn’t like got cancer and I was glad, I would mention it at work and at the dinner table as much as I would on these boards. But then that’s me and I’m an irreverent bastard. To be thinking it but not saying it because of sensitive people imposing their arbitrary rules seems dishonest to me.
My rule of thumb was for what happens in the real world, not what happens when people are anonymous, and especially not what happens among of self-selecting group of a particular stamp of obnoxious people. The fact that it would be considered especially “sensitive,” to complain, or that people insist on seeing this as somebody laying down new “rules,” shows how unreflective, emotionally stunted, adolescent, and socially maladapted this community is. In the real world, among emotionally mature adults, nobody does this kind of thing, and if they do, nobody defends it.
As for “people on this board,” you might very well ask yourselves if it’s jerkish to gloat about tumors or cancer if someone “in the room” actually has cancer at the time, or a tumor that is possibly (even probably) malignant. Or if anyone has a friend or loved one currently dying of cancer. How will your glib little comments go over? And how much will you save face by bitching about “arbitrary rules” and
Incidentally, this thread is as much about the uselessness of “don’t be a jerk” as a rule, or even a guideline. I think the rule is meaningless and invoked at arbitrary times. I would rather people just realize that this is jerkish behavior and stop, than be prohibited from doing it. You can’t mandate emotional intelligence.
I think this is contradicted by your later post about “what happens in the real world.”
Again: the rule is about how you treat other posters. I think that’s about as restrictive as it should be. Beyond that, it’s better that posters shout it down instead of asking us to forbid it. Think about how this rule would read. “Don’t wish ill health on public figures?” “Don’t celebrate the misfortunes of famous people?” You’re welcome to propose it here or in ATMB, but I think any rule on this topic is either going to get so vague that people will be concerned about stifling discussion or so specific it’ll be useless. Call people on their shit if it bothers you. You’re not the only one who is bothered by this stuff, as demonstrated by the fact that the Tony Snow thread lasted six or eight pages.
Mind if I ask where else on the 'net you spend your time? One cold thread each about Jesse Helms, Tony Snow and Bob Novak (and the condemnation was not universal in any of those) does not constitute “moving the mission of this board” in my opinion. It doesn’t create ignorance, it’s just rudeness. Let’s not confuse this issue by making those the same thing.
The opposite of ignorance is not information, it’s wisdom. I would posit that part of wisdom is tact and emotional maturity.
Uh huh. Dude, were I in a room with Cheney, I’d happily tell him to his face that I’m glad he’s kicking off and taking his insane evil with him. This doesn’t mean that just because I simply don’t like someone that I’d gloat about their misfortune. That’s reserved for people who actually make the world a worse place by their being in it. It also doesn’t mean I’d go up to Cheney’s family and laugh at them. But people need to expect to be judged by their actions, and I have not one ounce of sympathy for some people in this world.
Would you hold that it’s jerkish to celebrate anyone’s misfortune? Kim Jong Il? Hitler? Mass murderers?
If so, I’d say you’re the one who’s emotionally stunted.
The “I know you are but what am I” defense! Well, i guess that’s as good a “last word” as any on the topic.
That’s not the same as what you said in your OP. Or are you okay with the prohibition if they choose not to stop?
Exactly. And I’d rather we don’t try.
Are we fighting igorance or just mandating it away now? And unfortunately, you’re wrong regardless. Emotional maturity is not related to knowledge about any particular subject.
This is the sort of post I object to.
Finding an example of hypocrisy should be admired not belittled. (Note how Cricetus promptly apologised for being a jerk, while Scylla simply attacks.)
Obviously the Moderators don’t run the technical side of the board. Why on earth does Scylla think they do?
Yep, just ignore the whole post before it. I’m still waiting to hear you defend the fact that oppressive dictators and mass murderers don’t deserve derision and joy when they exit the world. Or perhaps you’d like to tell families of people murdered by them that they’re being “emotionally stunted” when they celebrate.
Well, actually, Dude, if you were in the same room as Cheney and behaved in that obnoxious manner I’d consider you to be not only emotionally stunted but as someone who operates at the intellectual level of a six year old child.
What ‘insane evil’ has Cheney, in his essentially powerless office, inflicted on this planet in the real universe? (as opposed to the Hieronymous Bosch-like nightmare world of your imagination).
No one with any sense of proportion could possibly equate Cheney’s supposed ‘crimes’, which you carefully left unspecified, with the horrific crimes of the genuinely nasty people you listed: “Kim Jong Il? Hitler? Mass murderers?”
Regardless, those who feel inspired at the death of even a mass murderer to the extent that they’d want to put on their high heels and lipstick, dance around a campfire, leap up in the air and clap their hands, just to celebrate the death of anyone reveals them to be immature, infantile buffoons at heart.
From what I’ve read, by first-hand testimony, the families of victims don’t celebrate. Some of them feel relieved, others feel empty. The only ones celebrating are the frat boys outside, and they aren’t exactly a hallmark of classy human behavior.
Why is that? It’s not admirable to turn every appeal to the better angels of our nature into a game of gotcha ya.
One the one hand, I agree that gloating over people’s suffering is just crass no matter who is doing the suffering. Life is short and suffering is pervasive and we’re all in it together; taking joy in suffering just diminishes all of us.
On the other hand, you’re not a moderator and it’s not your board. Damn, but the backseat moderating in the Pit is getting tiresome.
Edited to add:
It’s also not admirable to pretend to a position of moral authority that your previous actions indicate you haven’t earned. Or more simply: don’t preach and then expect your past record to go unexamined.
Bolding Mine.
I think that should be Gotcha or Got Ya not both.
Is meta-moderation anybetter?
Gotcha.
That depends on what the hell “meta-moderation” is. Presumably it would mean “moderating the moderation”. But since you’re the one complaining about the moderation, that would mean you’re the one trying to “meta-moderate”…which is when I begin to wonder what the point of your rejoinder is supposed to be.