Gaudere, I believe you are in error.

The BBQ Pit
61

NEL (Not Effing Likely). There’s a considerable difference between not supporting the U.S. military action in Iraq and supporting Saddam’s continuation in power. Single out people who wanted to end sanctions against Iraq and normalize relations with Saddam’s regime and you’d have a better case. But there have been many who supported anti-Saddam actions short of invasion.

Using “Saddamites” as a term of opprobrium is silly. But it’s less offensive than the classic manhattan tactic of targeting those whose arguments he finds insufficient as “liars”.

62

Which is exactly the problem, as manhattan, UncleBeer, and others point out.

Insults to Republicans are “points of debate”, and pass unmentioned by the mods. Insults to Bush-bashers are “insults” and call for warnings.

It seems to be entirely a question of whose ox is being gored.

I agree. And the problem remains.

Why are insults in Great Debates tolerated on the one side, but not the other?

I’m sure he is. And I am also sure that you realize who gets the e-mail in GD when you use that button.

Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

As if any of this will do any good at all. Now we get five pages of “get off the cross”, “what about Reeder”, "december was a troll’, “if you don’t like it go somewhere else”, and the rest of it.

Regards,
Shodan

63

I should have previewed another time.

And again, the problem remains. There is also a considerable difference between supporting the war in Iraq, and supporting torture. And yet those who attempt to force that equivalence are allowed to try it without interference from the mods.

Why does it call for a warning to accuse the anti-Bush faction of supporting Saddam, but not for the other side? Why does Evil Captor’s equally stupid and offensive accusation pass as just part of the debate, but manhattan gets warned?

What is the difference between these two Dopers? What is the difference between those two accusations?

Regards,
Shodan

64

Oppose the removal of Bush fromhis position? You mean the democratic process?

And the faux-outrage over insults to The Leader is ludicrous.

Who lied about the pretext for the war?
Whose Secretary of Defense personally authorized the torture of Iraqi prisoners?
Whose supporters have dismissed the torture of Iraqi prisoners as “just blowing off steam”?
Who has attempted to stifle reportage of the torture?

Me, I’m glad that Saddam is gone. Good riddance. If Bush had said opnely that he wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was a tyrant and a murderer, he would have more of my respect than he does now. But no, Bush lied, flat-out lied, that Saddam was actively seeking nuclear weapons. Now you might not mind being plahyed for a sucker by The Leader, but I do.

More to the point, part of the post-war goals was to establish a friendly democratic regime in Iraq. But we have stopped attempts to elect local leaders in Iraqi villages–that’s right, we have stopped local democracy. We have failed to establish reliable electricity and water in the cities. We have allowed thugs and bandits to operate with impunity. We have squandered the good will we earned for removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba’ath party from power.

I don’t see any difference between Manhattan’s[/b[] blind loyalty to the failed policies of Bush and Bremer and the dismissal of the inhuman torture ** personally authorized by Rumsfeld, and Stoid’s blind hatred of Bush and the GOP.

Moreover, I find his intentional homophobia inherent in “Sadaamite” to be disgusting and personally offensive. To echo a post Manhattan made when he was a mod to a troll making light of 9/11, he had best not introduce himself to me at a Dopefest.

65

Mr. Happy’s backup.

66

[QUOTE=manhattan]
I make no such error, nor do I believe that. I said, “Calling a person who supported the continuance of Saddam Hussein’s regime and who continues, over and over again, to cast every new revelation, whether true or not, as ‘proof’ that overthrowing his regime was somehow evil a ‘Saddamite’…”

[QUOTE]

I do not think that overthrowing the antebellum Baathist regime was evil. That doesn’t make it good or right.

However, as executed:

Poorly conceived: Yes
Poorly planned: Yes
Poorly executed: Yes
Mismanaged: Yes
Shortsighted: Yes
Bad for US diplomacy and foreign relations: Yes
Bad for US economy: Yes
Bad for US military: Yes
Bad for US image and soft power: Yes
Far less of a boon for Iraqi people then it should have been: Yes
Likely to leave the US weaker (economically, militarily, diplomatically) rather than stronger: Yes
Evil: No
Good: No
Well intentioned: I have no idea.

67

I’m not sure you are right here: people whom Bush has been democratically elected to represent, and support him continuing to do so either actively or passively I would describe as ‘Bushites’. I am in the UK. Personally, I don’t want Bush to be the next US president. However, I think it would be wrong for the UK to attack the US to force this change. Thus I ‘oppose the removal fo Bush from office’ in the way many (or most, though not all) people who opposed the war ‘opposed the removal of Saddam.’ Do you think it’s fair to call me a ‘Bushite’? Do you think the mods would?

68

As I’ve noted in this and the relevant thread, EC’s Evil Pubbies[supTM[/sup] thread was, at least, poorly executed. I started my protests in that thread, and kept those protests well within the acceptable guidelines of GD discourse. I even exercised some unseen options available to me re my objections to EC’s OP.
I definitely appreciate that manny objected to EC’s OP and sympathize with his objections.

However, manny chose to emulate the offense, (as a form of protest). While this has served to highlight the offense, it’s not clear that it was the best option available to do so.

69

No, it would not be acceptable.

“Bushite” means “one who supports torture”. Anyone who wants Bush re-elected necessarily supports torture. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to label someone as either a “Bushite” or a “supporter of torture”. No distinction between the two exists.

Providing you do not support the re-election of Bush, you are allowed to draw whatever distinctions you like about your own position. Not otherwise.

manhattan, in the current example, supports Bush. Thus it is entirely appropriate to label him as a murderer, racist, supporter of torture, or whatever you like. But you may not do so for anyone who opposes Bush. This draws a warning.

The general rule is, “Don’t be a jerk”. If you support Bush and/or the war in Iraq, this rule is absolute. If you attack Bush at every opportunity, sometimes the rule is not quite as strict.

As we see here.

Regards,
Shodan

70

I don’t believe that either instance should be permitted, especially in Great Debates. As others have noted, Evil Captor’s OP was intentionally inflammatory. This does not excuse manhattan’s behavior. “He did it first” does not work for my children, and it does not work for adults. **manhattan ** is being a jerk. We’re not supposed to be jerks. If Evil Captor continues to behave as he has, I expect him to be reprimanded. manhattan got, in my opinion, less than he deserved. He can reasonably be expected to be familiar with the standards of discourse as a longtime SDMB member (leaving aside SDSAB and former Mod status). I would hold him to a higher standard of conduct, and he is falling miserably short of that.

I only help manhattan’s argument if that is indeed his argument. The “one good offensive logical fallacy deserves another” argument surfaced here, in response to his (richly deserved and overdue) warning. I did not read his response in the other thread as intended to draw into the light the supposed inequality of the mods in dealing with insulting language to conservatives vs. liberals. I read it as an offensive, obnoxious, unwelcome post. He was spewing bile, and doing it with a construction intended to be offensive.

Why are you supporting this behavior? If you’re concerned that the standards of debate have fallen, why support those who are taking them lower?

71

Bush was not democratically elected — he was appointed by five judges.

72

Nice strawman.

So… rather than opposing the downward spiral, let’s celebrate it and join in? I think you’re letting your bitterness get the better of you.

And another nice strawman.

(I think we need a strawman smiley. :D)

73
  1. manny was specifically referring to the posters in that thread, not a general statement

General insults to political parties are allowed. Start a thread on how democrats support torture because they didn’t want Saddam removed from power. It’ll be just as stupid as EC’s thread, but hey, if people want to co-occupy the nadir of OPs, feel free. Don’t blame ME because the republicans on this board are currently blessed with a modicum of perspective in creating threads. I think plenty of of OPs are stupid; leaving them up doesn’t mean I think there’s any merit in it. An OP that says “Gays are unnatural” requires an equal display of illogic and stupid bigotry in my mind, but we’ve allowed it to stay. You can’t fight ignorance without ignorance to fight.

However, you’re not allowed to say “the posters in this thread are nazis” (well, unless they actually are, I can’t do a full ban here 'cause we do get some neo-nazis). “But this is hairsplitting!” you cry. Well, we do it because there’s a lot of groups people want to debate about in less than flattering terms. If I banned any denigrating terms against a group–even if I limited it only to groups which might concievably post on the SDMB–you wouldn’t be able to say much bad about any group. But we can lock down direct insults against specific posters; and if I think someone is using the “group insult” thing to insult a particular poster, I will crack down. For example, saying “Creationists are stupid” in a thread is OK. However, if you post that right after a creationist posts, I will likely think you’re just trying a backhanded way of insulting the poster. I’m trying to give posters freedom to discuss various groups, while maintaining a degree of non-flaming.

  1. Sadammite sure looks like a cutesy way to call posters “sodomites”

Let’s say someone is a big fan of Dick Cheney. I would not allow someone to call that poster a “Dick-lover” in GD. Trust me, there are 501 ways people can try to fit in the most godawful slurs by being cutesy like that and I am not letting the camel’s nose under this tent. manhattan was aware that Saddamite sounds just like “sodomite”; that’s what makes the slur “clever”.

  1. Nazis, terrorists, torture and Saddam

We don’t allow posters to be called nazis unless they actually could legitimately be called one. Similarily, after 9/11 we had to warn people for calling other posters “Osama”. Saying a poster supports Saddam without any evidence they think he is swell falls under the same rubrick, I think. Just saying Saddam-lover, Osama-lover, Hitler-lover, whatever, without any of the argument leading up to it (you oppse the war on Iraq; Saddam was in charge of Iraq; blah blah blah) is just an insult. Now, if manny had explained his reasoning, and not used the term “saddamite”, I probably would have allowed it. (But secretly thought it stupid.) But just popping into the thread and using that terms without any reasoning seems like you’re just mud-slinging, plus there’s the whole “sodomite” thing.

I still kind of doubt manny really believes anyone posting really “supported” Saddam. I can believe EC thinks republicans are Ok with torture, because, well, it’s EC. But manny’s pretty bright, so his chain of logic seem uncharacteristic. It could be he is saying things he does not truly believe in order to make some sort of point against some things people have said against Republicans. Unclebeer seems to think this is what he is doing. I hope not, because then he is deliberately making GD a worse place AND making my job harder. Posters who post as close to “acceptable” in GD as they can get every single time are bad enough when it’s just a lack of control; when they’re doing some sort of organized campaign out of what they think is a moral obligation there is little hope they will stop, and ever warnig will be used as a springboard for extensive debate.

74

There’s a couple distinct problems with your logic here. First, the fact remains that manhattan’s comment is equivalent to the example provided. If it is equivalent, it cannot be seen to be lowering the standards; it merely conforms to them. Second, it is entirely possible for me to agree with manhattan’s basic point, that there seems to be a double-standard, without agreeing with his tactics. It is that, his basic argument, which support wholeheartedly.

And I still note that most of the particpants in this thread are oblivious to the true point manhattan is trying to make. This thread is, perhaps inevitably, spiraling downward into personal attacks and issues, when that is not at all its intended purpose.

With that, I’ve now said everything I have to say on this matter. I’ve had lengthy discussions with the GD moderators over this very thing in the not so distant past. We failed to come to any kind of agreement then, and I think it less likely that any resolution will develop out of a public, and what’s certain to become acrimonious, discussion.

75

I believe you are a thousand years old. Honestly, you are marvelous.

76

I am not blaming you for the good sense of the Republicans. I am blaming you for taking steps against the bad sense of Republicans that you do not take against the bad sense of Bush-bashers.

So apparently you can say:

or accuse all Republicans of being racist, or torturers, or murderers of gays. You can also refer to gays as “homos”, providing you hate Bush enough. You can lie about Dopers, and say that they “are on record as hating gay people”. You can lie about Bush, and say that he said that he believes God wants him to kill “brown people”.

But you can’t call anyone a “Saddamite”.

IOW, you are dealing with the problem of derogatory references against groups of people by outlawing them against two groups - Bush-bashers, and gays. Anyone else is fair game.

No, he is not. Evil Captor and the rest of the Bush-bashers who repeatedly and persistently do exactly what you warned manhattan for are making GD a worse place.

And you are giving them a pass on it!

EC does it - you shrug your shoulders. No harm done to the tone of GD. manhattan does it - big violation, warn him.

Might that be because yet another snide and dishonest attack against Republicans is not all that unusual? But exactly the same tactic against the Usual Suspects really jumps out at you.

Sheesh.

77

Just curious for those that support the Iraq war:

1- Do you support the invasion of North Korea and the overthrow of Kim Jong Il?

2- If no, does that make you an Illite?

Just because one opposes an illegal and unjustified war does not mean that one necessarily supports the dictator overthrown by that war.

78

Where? Like as a joke? I do allow friendly jokes if I can tell they’re jokes.

Sure you can lie. Lots of people do. I bet your real name isn’t even Shodan! :wink: Do you want me to check the facts of every post, and then determine if the poster was mistaken or deliberately lying, and then warn them if I think they are? If someone says a lie, ask them to prove it; for both your examples no one could have done so (I think), so people can give that statement the respect it deserves. Heck, remember when I got a pit thread for letting manny call someone a liar? RT said it was not true (a lie) so I should have warned him. I personally don’t think RT was deliberately lying, therefore what manny said was not true. But I didn’t do anything about that “lie”. Should I have? And how can I be letting manny slide on “lies” when he is not a Bush-bashing liberal?

Then find me an example where somone called particular posters a Saddamite. Or said they loved “dictator-of-your-choice-configured-to-sound-like-a-insult”. Or something. I may have missed EC saying something similar, but I need to see it, not just allusions to it.

If EC went to a thread of yours and called you a “torture-lover” with no explanation, I’d crack down on that too. And “torture-lover” isn’t even as bad in my eyes as “saddamite”, which has implications of both torture loving AND murder loving AND being a sodomite (not that there’s anything wrong with that…). AND if he starts doing a little explanatory spiel in threads just so he can continue to call you torture-lover I’ll crack down on that too. AND if he says he’s doing it to point out how manny is allowed to slide based on his ex-mod status I’ll think he’s being a bit of a jerk.

79

Manny, could I have just a sec? I realize there is a lot in this thread that you’ve got to get back to and I’ll keep it simple. Do you believe I hold a pro-child prostitution stance?

Thanks,
Steven

80

That’s nice, dear. Here’s your pen back.