(no quote buttons available in locked threads, so copy pasting the quotes with a link)
Hank Beecher
Jonathan Chance
Criticising the way someone moderates, even by likening it to the way someone distasteful to the moderator moderates is not a personal insult. It is attacking the action, not the actor, in the same way that we encourage speaking to the post, not the poster. He has not, for instance, said that the moderator moderates this way because he/she is intellectually dishonest, which would be an insult. You could say that complaints about moderation go in ATMB, but a complaint is rarely, if ever, a warnable offence.
Then there’s this exchange between BG and Hank, where
Brain Glutton imputes to Hank Beecher motivations and knowledge(you know very well, know that too etc.) that may not exist, characterises his denial as entirely disingenuous and in no way credible, and when Hank Beecher responds by saying
“You are just making crap up now BG.”
which is NOT the same as saying “You are lying BG” (you can make up something, even crap, which is not a lie), he gets a warning?
So you interpret the rule as requiring the use of the term “liar” and noting else?
What about using these words then;
deceiver,
fabricator,
false witness,
fibber,
falsifier,
Does the rule need to be amended to include all these words too, or is it pretty obvious that they are also violations of that rule?
It is not obvious to me that, if someone imputes motivation and knowledge to me, and in accordance with that imputation, says that my position is disingenuous, and I respond by saying they are making crap up, then I’m accusing them of lying.
Telling someone they’re lying says, definitively, that they are indulging in deliberate falsehood. Telling someone they are making something up, is not an accusation of deliberate falsehood. It is an accusation of fabrication of something about which they do not have knowledge, which is not the same thing as fabricating something false about which they do have knowledge.
For instance, in situation A I know a closed box has 5 stones inside, and I say it has 6. Then I am lying.
In situation B, I do not know how many stones the box has, and I say it has 6. Then I’m making things up.
I certainly agree that the first of the three was wrong. People have always been able to call the moderators Jackbooted Thugs without being dinged. Comparing them to the people at Stormfront is just in the same vein. And he didn’t accuse them of *agreeing *with Stormfront’s politics, just stated that their methods of silencing people are similar.
The core rule here has always been the same: don’t be a jerk.
But there are an infinite number of ways to be a jerk. They can never all be listed. So when a poster starts behaving like a jerk, they will be warned about their particular behavior. And if the poster persists in that behavior, they will be banned.
Okay, I’m not looking at the suspension or whether it was justified. I’m looking at the question you have asked with respect to liar vs. making stuff up.
Both comments (liar, making stuff up) imply someone is being dishonest in their responses. People have danced around that rule for years here by simply asking for a cite. If someone posts that they have unicorns living in their back yard, I’m not going to call them a liar or accuse them of making that up. I’m going to ask for pictures (cite) of the little creatures living in the back yard.
I just don’s see a defense for “making stuff up” being so dissimilar to an accusation of lying that the rule doesn’t apply.
No, I’m guessing what’s in the box, the same way that BG is guessing that Hank Beecher knows people are dog whistling when talking about exterminators. When someone simply tells me that I’m making up what’s in the box (or in their head), it’s not an accusation of lying. It’s epistemological commentary.
Did you read the post you quoted? In it, I’m trying to point out the distinction, which is very much applicable in this case, between lying and making stuff up, and how telling someone that they’re making stuff up need not be an accusation of deliberate falsehood (which, note, JC has specifically called it out as being in his warning). Do you have a response to that?
Yes, I saw it. I just don’t subscribe to that line of thinking. Both comments imply that the speaker is being dishonest. Both statements attack the speaker, not the speaker’s point of view.
BrainGlutton’s “Your astoundingly persistent denial of the very existence of dog-whistle messaging is entirely disingenuous and in no way credible.” is also an accusation of pretense — and what is the difference between pretense and lying?
I agree that Warnings are not issued consistently.
Because BG’s comment was directed at the HB’s claim, not the person. “Your denial is disingenuous” does not violate the rules; “You are disingenuous” does. Attack the claim, not the poster.
I ran into a situation once where a poster was claiming that he never told lies. I responded with what I felt was a rebuttal to his claim by citing some lies he had told. But I was warned that doing so was equivalent to calling him a liar.
I can see the moderator’s point and I didn’t argue it. But it raises the question of whether this is an irrefutable claim.
I don’t agree. There is no implication of deliberate falsehood in reminding someone that they are not in a position to know what is going on in somebody else’s head. If a friend tells me “You’re just not doing your work because you’re lazy” and I reply “And you’re just making shit up”, I am not accusing them of deliberately telling a lie about me, I’m telling them that they don’t know what’s in my head.
Is there a meaning full difference between a person saying something, and then another responding with, “you know” that’s not true or something to that effect? If a person knows something, but says the opposite, how is that not similar to an accusation of lying? And isn’t saying that a person “knows” something an assertion about the person, not the underlying message?
You’re making stuff up ~ you know what you’re saying isn’t true. ?
This exact issue came up in the last year or two in another ATMB thread. I was surprised to learn that “you just made that up” = “you’re lying”, since I’ve used the former phrasing pretty often. But now, knowing what the mods’ ruling is, I don’t use it anymore. If it’s not explicitly listed in the rules it should be, since it’s not intuitively obvious. It’s possible to “make something up” without regard to whether it is true or not.
I believe the reason that the mods show the history of warnings when disclosing a suspension or banning is to show a pattern of behavior. Looking the pattern here, I see someone who was definitely on the wrong side of the “being a jerk” line, repeatedly.
I think the suspension was warranted. You may want to nitpick about whether you agree with various phrasing in each warning, but the pattern is clear.