# Hank Beecher's warnings and suspension are bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 23, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876 "2016-04-23T05:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/1 "2016-04-23T05:32:28Z")
(no quote buttons available in locked threads, so copy pasting the quotes with a link) Hank Beecher > [@](#): > > [Old](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18836181&postcount=411) 11-06-2015, 08:24 AM > Suspended > > Join Date: Feb 2005 > Posts: 1,513 > The way that you “moderate” discussions of Islam is identical to the way that the moderators of [Stormfront.org](http://Stormfront.org) “moderate” discussions of the Holocaust. Identical. Jonathan Chance > [@](#): > > Join Date: Apr 2000 > Location: On the run with Kilroy > Posts: 18,325 > The Moderator Speaks > Right, that one will earn a warning. Don’t insult other posters. > > I’m also closing this train wreck. Everyone head to their corners and come back out swinging next time. 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 > [@Trump's Republican primary campaign](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/3868): > > Wait…what…?? > > Let me listen to it again… > > Oh I see what you mean, because of the “exterminator” term. > > That’s not how I read it, since as far as I am aware, if you call an exterminator to get a raccoon out of your basement she will set live traps and relocate the raccoon. > > I was once asked to go into a tight crawl space with a 12 gauge to kill a large 30 lb raccoon that didn’t want to leave. There were many good reasons to decline that request. > [@Trump's Republican primary campaign](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/3876): > > But, you know very well that that is not what the intended audience hears. The intended audience does not even hear the first syllable in “raccoon,” and you know that too. Your astoundingly persistent denial of the very existence of dog-whistle messaging is entirely disingenuous and in no way credible. Give it up. > [@Trump's Republican primary campaign](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/3877): > > You are just making crap up now BG. You are the one with the selective hearing. Your desperation to make any and every last drop of everything into a racial issue is unbecoming, but understandable, since your whole world view rests on it’s exclusive claim as savior of the browns and blacks. > > Can’t a nigga eat a slice of watermelon, or be the butt of a joke, without some privileged social justice warrior coming along and making it racial? > [@Trump's Republican primary campaign](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/3878): > > Hank, there’s space there for a couple of warnings. > > But you’re getting one for the accusation of lying. “Making crap up” implies both falsehood and deliberate intent. Don’t do it again. 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? What the fuck? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/2 "2016-04-23T05:39:33Z")
[Link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=791016) to the suspension thread, which contains three warnings in the last six months, last one for disobeying mod instructions ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/3 "2016-04-23T05:51:44Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > … > > “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? > > What the fuck? 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? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/4 "2016-04-23T06:03:19Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. Do you not agree that there is a distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/5 "2016-04-23T12:35:22Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > 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. > > Do you not agree that there is a distinction? It is still a lie, because you are lying about knowing what is in the box. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/6 "2016-04-23T13:42:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/7 "2016-04-23T14:21:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/8 "2016-04-23T14:23:01Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > … > > 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. > > Do you not agree that there is a distinction? 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. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/9 "2016-04-23T14:32:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It is still a lie, because you are lying about knowing what is in the box. 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. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/10 "2016-04-23T14:36:30Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/11 "2016-04-23T14:50:50Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > 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? This? > [@bldysabba](#): > > … > > 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. > > … 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/12 "2016-04-23T15:05:10Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > 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. Lying by other words is still lying, if they don’t disclose it is just a guess. Attack the statement, not the poster, as did BG. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/13 "2016-04-23T16:36:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/14 "2016-04-23T16:57:31Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/15 "2016-04-23T17:19:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/16 "2016-04-23T17:20:18Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Lying by other words is still lying, if they don’t disclose it is just a guess. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/17 "2016-04-23T17:38:29Z")
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. ? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/18 "2016-04-23T17:57:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/19 "2016-04-23T18:04:36Z")
[Here’s an earlier thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=762897), although I don’t think it was the same one I was thinking about in that last post. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/20 "2016-04-23T19:24:46Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=2)