# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/41 "2016-04-28T00:54:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I know the mods were tied up recently due to “The Great Outage”, but with that over now it would be nice to get some mod input in this thread. Or are you guys still wrestling with that other problem? You must be referring to the handsomeharry banning, because that’s getting plenty of mod input. ---
**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 29, 2016, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/42 "2016-04-29T04:48:05Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > You must be referring to the handsomeharry banning, because that’s getting plenty of mod input. No, I wasn’t referring to that, but your point is well taken! 😉 Hello, Mods! Hello!! Anybody there!?!? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/43 "2016-05-01T03:17:29Z")
Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/44 "2016-05-01T03:34:06Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Seriously? He posted it before the HH thing. He was referring to the hacking and outage, I believe. And having to ban all the socks. I can, BTW, see an argument that BG should have received at least a note if not a Warning for what he said. It still wouldn’t change that HB deserved one, however. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/45 "2016-05-01T03:50:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > He posted it before the HH thing. He was referring to the hacking and outage, I believe. And having to ban all the socks. > > I can, BTW, see an argument that BG should have received at least a note if not a Warning for what he said. It still wouldn’t change that HB deserved one, however. My comment was directed at the mods, not Mace(and in any case, I was joking when I said he was referring to hh) . You haven’t responded to my last post to you either, btw ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/46 "2016-05-03T05:03:08Z")
What does one have to do to get a response from the mods around here? ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/47 "2016-05-03T06:39:52Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > What does one have to do to get a response from the mods around here? If you scritch their bellies they’ll either purr or bite you. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/48 "2016-05-03T07:02:14Z")
Sorry I missed this–I didn’t scroll up far enough earlier, I guess. > [@bldysabba](#): > > No, the crucial thing you’re missing is that the person may legitimately think they know the truth. For instance, in this case BG could easily be thinking it is true that HB knows about dog whistles. In his reading of events, that is the truth. So when HB tells him that he’s making it up, there is no necessary implication of deliberate falsehood, merely a reminder that he is not in a position to know, that his reading of HB’s motivations is imagined, not reality. This is NOT an accusation of lying. I do not agree. The accusation that you are “making it up” means that you are aware that you don’t know the truth, and are coming up with your own ideas–and are presenting those ideas as the truth. Making things up is not the same thing as seeing things that aren’t there. If I say a child is making up their story about a dog chasing them, do I mean that the child actually thought a dog was chasing them? No, I mean they lied. I know that you occasionally read people saying that you “unknowingly made up” something, but that specifically requires that adverb, because the words by themselves mean that you did it intentionally. Maybe you use it differently. But that’s how I understand the phrase, and it is how it appears to be being used here and the other times the mods have sanctioned it. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/49 "2016-05-03T07:20:22Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Sorry I missed this–I didn’t scroll up far enough earlier, I guess. > > I do not agree. The accusation that you are “making it up” means that you are aware that you don’t know the truth, and are coming up with your own ideas–and are presenting those ideas as the truth. Making things up is not the same thing as seeing things that aren’t there. > > If I say a child is making up their story about a dog chasing them, do I mean that the child actually thought a dog was chasing them? No, I mean they lied. Maybe you mean it like that, and certainly there are circumstances in which that would be its primary meaning. But that is _not_ always the case, and this is a great example of when it isn’t. Like I said before, if someone was to tell me that they knew my motivation behind something was, for instance, laziness, and I told them they’re making that up, it’s not an accusation of lying. I’m not telling them that they know it isn’t my motivation and still claim that it is. I’m just reminding them that it is their assumptions that tells them I’m lazy, not their knowledge. This is not at all a deliberate accusation of falsehood. It is very easy to believe your own thought processes to the extent that you blur the line between actual fact and your model of the world. Being told which of those two your statement belongs in doesn’t include a presupposition that you know which one your statement belongs in as well. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/50 "2016-05-05T07:06:31Z")
I’ve reported the thread. Maybe that will get a response. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/51 "2016-05-05T11:26:00Z")
I haven’t seen the report - I don’t get them for ATMB, just GD and Elections - but I’ll say that the central thesis of the ‘liar’ rule remains the same, at least as far as I’m concerned. Don’t do this: 1. Post that someone is telling an untruth 2. Post that they’re doing so intentionally Context is extremely important, of course. I have no interest in parsing out theoreticals and examples. If the line is vague it’s a safe bet I consider that a feature, not a bug, and posters should adjust their posting accordingly. Best practice, as always? Address the post, not the poster. And don’t be a jerk about it. ---
**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:** [May 5, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/52 "2016-05-05T13:51:58Z")
**JC** : Can you address post #25? Thanks. ---
**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:** [May 5, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/53 "2016-05-05T13:57:55Z")
And can you explain why the use of [“willful denial”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19300214&postcount=14) is OK? I can’t see any space between than expression and “you’re lying”. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/54 "2016-05-05T20:01:32Z")
As I said, I won’t get into specifics and establishing safe harbors other than ‘it’s an enormous grey area and it’s best to avoid such things completely’. Honestly, personally characterizing another poster’s behavior or posts is always a bad idea. It doesn’t advance debate or one’s position in any way and can only lead to hard feelings. As for post #25? I won’t disclose things said on the loop. ---
**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:** [May 5, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/55 "2016-05-05T22:46:05Z")
Jonathan Chance, can you please comment on the first of the warnings. There are several people in this thread that think that a comment about perceived unfairness in your moderation does not equate to a personal insult. > [@](#): > > 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. Dopers have always been able to call the moderators jackbooted thugs without penalty. It seems to me that the above comment is pretty similar in tone and intent. ---
**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:** [May 5, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/56 "2016-05-05T22:57:55Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > As I said, I won’t get into specifics and establishing safe harbors other than ‘it’s an enormous grey area and it’s best to avoid such things completely’. > > Honestly, personally characterizing another poster’s behavior or posts is always a bad idea. It doesn’t advance debate or one’s position in any way and can only lead to hard feelings. > > As for post #25? I won’t disclose things said on the loop. I agree it’s best to avoid, however that’s not what happened here. John made the point in post 25 and I reiterated it in post 26, and clarified in post 39. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/57 "2016-05-05T23:49:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And can you explain why the use of [“willful denial”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19300214&postcount=14) is OK? I can’t see any space between than expression and “you’re lying”. I can, especially in politically charged scientific topics. I can cite. Rational Wiki on [Willful ignorance](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance): [INDENT]“Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias. " [/INDENT] Nothing about dishonesty yet. Continuing: [INDENT]” In practice though, the word “ignorance” has often come to mean “willful ignorance”, and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually carries that meaning. It is sometimes referred to as _tactical stupidity_."[/INDENT] This reminds me of [Bad faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith). From wiki; I add emphasis: [INDENT][INDENT]Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.[1] It may involve intentional deceit of others, **or self-deception**. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Is self-deception synonymous with lying in general usage? I say no. [Self-deception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception) is a fascinating topic on its own: [INDENT] Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth (or lack of truth) so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception. [/INDENT] In law, there is the concept of [Willful blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness), " in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping himself or herself unaware of facts that would render him or her liable." Finally, I’ll note that the urban dictionary appears to grasp the concept of willful ignorance as distinct from intentional and conscious falsehood. [Urban Dictionary: willful ignorance](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=willful%20ignorance) Question for John Chance: Could you precisely delineate the best way to accuse someone of habitually lying in GD, while still not running afoul of the rules against the same? Similarly for remarks regarding daily bathing. It would make line dancing a lot easier. Also, where does the board keep its get out of jail free cards? (I kid, I kid.) ---
**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:** [May 6, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/58 "2016-05-06T00:42:42Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I can, especially in politically charged scientific topics. I can cite. > > Rational Wiki on [Willful ignorance](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance): [INDENT]“Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias. " > [/INDENT] > Nothing about dishonesty yet. Continuing: [INDENT]” In practice though, the word “ignorance” has often come to mean “willful ignorance”, and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually carries that meaning. > > It is sometimes referred to as _tactical stupidity_."[/INDENT] > > This reminds me of [Bad faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith). From wiki; I add emphasis: [INDENT][INDENT]Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.[1] It may involve intentional deceit of others, **or self-deception**. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Is self-deception synonymous with lying in general usage? I say no. > > [Self-deception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception) is a fascinating topic on its own: [INDENT] Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth (or lack of truth) so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception. [/INDENT] > > In law, there is the concept of [Willful blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness), " in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping himself or herself unaware of facts that would render him or her liable." > > Finally, I’ll note that the urban dictionary appears to grasp the concept of willful ignorance as distinct from intentional and conscious falsehood. [Urban Dictionary: willful ignorance](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=willful%20ignorance) The question was concerning the phrase “willful denial”, not “willful ignorance” or any other term. “Denial”, not something else. ---
**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:** [May 6, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/59 "2016-05-06T00:50:59Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > As I said, I won’t get into specifics and establishing safe harbors other than ‘it’s an enormous grey area and it’s best to avoid such things completely’. I’m not looking for a safe harbor. I asked 2 specific questions about 2 specific posts. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/60 "2016-05-06T01:18:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The question was concerning the phrase “willful denial”, not “willful ignorance” or any other term. “Denial”, not something else. I opine that the underlying phenomenon could encompass “Willful denial” depending upon the context. I acknowledge that the phrase could cover a fair amount of ground, including deception. I found examples implying deception or at least willful blindness on the web. But there are also screeds like [this](https://drhurd.com/2015/11/21/americas-sea-of-red-ink-and-denial/). In that context willful means “Responsible for” and denial is taken in the psychological sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=4)