Could you explain to me why you think there is no difference between deliberately saying something you know is not true and saying something which may or may not be true?
If you claim something without regard to whether it is true or not, you are still lying. You are pretending you know something when you don’t.
Hence the stones issue. Saying there are definitely six stones when you don’t know there are six stones is still lying. Making things up and lying are the same in that context.
Making stuff up while pretending they are telling the truth so is lying.
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.
Regarding the first example, ("The way that you “moderate” discussions of Islam is identical to the way that the moderators of Stormfront.org “moderate” discussions of the Holocaust. Identical. ") : that was presented outside of ATMB. I could imagine it getting mod noted in ATMB. It seems doubly inappropriate in GD.
Also, I tie my shoe in exactly the same way Pol Pot did. Identical.
How about being told that you’re saying something you know to be false, as opposed to being told that you’re imagining something you believe to be true?
I think the simple resolution here is to go back to basics. The whole point of the “don’t be a jerk” rule is that no enumeration of specific rules can possibly cover every conceivable way of being a jerk (you could probably come up with some variant on Gödel’s Theorem to this effect). So if someone is behaving in a way that’s clearly jerky, without being an obvious violation of any specific previously-enumerated rule, then that person should be warned/suspended/banned, and the reason given for the warning/suspension/banning should be that the person was being a jerk.
It can be, quite easily, especially in this case, and I’ve elaborated why this is the case enough times that there’s no point in doing so again.
At the very least though, you can acknowledge that there are posters (minimum two, John Mace and me) who believe there is a significant distinction between the two things?
If there can be reasonable disagreement on the matter, I think the rule needs to be explicitly expanded to include this interpretation and HB’s warning rescinded.
And, at minimum, you and I agree that the warning for complaining about moderation is undeserved. I think that one should be rescinded too, and the one on lying needs to be reconsidered as well (or at least the rule needs to be made more explicit, and BG needs to get a warning as well).
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?
Discussions of moderation belong in ATMB, not GD. There was no substantiation in the post whatsoever - it just criticized the moderation using highly inflammatory language in an inappropriate forum. (To be fair Beecher made 3 posts in a row - the first two had some content (ATMB stuff in GD), but the last was just jerkitude.) I have no problem with curbing that sort of behavior. I could easily see it receiving a mod note in the Pit.
“You are making stuff up”, I concede is a borderline case and is context-dependent. Bone helpfully links to Jon Chance’s remarks on that. I’ll quote:
Mods don’t hold posters to best practices per se, but it’s a bar that good posters aim for, though they may fall short.
Now if you excuse me, I have a re-education camp to run.