How should the Pit be changed, if at all?

Yep. Or, for example, someone saying that because you’re a Catholic, and you had your kids baptized by a Catholic priest, and, say, you know a guy from high school who became a priest, you are therefore actively cooperating in the sexual molestation of your own children.

But apparently that’s permissible. Or so I’ve been told.

Like I said,. I’d agree it’s a problem if it actually happened.

Read the thread. It happened, others agree and acknowledge it.

Which thread am I supposed to read? This one has a lack of examples.

Way back in this thread, there’s a discussion of exactly what I just mentioned, with specific links and comments from other posters.

Whatever, I have no desire to relive it. And the mods (or the mod of the Pit, anyway) were quite explicitly okay with it anyway. So nothing can be done.

But there are apparently very, very few limits as to what can be said in the Pit. No matter what the rules say. A few racist slurs are banned. That’s about it. Sexist slurs are fine. Religious bigotry is fine.

Maybe SDMB needs a cesspool. Maybe. My opinion, increasingly, is that it doesn’t.

I read the thread, Saintly_Loser, and participated in it. What happened is this:

  • In post #117, you introduced the subject of your children, in the context of your not having particular qualms about their being in the company of Catholic priests of your acquaintaince. (Which, fine, your choice, but IMO if you’re voluntarily appealing to details of your IRL personal life to back up your expression of your views as a poster, those details become part of the discussion.)
  • In post #173, ZosterSandstorm (whom, by the way, nobody in their right mind could possibly mistake for any kind of advocate of “progressive orthodoxy”), responded to your further remark about trusting your children with your priest friend by citing Leviticus 18:21, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Moloch”.
    Which to me seemed very plainly to be an accusation of colluding with an innately evil institution that destroys children. Which is indeed an insulting thing to say about the Catholic Church, but is not the same thing as an accusation that you personally were deliberately and knowingly authorizing or encouraging the rape of your children.
  • In post #174, you fumed that that response “was coming awfully close to truly unacceptable”, apparently because you interpreted it as the latter kind of accusation rather than the former. (You had gotten similarly shirty in post #156 when Euphonious_Polemic quoted Jeremiah 5:21 at you.)
  • In post #175, ZS repeated his accusation that you were “someone who is performatively handing his kids over to Catholic priests to prove his loyalty to the group”. Again, that strikes me as an accusation of collusion with an evil institution that’s dangerous to kids, but not an accusation that you’re literally seeking or condoning the rape of your kids.
  • In post #257, after continuing to argue on many related themes with several other posters including ZS, you suddenly declared that ZS “has already said that I willingly and knowingly hand my own children over to child molesters”. And you’ve been swanning around on your cross about it ever since.

Look, Saintly_Loser, I took your side for several posts in that thread where I thought you were being unfairly misinterpreted, and I sure don’t hold any brief for the vast majority of ZosterSandstorm’s views, including his intemperate anti-Catholicism. (Nor has ZS gotten a free pass from many other posters, either for stuff he’s said to you or for his other intemperate views.)

But I’m tired of your extended martyr schtick on this subject, and I wasn’t particularly impressed in that thread by your nitpickery in defense of the Church. It was a Pit thread started in some quite justifiable rage against large-scale institutional misconduct of the worst kind, and you didn’t contribute much to it with your “Well, actually” and “Not all priests” demurs. I don’t defend the anti-Church badmouthing of many posters as any kind of constructive argument, but AFAICT it was a legitimate subject of typical froth-mouthed Pit invective.

You were miffed, as per your post #156, because you felt you “approached this thread in the spirit of discussion” and “haven’t insulted anyone” and “haven’t misrepresented anything anyone said” and “haven’t said anything that isn’t true”. Well, Saintly_Loser, speaking as another Doper who generally approaches even Pit threads in the spirit of discussion, and doesn’t generally engage in personal insults, and tries hard not to misrepresent anything anyone says and not to say anything that isn’t true, I say don’t show up to a fucking snake fight if you’re scared of getting bit.

And it’s just outright absurd for anyone to argue that that particular snake fight constitutes any kind of evidence that “progressive orthodoxy” is unfairly privileged on the SDMB. ZosterSandstorm, progressive orthodoxy? It is to laugh.

I’m not scared of much. Certainly not pixels on a screen.

And ZS said what he said.

And the Pit mod knows exactly how far over the line that was. I’m not discussing that in public (and I will never discuss my children here at SDMB again).

I know what he said. Or she. Doesn’t matter. And I know it’s done and over, and the Pit mod is fine with it. So be it. You think I’m a martyr? That’s the conclusion you’ve drawn from my 20-year posting history? Seriously?

I don’t care. What you think is not really important to me.

I didn’t make that argument. I don’t even know what you’re talking about, really.

Again, it would help to have specific examples of the behavior you’re complaining about rather than just the general vague complaint.

If a Pit thread is started specifically to Pit a particular poster for their posting behavior, then I still don’t see how subsequently introducing other criticisms of their posting behavior counts as “hav[ing] nothing to do with the OP”.

That’s the spirit.

^^^ Pretty much this. And one or two of those malcontents are becoming tediously repetitive.

I note that, more than four days later, no such example has been provided.

No, it’s a very broad line. Wide than the Nile. Calling some troll a motherfucker vs saying all gays need to burn are worlds apart.

You, too? I thought I was the only one hearing crickets.

Of course, there’s nothing moddable about refusing to provide proof for one’s counterfactual statements. Good think there’s still a place where such behaviour can be called out.

I’m back from my holiday, but I’m still hesitant to do this. Last time I was requested to give examples I got mod noted for it. @Sam_Stone gave some earlier, take a look at those.

Sorry, what in that post are the “many moderate views” that are “considered unacceptable”, please? A “look at this whole post” link is not very helpful in actually answering the question put to you.

And where were you mod-noted for just giving examples of “moderate views”?

My county school board was shut down a few weeks back by anti-maskers who called them Nazis and Satanists and traitors, and who then declared themselves the new school board. My duly elected representative is making headlines for calling for more bloodshed and insurrection.

If “moderate” views are defined as “views held by a significant number, or even the majority, of a population,” then these are moderate views. Any rule that said people couldn’t be pitted for “moderate” views would be absurd.

The collusion in question was letting a priest watch his kids. There’s no daylight between that and “an accusation that you’re literally seeking or condoning the rape of your kids.” The word “performatively” removed all doubt.

Coulda fooled me!

Well, I’m not Filmore, but here are some that I think resemble what they are talking about:

Sam Stone pitted for gullibility re: Trump, expanded into a general pitting of everything Stoney
This thread about MordecaiB began with a pitting about board wars, but shortly morphed into an omnibus pitting, including someone urging everyone to “heap more scorn” on MordecaiB
This thread pitting octopus for…something , I don’t know, quickly turned into an omnibus bashing thread

I’d like to make it clear that I am not defending these pitted posters or arguing that their pittings were not “justified,” whatever that means. I strongly disagree with all three of them on just about everything. However, when I read filmore’s description of pittings “becoming a Festivus pole for airing of all grievances against the person,” I knew I had seen this happen many, many times. I can’t believe that anyone who spends regular time in the Pit would suggest it doesn’t happen. If I had the time, I’m sure I could link to many more.

There’s really no way to prove this to someone who doesn’t see it. For instance, if someone were sitting in a hate group, there would be no way of proving to them that certain instances of what the group is doing is wrong. Every example would be waved away as a joke or not really significant.

If that person doesn’t value the feelings of the person the group is targeting, there’s no way to give examples to convince them any differently.

I read through those, and they don’t really make the point that you say that they do.

Sam’s thread would have been pretty short if he hadn’t come in guns blazing and insulting everyone who agreed that Sam was being naive in giving any credence to Trump’s tweets.

MordecaiB’s thread was all about how he was trying to stir up shit, and seemed pretty well deserved.

Octupus’s thread was a bunch of jokes, barely even referencing the subject of the thread, until octopus himself came in and dropped a turd, which people responded to.

So, it’s not really an airing all grievances, it is engaging them and the things that they are saying in that thread.

You can’t even give an example? I’ll put aside that you have asserted that this board is simply a hate group, and we’ll pretend that you said something slightly more based in reality.

Let’s say that someone is sitting in a meeting, and they say that things said in that meeting made them feel uncomfortable. Would they be given a pass to leave it at that, and make everyone wonder if it was the discussion about whether to have salad for lunch, or whether it was about the parking discussion, or what was it in that meeting that upset them?

Or would it be more reasonable for them to say, “When Doug said, ‘x’, I felt that that was inappropriate.”?

Then there can be a discussion about whether x was inappropriate, but if x hasn’t even been defined, then all anyone can do is to walk on eggshells and hope that they haven’t done anything that has given offense.

You are making a number of faulty assumptions in order to achieve your conclusion that you don’t need to back up your claims.

As I’ve said before, being passive aggressive isn’t an argument, it isn’t a valid debate tactic, it’s just asinine, and the only tactic it falls under is that of trying to annoy your opponent until they give up in disgust.

That does work sometimes, lets someone “win the thread”, but in this instance, since it is you that seems to be wanting changes, then it is actually on you to make your case, not just huff and puff as you slam doors.

Let’s take the fights against racism and misogyny on this board. Posters who were offended by racial and mysogenistic posts were very specific in the posts, very specific in why they were inappropriate, and very specific as to how they felt they should be moderated. If they had just whined that there was racism and misogyny, and that they refused to give examples because it would be waved away, then they would have had a pretty weak argument, and they would have been taken as seriously as those who whine that people are allowed to say mean things in the pit.

Most of the people who get pitted are people who objectively do not value the feelings of other members of the board. They troll, they lie, they upset other people’s feelings in a myriad of ways. It’s quite possible to be extremely harmful to others while staying within the rules of other forums. So, yeah, when people take them to task, their feelings may not be the highest priority. I’m not sure that you have made a good case that they should be.

Posters are not pitted because their breath smells, or because they are ugly, they are pitted specifically because of their actions on this board. They are pitted because other posters find them to be disingenuous, to advocate odious positions, or both. What you call a pile on is simply doing what you and the movement you are advocating for here refuse to do, and give examples of that behavior, and explanations as to why that behavior is harmful to other posters and the board.

And as far as that goes, your last paragraph, passive aggressive as it is meant to be on your part, is also sometimes true, in that usually the pittee doesn’t value the feelings of those they upset with their trolling, and no matter how many examples they are given, they will not be convinced to behave any differently.