No the huge disconnect is between your, apparent, definition of hate speech, which includes personal insults, and the board’s/one in the most common use, neither of which define personal insults as hate speech.
I’m not trying to equate the two. Rather, I’m pointing out that they are both hurtful. They may be hurtful in different ways, but they are both hurtful. To say that hate speech is a terrible offense that has no place on the SDMB but hurtful personal insults are a-ok in the Pit is walking a very fine line. There may be times when being deliberately hurtful with insults can be justified, but most of the time in the Pit it seems like it’s insulting for recreational fun.
As for the typo pit thread, I was able to find it. It actually was someone pitting someone else for pointing out typos. As the thread was from a long time ago and the people are still active, I’d rather not link the thread and have them dragged into this conversation and dredge all that up. If anyone wants verification, have a mod PM me and I’ll give them the link so they can confirm.
Even without linking the specific thread, there’s nothing stopping someone from being pitted for a trivial reason–like improper use of they’re/their/there–and the thread becoming a Festivus pole for airing of all grievances against the person. If there are lots of grievances, then the thread will take on a life of its own as an omnibus pitting thread of the pittee for all grievances past, present, and future that have nothing to do with the OP. Even if the core issue in the OP is justified–like complaining about improper grammar–that doesn’t necessarily mean that virtually unfettered personal insults about the person are justified. They’re allowed because the Pit rules allow it, but I don’t feel it’s morally justified in most cases.
So are you walking back your complaint that there are frequent pittings due to personal quirks, and instead are now worried about something that is theoretically possible but doesn’t seem to happen? I guess I’d support you in condemning it if it were a real problem.
The initial may pitting may be something valid to complain about, but the posts in the thread are often unfettered personal insults against the person for any grievance. The pitting is often just opening the floodgates for whatever people want to complain about. There’s no rails in a Pit thread to keep it on track with the OP. Furthermore, even if the initial issue is something complain-worthy, I often don’t feel it justifies Pit-level personal insults even about that issue. Many of the Pit threads are about complain worthy issues, but not worthy of unfettered personal insults against the person. If the Grand Wizard of the KKK is trying to recruit members, that’s worthy of insults. But if someone is just doing something annoying like creating too many boring threads, then dragging them into the Pit for a pile on is excessive.
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.