That mischaracterizes my point, which is that if it is a fair paraphrase then no new inflammatory/insulting thing has been added. Of course, it might not be a fair paraphrase. I’n saying you cannot duck that problem.
I am saying the result ought to turn on the fairness of the paraphrase.
AFAIK, you can’t block PMs from moderators.
No one insults me via PM…I feel left out.
If you respond to a statement that was made in non-inflammatory manner (even if you find the opinion itself offensive) with a response framed in an inflammatory way then in fact something inflammatory has been added. I’m sorry, but your “point” is quite clearly incorrect, even if the paraphrase is fair.
As I’ve already said, even without the inflammatory language the paraphrase was inaccurate. Disapproval of behavior does not equate to personal hatred.
You’re correct. Oh man, I laughed out loud at that.
I am reminded of the case where a poster got in trouble for “pretending” another poster with whom they disagreed said “nigger”…and not in an academic way either…
Fortunately, the powers that be got right on that and suspended said poster for a whopping 3 days…over a weekend none the less!
Poor guy.
This. It’s not so complicated.
1, 2, and 2a are all fair game in IMHO. 2b. is out of bounds. In IMHO.
FTR I agree with the many posters who disagree with Flyer’s opinions about the world in this and other threads. I also find his method of posting statistically extreme doctrine as if it was self-evident divinely determined fact to be overbearing bordering on deliberately inflammatory.
Those things are not against the rules however.
Said another way:
Shouting “I’m an idiot” is OK by the rules.
Shouting “I agree: You’re an idiot” is not OK by the rules.
That’s a rather odd and wrong idea of language, that somehow inflammatory nature is severable from semantic content. But you seem quite sure of yourself, so go for it man.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. But that is beside my point.
Stop telling people what to do. Junior Modding! JUNIOR MODDING!!! I call shenanigans.
That’s inflammatory punctuation.
I don’t believe a detailed semantic analysis is needed to determine if “fags” is inflammatory.
Part of your point was whether or not it was a fair paraphrase. It’s not.
Obviously “fags” is inflammatory. I think one aspect of Richard’s point rests more on whether Flyer’s stated opinion was equally inflammatory. Sometimes weasel words can carry the same meaning as explicitly offensive words.
But I don’t disagree that, outside the Pit, there are more appropriate ways to call out such opinions that are equally effective.
Regardless of whether Flyer’s opinion was inflammatory, responding in an inflammatory way was against the rules. As I said, “He started it!” is not a defense.
I’m trying to imagine a debate about Same Sex Marriage (and we’ve had many such debates here) without allowing the anti side to express views on homosexuality. Not seeing how that could happen, if we assume that any expression that homosexuality, or homosexual acts, is “wrong” is also inflammatory.
I don’t feel that msmith537’s paraphrase was a fair one. Flyer’s post displayed a disgust with the behavior of a group of people. It did not state that those people should be referred to by an ugly slur. The assumption that the first probably means the second is not the issue. You don’t get to make that accusation outside of the Pit.
Whoa, settle down Beavis.
But do you think **Flyer **should have got a warning/ note too?
Wait, what is the actual insult in this case?
“You are __________.”
What goes in the blank?
A person who hates fags.
But there are other sentence structures that can be employed to insult someone, so just because a person doesn’t use the phrase “you are…” doesn’t mean they haven’t insulted anyone.
You are a person that uses terms such as fag.