https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21897306&postcount=558
He could have gotten a note, but a warning was not necessary.
He blatantly called someone stupid outside of the Pit, it wasn’t even subtle.
Okay. Why?
I agree with Asahi. This was more of a knock it off than worthy of a warning.
Thirded.
I don’t think this is the same as “blatantly calling someone stupid”:
What if someone wrote to me:
Would that person deserve a warning too? It’s the same construction. In either case, the first sentence criticizes a a view - really, an outlook on humanity. In either case, the last sentence essentially says, “I always say that a more careful approach is superior to the crappy approach you are taking.”
None of that seems like “blatantly calling someone stupid” to me.
.
He wasn’t criticizing a specific post, he was criticizing a poster. There’s a difference.
Do you keep a scorecard?
I don’t really see an insult, either. Saying someone has a negative view on the world is a negative comment, but it’s not inherently an attack on them.
If I say that I think that Bill Maher has a very mean-spirited, cynical view of the world, I would find it ridiculous if someone said I was insulting him. No, I’d be commenting on my opinion of his views.
An insult would be of the form “Bill Maher is a mean-spirited jerk.” Not saying he’s too negative.
I could see it being a distraction from the topic, or personalizing. But those usually get Notes, not Warnings.
And, no, two other Warnings for insults would not persuade me he was sneakily trying to insult him, posting with the intent to hurt his feelings while being subtle about it.
I have a sincere question. I may suffer from Social Communication Disorder and would like some feedback.
CarnalK was responding to
I understand that insults of Liz Warren are acceptable here since she is not an SDMB Member or Guest. But in a hypothetical where Warren were a Doper, would the post CarnalK responded to also have received a Warning? Which post is “nastier”?
Ha, thanks for the memory. Getting tagged for personal insults because I said “X clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about” is one of my favorite Jonathan Chance warnings.
Well, that was weird.
Glancing at an ATMB thread to check out the latest gripe about Heavy-Handed Mod Jurisprudence, I only belatedly realize that the disputed warning was issued for insulting me. :eek:
By no means am I second-guessing JC’s upholding of proper board culture, but will just note in passing that the insults in question (evidently an outgrowth of a mild spat over vaping in GD) don’t ping my aggrievedness meter much.*
As for being unkind to politicians (I have scant respect for most, whether Dems, GOPers or cranky old Vermont socialists), if we ever get to the point on this board where rude remarks about politicos result in sanctions, it’ll be a strong indication that it’s time to move on.
I was reminded of the time Johnny Keane (onetime Cardinal and Yankee manager, famous early in his career for being mild-mannered and never using obscenities) was managing in the Texas League and was thrown out of a game by an umpire named Frenchy Arceneaux. Furious, Keane yelled from the dugout, “Arceneaux! You know what you are, Arceneaux? You’re just a mean man is what you are!”*
**thus gaining a place in the Genteel Umpire Razzing Hall of Fame along with the Red Sox’s Dom DiMaggio, who once flew into a rage at being called out on strikes and screamed at the ump, “I have never witnessed such incompetence in all my life!”.
***I only posted in this thread because I don’t want to get a reputation as the Doper equivalent of Jim Coates, a marginal Yankees pitcher in the '60s who was notorious for throwing at hitters and then evading involvement in the benches-clearing brawls that ensued.
Apparently, though, you have no problem earning the reputation as the SDMB’s go-to guy for obscure baseball trivia. As a fellow connoisseur of useless information, I am impressed. 
Your example is not comparable. The modded comment was not criticizing a lack of judgement, it was saying that they use cynicism in place of intelligence. The specific words used matter. Your example above transforms a personal insult into a criticism of behavior, and is a good example of what could have been said to avoid being a personal insult. As it is, the original statement was calling a person stupid and the warning seems warranted to me.
If I read you correctly, you assert that saying to someone, “you use cynicism in place of intelligence” is identical to blatantly saying, “You are stupid.”
I don’t see how that works. It’s an accusation of intellectual laziness - “you’d rather resort to a cynical worldview than take the time to examine and analyze a situation.” But intellectual laziness is not the same as stupidity.
.
I don’t think it’s quite that clear cut. I was criticizing his attitude. That’s probably around the border of criticizing the person or the post. He said the Warren camp was all gloating that Bernie had a heart attack and I responded that was an ugly viewpoint and not unfamiliar from him. Kind of a judgment call, imho. Still, more warning worthy than the other two Skywatcher linked. Those two were bull.
And, to what CairoCarol is saying, yes exactly. I don’t think he’s stupid so I certainly wasn’t calling him stupid.
Moderator Action
I am temporarily closing this due to the fact that Jonathan Chance is currently unavailable to comment on the warning in question. This thread will be re-opened when he returns.
I’m back.
I have no intention of walking back that warning. CarnalK was taking a shot at another poster. He should own that and not weasel around it. His post in this thread, above:
Show’s a certain lack of understanding of both the rules and why he has been sanctioned. Telling other people that a fellow poster doesn’t know what he’s talking about is directly insulting and belittling another poster and presenting them as not being a real person somehow. If we allow that sort of thing we throw out debate entirely.