I agree that there is no real distinction, but the phrasing of a statement has always been a part of polite society.
Just like if you see a strange person loitering around your business, you walk up and say, “May I help you, sir?” instead of what you really mean which is “What in the hell are you doing here?” Everyone understands that the first means the latter, but by being polite and using fictions to phrase our words, we indicate personal respect for others to maintain order.
Correct. It is fairly common among guys to insult each other in casual conversation in ways that would clearly be against the rules on this MB. The rules don’t say “no insults unless they are mild”. They say “no insults”.
But as I said above, the fiction created makes an enormous difference. If I say that your post was moronic, then you can take comfort* in the fact that I don’t consider you moronic, but that in a moment of haste you posted something that was moronic.
If I said that YOU were moronic, then that gets your dander up and engages that area of the brain that makes you want to protect yourself and then fire back that I’m an asshole, etc. Keeping the insults not personal puts a stop to that.
*Not that you would worry all that much about an insult from someone you never met on an internet board, but OTOH, that might make you want to fight even harder since no personal relationship is at stake.
I don’t see any real distinction. They’re both insults, and the difference is only distinquished for this particular rule. Perhaps I don’t take the insults to heart sufficiently to care. Even though I can be a hot head, it’s temporary, I’ll forget about either kind of insult in short time, and with but a few exceptions I don’t usually know who I’m corresponding with, or care.
Not really, the thread is all over the place. And as I’ll keep saying, the difference between the cases is insignificant. I think it should be no insults, or insults. But the rules are what they are, and I’ll follow them, or not depending on the situation.
It’s what I think of you as person (being moronic is your trait) vs it’s what you are doing at this moment (acting moronically is your state).
States can change, traits tend to be fundamental characteristics. Both may be insulting, though one criticizes a specific action, the other criticizes you as a person.
If you do something dickish, then you are being a dick. And if you are being a dick, you are a dick. If you want to specify that someone is in the permanent state of being dick you could, but it doesn’t really matter as far as this rule is concerned.
I disagree. You could have posted something that the other person felt was dickish, but it was not your intention to do so, and the poster misunderstood your intention. Therefore you weren’t actually “being a dick,” and an insult to your post doesn’t reach you personally.
The road to heaven is paved with dickish intentions. I know that makes no sense, but I’m not in a dickish enough mood to provide a truly dickish response right now.
I disagree. It’s entirely possible to act like a dick but not be a dick. It’s a small, yet important distinction. Acting like a dick (“being a dick”, as it were) is not the same thing as being in a permanent state of dickishness.
Like being drunk - there’s a difference between being drunk (a temporary state of affairs for most people; they will sober up and go back to being themselves) and being a drunkard (not temporary and unlikely to change on its own).
Well, personal dander aside, I figured it’s a useful fiction that prevents GD from being reduced to endless ripostes of “ur a traitor, fag”/“no, u” and such, where the competition to be clever and articulate gets replaced with a rush to the bottom.