# Ivory Tower Denizen, Is There a Reason for a Warning Rather than an Explanation? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 23, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033 "2017-09-23T12:01:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/181 "2017-09-27T20:53:21Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If the board starts modding this sort of lame-shit one-liner that comes across as a petulant attempt at snark, the board will only be better for it. I’d be in favor, to be sure. But I’m not in favor of enforcing such a rule only when the snarking is directed against a left-favored target and more forgiving of snark against the right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/182 "2017-09-27T20:54:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > There is an element of asymmetry, but I don’t think it’s quite that “the political aspects of his presence here are disfavored.” > > It’s that if you have a kind of aggravating circumstance for posts that get close to the line and also attack an oppressed identity, then you are going to net more conservatives than liberals. I think that’s probably a better explanation for what happened here than some anti-conservative bias. Of course, you’re free to argue that such a rule is itself biased against conservatives. But if it is, it is so in a rather more complex and defensible way than you suggest. > > I’m not saying that implicit rule is a good idea. I don’t think it is. But I also think it’s more defensible than simple direct bias against conservative posters. It’s not obvious to me that “oppressed identity,” is a neutral category. I argue the existence and treatment of “oppressed identity” members is central to much of today’s political debate, and thus is a proxy for liberals and conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/183 "2017-09-27T20:56:35Z")
And for what it’s worth, I think my own view of gender identity is fairly described as progressive. But the way to get more people to share this view is, in my opinion, by engaging their inaccuracies rather than the lefty-shaming approach exemplified here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/184 "2017-09-27T20:57:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d be in favor, to be sure. > > But I’m not in favor of enforcing such a rule only when the snarking is directed against a left-favored target and more forgiving of snark against the right. Which I could understand if you came up with like examples of someone on the left getting away with this repeatedly, instead of just repeating the claim over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/185 "2017-09-27T21:01:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I’m not in favor of enforcing such a rule only when the snarking is directed against a left-favored target and more forgiving of snark against the right. I’m neither in favor of that nor remotely convinced that that’s what’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/186 "2017-09-27T21:11:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You have not apologized. That means you meant to offend. > t. Not at all. Why apologize if he didnt mean to offend? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/187 "2017-09-27T21:13:28Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > What is with all you guys admitting that he did the actual bad thing, but then saying he should not get punished for it? Is this a bizarro world? If you do the bad thing, you get the punishment. If you don’t, then you’ve just said the bad thing is not bad. He didnt do anything wrong- in this post. He is being warned due to his past opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/188 "2017-09-27T21:16:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He didnt do anything wrong- in this post. He is being warned due to his past opinions. And these are _your_ opinions-mine are different. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/189 "2017-09-27T21:16:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If the board starts modding this sort of lame-shit one-liner that comes across as a petulant attempt at snark, the board will only be better for it. Lame shit snark? I guess a board with _no posters at all_ could be considered better… This board lives for lame shit snark. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/190 "2017-09-27T21:32:35Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I’d guess that part of the interpretation was based on his having admitted he enjoys trolling the board with his signature and has learned to do it just within the line of board rules. > > Beyond that just do a google search for something like “sdmb trans shodan” and you can find quite a few threads over the years where he dropped a one line turd in the thread - I guess what he considers to be a witty quip, but clearly it is a means of expressing his disdain for the recognition that gender issues recieve in modern times. > > With the signature, despite it being a jerk by many interpretations, the mods can’t really do much since on its face it’s just a signature. > > But with one line dismissals of threads they are within their powers to call it out as trolling or threadshitting even if one possible interpretation is that on its face it’s just a ‘lazy’ or un-nuanced post. > > Whether it was trolling or just threadshitting, the bottom line is he posted another one-liner in a thread about gender issues and got close enough to the line that it drew a warning this time. > > Mods aren’t bound to let things slide on a technicality - divining a poster’s intent is part of the job and past posting history probably has a lot to do with it in many cases. So it’s sort of like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion since the feds couldn’t get him for murder or racketeering? Of course the difference is that Al Capone actually did evade income taxes, and **Shodan** broke no rules with this particular post. So it’s more like getting Al Capone for starting the great Chicago fire. Also, I did a quick search on the terms you suggested and couldn’t find anything hateful. But as I said it was a quick search. My interest in doing a detailed investigation of Shodan’s posting history on Trans issues is pretty much nil. But if you could post some of Shodan’s hateful transphobic comments, that might be helpful. Also, until such time as Professor X becomes a mod here, I’m wary of moderation by mind-reading. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/191 "2017-09-27T21:36:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which I could understand if you came up with like examples of someone on the left getting away with this repeatedly, instead of just repeating the claim over and over again. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20501216](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20501216) It would seem the evenhanded thing to do is give both posters mod notes. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/192 "2017-09-27T21:46:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > True, but there is a pretty significant matter of precedent here, too. No, there really isn’t. The warning was for trolling. The prohibition against trolling has been around for a long time, requires inference of intent, and this application of the rule is not new. > [@BigT](#): > > **Shodan** has been low-grade trolling this board for a while, and he finally crossed the line. Maybe this Warning would be a wake-up call that we know what he’s doing. When you choose to write in the plural as if representing a collective voice, your message is lost. If there exists any “we”, it would be the moderation team, of which you are not a member. > [@BigT](#): > > You have not apologized. That means you meant to offend. No. Lack of apology is not sufficient to determine intent to offend. > [@Bricker](#): > > I believe that people post “sarcastically contemptuous paraphrase[s] of what [they] believe [their] opponents believe in an attempt to make them look bad,” very frequently, and I strongly doubt that the new practice of the board’s moderators will be to issue warnings for them all. I think people post in that manner frequently as well, but that’s not the standard by which we moderate. Trolling is moderated, so to the extent that there is overlap between trolling and the criteria you and LHoD laid out, then the trolling aspect may be moderated. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/193 "2017-09-27T22:14:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …the way to get more people to share this view is, in my opinion, by engaging their inaccuracies rather than the lefty-shaming approach exemplified here. With the qualifier that we’re speaking of an environment where there is equal access to the microphone in the public forum, I fully agree. Including an exasperated endorsement of the phrase “lefty-shaming approach”. Now, that qualifier is a huge and complicated qualifier. In the larger context, there sure as shit is _not_ equal access to the microphone. In this smaller and more immediate one, there is vastly more of one. Does the local immediate context outweigh the larger? I’m uncertain. And I’m ambivalent. I know I feel more empowered in a context where I can engage and [del]witness[/del] debate and explain than in one where somebody keeps blowing a whistle and cornfielding an entire conversation because it was “triggering”, and I’ve been in my share of those in Facebook groups. I hope this conversation, itself, raises consciousness about this kind of “baiting” and about the complexities of the open-discussion issues in a nuanced, consider-all-sides sort of way. It doesn’t have easy answers, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/194 "2017-09-27T22:46:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not obvious to me that “oppressed identity,” is a neutral category. I argue the existence and treatment of “oppressed identity” members is central to much of today’s political debate, and thus is a proxy for liberals and conservatives. I agree that you could reasonably argue about whether it is neutral. My point is that it is different from mere partisan bias. > [@Bricker](#): > > And for what it’s worth, I think my own view of gender identity is fairly described as progressive. But the way to get more people to share this view is, in my opinion, by engaging their inaccuracies rather than the lefty-shaming approach exemplified here. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/195 "2017-09-27T23:06:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which I could understand if you came up with like examples of someone on the left getting away with this repeatedly, instead of just repeating the claim over and over again. Posts 96/97 offered [this example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20498037&postcount=49) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/196 "2017-09-27T23:08:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe it doesn’t matter - **ITD** said that it was the specific words in the specific thread, not any general reputation. In my opinion, ITD can’t really defend that point any more, but won’t want to explicitly switch rationales. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/197 "2017-09-27T23:12:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I agree that you could reasonably argue about whether it is neutral. My point is that it is different from mere partisan bias. I think this is a distinction without a difference. “Mere” partisan bias arises because the parties support different goals and different methods to achieve those goals, fueled by different views of the various issues that constitute our social governance. And one of those issues is gender identity and the proper role of government in addressing it. So conditioning decisions on how one treats identity is not simply a proxy for political position but a reasonably reliable product of political position. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/198 "2017-09-27T23:20:58Z")
Does a rule against hate speech have partisan bias, then? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/199 "2017-09-27T23:35:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Does a rule against hate speech have partisan bias, then? Depends on how “hate speech” is defined. _Don’t get me wrong, the Catholic Church is evil for any number of reasons._ Hate speech? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033/200 "2017-09-27T23:48:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Lame shit snark? I guess a board with _no posters at all_ could be considered better… This board lives for lame shit snark. Bullshit. This board lives for pure-grade brilliant hilarious snark. The lame shit snark dilutes the fuckin brand. > [@madsircool](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20501216](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20501216) > > It would seem the evenhanded thing to do is give both posters mod notes. These posts are both sentences, yes. Beyond that, they share very little in common. > [@Bricker](#): > > Posts 96/97 offered [this example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20498037&postcount=49) SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST So here’s where I’m supposed to point out, **again** , that it was a different moderator in a different forum, and that different moderators have different personalities, and two posts from different posters being moderated differently by different moderators in different forums don’t comprise a pattern, right? And this is where you or Shodan or somebody complains about my demanding an impossible standard of evidence (y’know, where someone compares like things instead of different things), and refuses to supply anything even slightly more convincing, right? No. I give up. You win. The pattern is established. In that spirit, however, do you mind telling me the law school you went to? I plan to sue them for discrimination against people not named Rick. After all, they not only accepted you to law school, they graduated you. I’m also an American man, but not only didn’t they give me a degree, they didn’t even accept me. Discrimination! And don’t you even THINK of pointing out how our cases aren’t the same. What sort of impossible standard would that be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivory-tower-denizen-is-there-a-reason-for-a-warning-rather-than-an-explanation/797033.md?page=11)