# Jonathan Chance: So What is the Official List of Things You Want Me to Remain Silent About **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 12, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697 "2013-11-12T03:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/242 "2013-11-22T06:51:24Z")
I gave up on this forum a few months ago. DT wasn’t the only reason, but he was one. Checking in this evening on a lark, I see another ATMB thread on what has historically been one of the Board’s most problematic posters. Whether DT is banned or not is no longer a concern of mine. I’ve moved on. I will say this, though. DT is overrated. Being liberal myself, I have little problem with his politics. The thing is that he posts only bumper stickers and almost no content. Rather, he’s all about Manicheism, ad hominems to all those with whom he disagrees and an organic inability to see any rationality of opposing viewpoints. Cheap stuff, easily done. If this is the Board ya’ll want, no skin off my nose. For me, though, no thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/243 "2013-11-22T07:02:58Z")
Wholly moley. I thought **Onomatopoeia** was saying that Der represented a distinctive point of view, one that was an addition to this board, and that Der’s lack of substantiation, while unfortunate, did not invalidate this point. Which was a terrible argument in my view - if I want distinctive views I can visit [crank.net](http://crank.net). **Stink Fish Pot** follows up with some possible but highly dubious arguments, accusing Onomatopoeia of reluctance to voice the unpopular views that Der does. The substantiation was terrible IMHO. However, SFP did present a gem: he provided us with a parallel universe of version of Der, something that many have attempted but none had succeeded (to my knowledge). > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > I’m almost certain that if someone started a debate about a woman’s right to choose, and someone did a right-wing DT post by stating flat out that “Dems don’t care one iota about human life, and just want society to pay for abortions because people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. No, instead of taking the proper birth control precautions, just snuff a life out because it is inconvenient for someone to have to deal with the responsibility that they signed up for when they spread their legs. Retroactive birth control should be available to anyone who wants it. This has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. In fact, Dems encourage abortions to reduce the population of marginal types that can’t afford to take care of the children they have. however, if they choose to have the child, Dems will support that too (with tax dollars of course), because they are just creating another voter down the line… The Dems win regardless of what the woman chooses!” That’s pretty good parody in my view. Not perfect, but better than I’ve seen before. What we need is a Great Debate pitting DT vs Parallel Universe DT. The only problem is none of us can consistently channel that other character. Seriously SFP: that was quality parody. > [@PBear42](#): > > DT is overrated. DT is pitted regularly and his detractors (of which I am one) far outnumber his supporters. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/244 "2013-11-22T07:16:01Z")
> [@XT](#): > > If I didn’t care about my own posting privileges I’ve often toyed with trolling the board in just such a way to prove this point, since there are so many 'dopers who handwave away this argument and excuse DT. It’s all about gores and oxes, and since DTs barbs mainly skewer a minority of posters, many of who are looked down on by the boards main corporate culture, they just can’t see it. Trolling gets you banned. Joking does not, usually. Hate speech against racial minorities and females will get you banned. Attacks on the motivations of Democrats and liberals should not. Such “arguments” will be challenged though - just like Der’s are- albeit at a torrential volume. And you will be obliged to follow moderator instructions inthread - just as Der does. Nor will direct attacks on other posters be permitted outside of the pit. You won’t be able to use words like Demorat in GD - but Der doesn’t use phrases like Repugnican. Spoofing Der is harder than it looks, but SFP showed that it’s possible. OBTW: I’ve ridiculed Der more than I have Bricker. Again, Der’s detractors far outnumber his supporters. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/245 "2013-11-22T14:08:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > That’s pretty good parody in my view. Not perfect, but better than I’ve seen before. I’m not sure what you mean by parody, but **Stink Fish Pot** ’s point was quite correct. Anyone who posted that the pro-abortion movement was motivated by a desire to see babies die would be banned in a few days. > [@](#): > > And you will be obliged to follow moderator instructions inthread - just as Der does No, he doesn’t - that’s the point. When he is told not to post absurd and inflammatory nonsense, he goes off to another thread and does it again. We are not supposed to argue with mod instructions outside ATMB. He’s done that too. It baffles me how people can read the kind of thing he spouts and see a core of uncomfortable truth in it. It’s like agreeing with the guy who says the CIA is sending mind-control rays at him thru his television set. There doesn’t seem to be anything some on the SDMB can’t rationalize. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/246 "2013-11-22T18:57:28Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Wow. I’ve stayed out of this thread, but this reply has me scratching my head… > > Well, here’s your position. You are a fan of DT’s. Which is fine. But it would appear that he says many things which you not only believe in, Yes, and can support. > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > but **believe completely** … False inference. I didn’t say nor imply that I believe everything **Der trihs** says completely. > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > and he says them in a way that you like, I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘like’, but I have no problem with it. > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > but don’t personally have the temerity to do so yourself Believe me, there is no problem with my temerity. > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > . He seems to be your personal ramrod, Nope > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > speaker of the truth as you see it. Yep > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > You admit as much when you say: > > > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > > > There is a huge difference between ‘unsupportable’ and ‘unsupported’. I grant that **Der Trihs** often doesn’t bother supporting his assertions, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are wrong. I suggest that many of his assertions are supportable to varying degrees, and that even the more hyperbolic of these contain kernels of truth that some may be too uncomfortable to admit. > > Suggesting that many of **Der Trihs** assertions are supportable does not, at all, imply that he is in any way my champion. That you read it that way exhibits a bias I suspect you would have against any support for **Der Trihs** regardless of its merit. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > In response to the example **sleestak** gave: > > > [@sleestak](#): > > > > As soon as DT comes in with "Well, the Rs want all poor people dead’ or some similar crap is that the argument can no longer go on in good faith. It derails the thread with unsupportable nonsense. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > [COLOR=#000000]You actually believe that there is truth in a statement like this, and that people are to uncomfortable to admit it? Really? > > I am sorry that you feel the need to engage in more than a modicum of inferential reasoning but, again, as I stated, many of **Der trihs** assertions are supportable; some may not be. I have no idea if **Der trihs** has ever stated that Republicans want all poor people to die. If he has, I also don’t know the context under which it was stated, nor the conversation within which it was discussed. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > And because YOU believe in the same sort of hyperbole that DT slings, you feel that honest debate can follow? I’m amazed at how you see the world, I truly am. > > [/COLOR]Again, what I actually said was that even the more hyperbolic of **Der Trihs** statements contain kernels of truth. How you get that I believe in the same hyperbole from that is interesting. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > If there was a similar poster on this board who posted unsupportable and unsupported views from the right, you would be all over that poster for doing the same thing that DT is doing… > > There are posters on the right who not only post unsupported, but unsupportable views on this board, and I am not ‘all over’ them, to use your term, so you’re wrong there. Some posters I grade as beneath my notice whereas others I will engage.Whether they are left- or right-leaning is secondary for me in that respect. For example, I would engage Starving Artist from time to time, even though I am opposed to just about everything he is for, but I find him (usually) willing to actually engage in discussion, and I respect that, even though I feel kind of badly that he’s probably mentally stuck in an America that never really existed. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Which is debating in bad faith, and deliberately derailing threads. > > You obviously have a different definition of debating in bad faith than I do. From what I have witnessed, I don’t believe **Der Trihs** debates in bad faith. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > But because YOU think that DT speaks the truth, > > Yes, from his perspective, and I happen to believe he makes good points, albeit admittedly incendiary from time to time > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > his cause is just, > > Depending on the point being made, content, and context. As I stated, I cannot and will not vouch for everything **Der Trihs** has presented. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > and his behavior should be overlooked. > > This I am not saying at all. **Der Trihs** , as everyone, should be judged equally and, until recently, this is exactly what I witnessed. **Der Trihs** was admonished or warned appropriately in my view. Lately, however, I sense an unfortunate ratcheting up of scrutiny in his direction, some of it unwarranted, again in my view. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > That’s not the way this board is supposed to work. Just because you believe something that DT says doesn’t make it true. > > > > Or do you think it does? > > Contrary to your assertion, I haven’t claimed to be the arbiter of what **Der Trihs** says that is true or false. I do however have resources available to me with which I can determine the truth. Some of that truth coincides precisely with **Der Trihs** positions, some with parts of it, and some with none of it. On the whole, with the hyperbole stripped away, I think **Der Trihs** ends up on the plus side of the ledger, which I understand you choose not to believe. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > It often derails rational argument, because people find themselves trying to defend some nonsense that DT has written. Yes, the entire board could put him on ignore, (except for you and a few others, I guess), but you know as well as DT does, that people tend to react to posts, even if they are from a poster like DT. I don’t know why, but it happens. > > Again, it doesn’t derail the argument. You’re a smart guy. I’m sure you can figure out a way to engage with **Der Trihs** if you had a desire to. I know, I know, you have no desire to. Well, there it is then. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > The phrase DNFTT exists for a reason; people almost always seem to take the bait, and DT gets the reaction he wants. > > Your suggestion that **Der Trihs** is trolling is really without basis…unless you can support it of course. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Why do we have to continue to open other avenues of debate when the first avenue is what the debate should be about? DT throws a fly in the ointment, and you think folks should spend time debating HIS avenues? This is just strange bizarro world thinking, used to justify your admiration of DT. > > You are bending what I stated. **Der Trihs’** ‘flys in the ointment’ as you call them are not non-sequiturs that I have seen and are, again, what I have seen, on topic, and direct responses to points others have made. If you find what he says objectionable then take him to task, press him to support his assertion, or don’t. I am not saying that you should take the conversation in a different direction. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Why would you suspect he will do any dialing back at all? He has shown no desire to do so in the past, and in fact, he may be unwilling or incapable of doing so. DT is wired differently than most people, and he doesn’t strike me as someone who is going to buckle under the threat of banning. Which, as far as i can tell, he hasn’t been threatened with yet. I’m not even sure he’s been threatened with a suspension, although perhaps this has been discussed by TPTB. > > Because I believe he has a desire to remain a member of the community. If that were not the case, I suggest he would not have opened this thread. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > No, you don’t want DT to be banned for your own selfish reasons. He is your champion: the poster that says what you REALLY want to say. > > You’re wrong here, but that’s okay. I would prefer **Der Trihs** not be banned because I believe he is an asset to the community. I have no problem saying what I really want to say, but believe as you will. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Just because many people may hold DT’s perspective doesn’t make it right. > > I didn’t say it did. I did, however, say consider the data, of which there is plenty. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > It could be a good example of groupthink depending on the issue. > > Possibly. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > You personally believe the Republicans are evil and must not go unchecked. > > Hmm…did I say that? > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Even you concede that it would be nice if he supported his claims more, > > Yes, that is correct. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > but hey… He’s performing a civic duty here. > > Is he? Perhaps he believes he is, and perhaps he is, but I can’t know his motivations for sure unless he expresses them. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > And just because he has opinions that you believe many hold, doesn’t mean he should be given a pass for being an abrasive poster who does many of the things he’s accused of. > > You’re kind of repeating yourself here. If **Der Trihs** lives outside community standards then that is an issue. I contend that he lives within them, although he does push at the walls perhaps more than is prudent. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > I’m almost certain that if someone started a debate about a woman’s right to choose, and someone did a right-wing DT post by stating flat out that “Dems don’t care one iota about human life, and just want society to pay for abortions because people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. No, instead of taking the proper birth control precautions, just snuff a life out because it is inconvenient for someone to have to deal with the responsibility that they signed up for when they spread their legs. Retroactive birth control should be available to anyone who wants it. This has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. In fact, Dems encourage abortions to reduce the population of marginal types that can’t afford to take care of the children they have. however, if they choose to have the child, Dems will support that too (with tax dollars of course), because they are just creating another voter down the line… The Dems win regardless of what the woman chooses!” > > Well, that was…something. 🙂 > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Pretty ridiculous statement, right? > > Right > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > But in your mind, if TWO people believe it, the author and another reading it, it holds some value and may have some uncomfortable truths in it. > > Wrong. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > So it should be open for debate? Even if it 1) derails the original debate thread > > No, although I contend that **Der Trihs** ’ posts, even those you may find objectionable do not automatically derail a thread > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > and 2) has no real supporting cites to give it any merit at all? > > No, but just because a post doesn’t contain supporting sites doesn’t automatically remove or diminish its merit. I have read many, many cites on these boards, as I am sure you have, that are not worth the electrons they sailed in on. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > that’s not what GD is supposed to be. > > I can agree with that. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > Well, yeah… Logical in your (and his) mind. But the problem is the “unsupported” part. > > No argument there. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > I doubt this. Mods here are pretty good at cutting through the presentation style of different posters to get to the content. If the presentation method crosses a line, yeah they will call a poster on it. But if the content is crap, that’s where they will have the larger issue. > > I am not so sure, but again, I haven’t researched it. > > > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > > > No it wouldn’t. No single poster is bigger than the board. And the belief that someone like DT is bigger than the board gives him the reinforcement he needs to keep his behavior up. Every time it goes unchecked, in his mind he’s within the rules and doing what must be done. He will not be missed, just like many other long time posters have gone and are not missed. The list is long of once-believed irreplaceable members who have left the board for one reason or another… And the board is still here. > > Each one of us plays our part and contribute in our own way. **Der Trihs** is no more important than any other poster here, nor is he less. I contend that **Der Trihs’** contributions add value. You have an alternate perspective, which is also no less and no more valid than anyone else’s here. * * * > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > And many other people believe just the opposite. He is a detriment to these boards He is not. > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > and if he will not respect the rules he should find some other place to post. This is true. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/247 "2013-11-22T19:05:00Z")
:: golf clap :: ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/248 "2013-11-22T19:21:24Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Wholly moley. I thought **Onomatopoeia** was saying that Der represented a distinctive point of view, one that was an addition to this board, and that Der’s lack of substantiation, while unfortunate, did not invalidate this point. Which was a terrible argument in my view - if I want distinctive views I can visit [crank.net](http://crank.net). You’re really close, but it is more that I feel **Der trihs** has a common view expressed distinctively, and that his lack of substantiation, although unfortunate, does not invalidate his point(s). I disagree that this is a terrible argument, but I understand your perspective. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > **Stink Fish Pot** follows up with some possible but highly dubious arguments, accusing Onomatopoeia of reluctance to voice the unpopular views that Der does. The substantiation was terrible IMHO. Yep. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > However, SFP did present a gem: he provided us with a parallel universe of version of Der, something that many have attempted but none had succeeded (to my knowledge). That’s pretty good parody in my view. Not perfect, but better than I’ve seen before. What we need is a Great Debate pitting DT vs Parallel Universe DT. The only problem is none of us can consistently channel that other character. Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that one. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/249 "2013-11-22T19:35:05Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > The thing is, **Der Trihs** sincerely holds his beliefs. And not only does he really believe the things he posts, he considers them obvious. So when he says that George Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to kill brown people or Anti-abortion advocates are motivated by a desire to see women suffer, that to him should be no more controversial than saying pro athletes are physically fit, or that scientists are generally of above average intelligence. In other words you’re asking him to tone down over the top remarks that he cannot see as over the top. > > So I see three choices for him: > > —Voluntarily stop posting in GD > —Keep posting as he does, and eventually get banned > —Or, as you suggest, pretend to be someone he isn’t and to hold beliefs he doesn’t hold. > > I’m not thinking any of those are good options for him. > > NB, I think his views are often extreme and ill-conceived. I’m just trying to look at the picture from his perspective. This is a good point. I agree that Der Trihs is sincere in his beliefs even while I think he’s wrong in those beliefs. If somebody “the Nazis really hated Jews and wanted to kill them” it would not be a controversial post. Der Trihs seemingly believes that “the Republicans really hate blacks and wants to kill them” is equally true and no more controversial than the Nazi post. He just feels he’s stating a fact. Der Trihs’ problem is that sincere belief is not a defense here. If he continues to make posts that offend a lot of other people, he’s going to end up getting banned. Your assessment of his choices seems accurate to me. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/250 "2013-11-22T20:58:02Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Again, what I actually said was that even the more hyperbolic of **Der Trihs** statements contain kernels of truth. Actually what we are discussing are those of his statements that are inflammatory nonsense, and which serve no purpose in debate besides to express hatred. We understand that you don’t buy into his stuff completely. What about the stuff he posts that is so over the top that no reasonable person could buy it? IOW, is there a reason besides that you often agree with him about other things that he should repeatedly post what amounts to hate speech? Your problem is that you are suggesting an equivalence that doesn’t exist. There is no one on the right on the SDMB who posts the kind of thing that **Der Trihs** does from the left. Those types show up once in a while, but they are always banned, sooner rather than later. And no, debating whether or not there is a genetic component to intelligence among groups is not equivalent. The bottom line is that he gets away with posting screeds that would never be tolerated for an instant were they aimed at the sacred cows of the left. Or at least he used to - the attitude seems to have changed with the new moderation. That’s a good thing, in my view. Perhaps he can learn to debate instead of spit hatred. That will be much better for GD, and if he chooses to do so in the Pit, so much the better. But you can’t cite bullshit, because it’s bullshit. Since, as you and I agree, he makes little effort to cite his more bullshitty statements, it would better all around if he can be persuaded to stop making them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/251 "2013-11-22T21:58:44Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > You’re really close, but it is more that I feel **Der trihs** has a common view expressed distinctively, and that his lack of substantiation, although unfortunate, does not invalidate his point(s). I disagree that this is a terrible argument, but I understand your perspective. It’s a pretty “common view” that blacks are inferior to whites, that muslims, Arabs and terrorists are synonymous terms, and that Obama is the anti-Christ. Not seeing the "common view’ defense as having any merit on its own. Anyone who threw those “common views” out in most of the GD threads he posts in, whether he did so “distinctively” or not, would not be around here very long. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/252 "2013-11-23T01:40:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a pretty “common view” that blacks are inferior to whites, that muslims, Arabs and terrorists are synonymous terms, and that Obama is the anti-Christ. Not seeing the "common view’ defense as having any merit on its own. Anyone who threw those “common views” out in most of the GD threads he posts in, whether he did so “distinctively” or not, would not be around here very long. Actually John lots of people regularly make such arguments about both blacks and Muslims and several of them have been here for awhile. Similarly, it’s worth noting that Der Trihs doesn’t get nearly as much flack for his misogyny as he does for his attacks on all the other groups he has paranoid feelings about. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/253 "2013-11-23T09:26:57Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > \ > You’re really close, but it is more that I feel **Der trihs** has a common view expressed distinctively, and that his lack of substantiation, although unfortunate, does not invalidate his point(s). I disagree that this is a terrible argument, but I understand your perspective. \ That’s it precisely: if a/the poster can’t/won’t support/substantiate the point, it’s **not** unfortunate, it **does** invalidate the point and belongs in _In My Humble Opinion_ or _Mundane Things I Must Point_ out but **not** _Great Debates_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/254 "2013-11-23T14:28:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Actually John lots of people regularly make such arguments about both blacks and Muslims and several of them have been here for awhile. No, they don’t. I know you _think_ they do, but they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/255 "2013-11-23T15:10:42Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > You’re really close, but it is more that I feel **Der trihs** has a common view expressed distinctively, and that his lack of substantiation, although unfortunate, does not invalidate his point(s). I disagree that this is a terrible argument, but I understand your perspective. I find neither the “he says what a lot of people think” nor the “he really believes what he says” argument to be compelling or relevant in the least, despite how often they are applied in defense of **Der Trihs**. Children express a lot of beliefs that are commonly held by children. “You won’t let me go to the sleepover because you _hate me_!” “My teacher is the worst teacher in the _whole wide world_!” These claims are expressed with heartfelt conviction, and may even contain a “kernel of truth”— we don’t _hate_ you, but we really don’t like you very much when you act like a little shit— but it doesn’t make them valid or useful. Most of us, God willing, look back on some of the things we were so convinced of at say, age 14 (duh, it’s like, so _obvious_!) and realize that there was a lot we weren’t privy to or didn’t understand. We revise, or at least refine, our views based on new information and an adult comprehension of complexity, nuance and uncertainty, and we feel pretty silly about some of the things we were so sure about. But some take another path from that point, and some take no path at all. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/256 "2013-11-23T15:46:52Z")
Well said. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/257 "2013-11-23T16:00:10Z")
None of this has anything to do with About This Message Board or even DT so much; it’s extension of other arguments better suited to other forum areas. So it’s time to carry those arguments to those other areas. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/258 "2013-11-23T19:56:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, they don’t. I know you _think_ they do, but they don’t. Precisely. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/259 "2013-11-24T00:16:43Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > None of this has anything to do with About This Message Board or even DT so much; it’s extension of other arguments better suited to other forum areas. > > So it’s time to carry those arguments to those other areas. So, are you saying that matters of [rhetoric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) and expression on this message board belong in Great Debates or in IMHO? I disagree with that, but it’s not my call. Would this be an appropriate question to send around the mod loop? Or perhaps I misunderstand. If you are saying this belongs in the Pit, I would respectfully note that there are issues of rhetoric and expression in discussion. My take is that these topics match the ATMB description pretty well. Moreover the forum should not be limited to opinions regarding optimal moderation but should also encompass, “Best practices on this message board”. But I would accept any framework, provided of course I understand it properly. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/260 "2013-11-24T03:21:49Z")
ATMB should not be used an an extension platform for issues/arguments that started in other areas and/or are appropriate in other fora. Getting clarification on a point; yes; asking about where a discussion goes, certainly. But the discussion itself goes back to the more appropriate forum area. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697/261 "2013-11-24T03:52:32Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > ATMB should not be used an an extension platform for issues/arguments that started in other areas and/or are appropriate in other fora. > > Getting clarification on a point; yes; asking about where a discussion goes, certainly. But the discussion itself goes back to the more appropriate forum area. I’m not seeing the distinction either. The only thing I see is the discussion a few posts up where the debate was about whether certain comments about blacks/Muslims are inflammatory racism which should not be permitted or simply good debate fodder and should be permitted. I don’t know how else to flesh out the distinctions raised in this thread without going into hypotheticals to see how one poster’s style is similar to other arguments made. Nobody is debating the merits of gun control or the relative intelligence of different races and whether those characteristics are genetic or societal. If this discussion doesn’t belong in this forum, then it certainly can’t go in another forum where discussion of moderation is prohibited. Under such a standard, the discussion we are having about whether a certain poster’s argument type is the same, better, or worse than other arguments that are moderated cannot be discussed anywhere on the board. It would be like if there was a forum for cats and another for dogs. Then a poster comes along wanting to discuss how his dog and his cat play with each other and is told by the moderators that his thread doesn’t belong in either forum. The only guidance we have is that since this is about board moderation, it must go here. Since it will naturally touch on peripheral issues (which the substance of I still contend is not being debated), where should this hybrid thread reside? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chance-so-what-is-the-official-list-of-things-you-want-me-to-remain-silent-about/673697.md?page=14)