Reading is hard.
So is, apparently, not bringing the whole IQ thing up again. Let’s let that one drop.
Dropping my IQ evan az wee speeek.
I juxtapose these two quotes, Der Trihs, to show you that you expect people to apply a level of fine parsing to your own posts that you are unwilling to apply to others. You expect people to read your words about good Christians not being moral and not to paraphrase it by saying that you think Christians are evil. But then you read someone saying blacks are genetically less intelligent and paraphrase it by saying they think black people are subhuman.
That’s not fair. If you’re going to quibble with other folks paraphrasing your own words, you need to be a lot more careful how you paraphrase the words of others.
And the thing is, if you paraphrase others more carefully, it’ll make your points more, not less, persuasive.
And if you really don’t want to understand, it is darn near impossible.
Regards,
Shodan
The five paragraph warning I refer to included mod instructions that criticism of America isn’t acceptable in GD unless it is “geared toward improvement”. I’ve never heard of this rule. It included the mod’s opinion that the statement was ridiculous. If posting this as a poster that is fine but I wasn’t aware that official warnings could be issued as a result of a mod’s personal opinion of the veracity of a statement made in a post. The terms ‘offensive’ and ‘inflammatory’ weren’t mentioned anywhere in the warning.
What if, for example, DT believes that US domestic and foreign policy - military, economic, diplomatic, legal, etc. kills Muslims/brown-skinned people as a regular course of business, and that since the majority of Americans pay taxes and vote officials into office, in the context of a debate is it a warnable offense to reduce the statement to simply “the majority of Americans kill brown skinned people”? I’m not advancing the argument or even suggesting that is definitely what he meant, but just suggesting that it isn’t necessarily a pointlessly inflammatory remark in the context of such a debate.
With many posts the mods are pretty good at parsing such statements, giving the benefit of the doubt to a poster, maybe issuing a note to ‘tone it down’. So has DT, based on reputation and previous posts, or the complaints of others, exhausted this benefit of the doubt?
Similarly if it is a given that denying women the right to safe and legal abortion kills women, and causes them undue suffering, emotional, economic and physical harm, it is not fair in the context of a great debate to assert that people who are against abortion logically must want women to have those damages inflicted upon them?
Agree or disagree with the assertions, that is what Great Debates is all about. If there is any place on the boards where such arguments can be made and hashed out in the spirit of fighting ignorance, it is in GD. A thoughtful, obviously non-trolling poster shouldn’t be muted because some find their point of view or presentation style offensive. If DT resorted to such statements with absolutely no possible logical basis, merely for shock effect or trolling it would be one thing but that isn’t the case. There are arguments to back up these statements. Whether or not they are valid is the point of having a debate.
(bolding mine)
It may not be “the equivalent of saying that anti-abortionists want to kill women with clubs”, but IMHO it is hyperbolic, to say the least.
This (along with the rest of your post, which I’ve omitted for space reasons) does not relate to my comment, which was about a different argument.
In the part of your prior post that I quoted and responded to, you were making a point about whether the lack of support offered for opinions triggered moderator sanction. My point is that this particular aspect was more significant for incendiary topics.
For example, there’s a bigger difference between “here’s the evidence that average IQ of blacks is lower than that of whites …” and “these blacks are a bunch of dummies” on the one hand, than there is between “here are the problems with healthcare.gov …” and “healthcare.gov stinks” on the other.
In your latest post you’ve introduced a different complaint about JC’s moderation (i.e. the requirement that criticism be constructive) which is not what I was responding to.
Sorry my reply to you was limited to the first paragraph under your quote. The remainder of my reply was to ATMB in general, continuing my thoughts about the subject of the thread in general.
Not that I care much anymore as the SDMB has long become a shell of its former self, but you are right on point. I did happen to notice that from day one – not unlike Twickster – JC came off with a “there’s a new sheriff in town” type of 'tude.
The particular post you quoted and the follow-up “warning” is worthy of a Gold medal in condescension. NB: I would have no problem with it had he worded it and posted it as regular poster as a riposte wouldn’t have been difficult at all. But hiding it behind his “The Moderator Speaks” schtick :rolleyes: is quite a low blow.
That said, what you, I or anyone else says is not going to matter one iota to TPTB. I mean, when has it ever*?
*since every rule has an exception, I do recall Miller apologizing to me a few years ago. Then again, for reasons unknown to me, the best mods – in my opinion anyway – always appear to get stuck in The Pit. Miller, G-Factor & formerly Giraffe come quickly to mind. No power-tripping, no bias that I could see and certainly no intransigence. The irony in this thread runs thick…
We can argue about whether the post in question was mod-able, but he was told not to do what he had been doing anymore. So, in that sense, a person’s “body of work” does come into it.
If hyperbole is to be the basis of warnings then the sprinkling of warnings is about to turn into a downpour.
Or is that hyperbole?
The mods like to head of thread hijacks. If a poster is prone to hyperbole that does so, then they are going to get mod’ed.
As much as it pains me to say it, Der Trihs did not deserve a warning. Not here.
I believe his vitriol is a detriment to the board. I believe he chases intelligent would be posters away from the board because of his vitriol. I believe he derails discussions. But in in this instance he did not deserve a warning.
MODERATOR NOTE:
What does Oakminster have to do with this discussion? Why is he being dragged into this? He’s not even contributing to the thread!
This is way out of line. If you have a problem with him there’s places where you can take that up – IT IS NOT ABOUT THIS MESSAGE BOARD.
It’s crap like this that makes us turn notes into formal warnings. Do you really want to go there?
Agreed.
Hopefully, since many of the new mods seem to be sympathetic to the claim that calling someone a “racist” is a “megaton insult” and the “worst thing you can call anyone”, which are phrases I’ve never heard anyone use to describe the word “jerk” they might choose to decide that since “being a jerk” is a sanctionable offense they’ll feel the same about “being a racist”.
That said, since a huge proponent of the idea that calling poster a “racist” is an insult that should be sanctioned has insisted he sees nothing racist about claiming “blacks have low intelligence” I wouldn’t get my hopes up.*
- This sentence doesn’t apply to John Chance.
Well, it’s considerably less stupid than insisting that the term “racist” is an insult.
Agreed!
It’s like the morons who claim that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust Denier or an anti-Semite for suggesting that we should study further the historical event referred to as the Shoah to see if the total number of Jews killed wasn’t greatly exaggerated to justify all sorts of atrocities against the German people and the creation of the state of Israel.
Similarly, it’s just as moronic as when idiots accuse David Irving and Mahmoud Abbas of being Holocaust Deniers when in fact they don’t deny the Holocaust but in fact claim the total number of Jews killed has been vastly inflated for political gain.
How dare they be insulted by being called such terms as “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust Denier” which, like the phrase “racist” are clear ad hominems designed to shut down debate and should never be allowed to be used against another poster on SDMB!
I tend to agree, but when past behavior has put you under a microscope, bad things tend to happen.
Take the hypothetical of the guy who comes into work 30 to 45 minutes late every day. The management is nice because he’s a pretty good workers, but the other employees grumble and finally the rule is laid down to the employee: You must be on time for work, or else. So the very next morning, he is 10 minutes late and gets a disciplinary infraction. Those same other employees now start grumbling that 10 minutes is no big deal and it’s ridiculous to give someone a warning in their personnel file for a lousy 10 minutes. That might be true, but the warning has to be put in context with the previous reputation for tardiness.
Like others, I don’t want to see DT banned. He seems like a very smart poster who’s opinion is valuable to the board. We are clearly on different sides of the political spectrum, but that’s true with most posters here. But I agree with the enhanced moderation and only wish to see DT conform to a minimum level of respect for others when he posts.
Saying that people who disfavor legal abortion are wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z and backed up by study Q is different that simply posting that those same people hate women including their own wives or mothers. It adds needless angst to the board when standards of civil discourse that we all should abide by are followed by 99.9% of posters. I think that everyone (including me) needs a dose of realization that just because someone is of a different belief than you about your pet topic doesn’t make them evil, or has an ulterior and nefarious purpose for believing what they do.
So I hope DT takes the warnings and learns from them. It’s hard as an adult human to accept correction from another adult. It puts one on the defensive and the usual response is to lash back. But the advice is sound, and DT and the board would be better if he would dial it back a few notches.
Sorry, Der, but yeah you still have to provide evidence.
Look at what just happened. JC modded you because to him it looked like you were just ranting. Like most American centrists, he is saturated in a culture of false equivalence: news stories will consistently frame intransigence from one side as partisan wrangling from both. Look, it’s obvious to you and it’s obvious to me. The fact is, it’s not obvious to most people.
Evidence that blanket assertions are insufficient.
- Johnathan Chance, who is actually not an American-style conservative.
- Check out that citation above. Mann and Ornstein are mainstream researchers with a sterling media reputation: they frequent Sunday talk shows. But not for the book cited above. That was too hot to handle: they received a media blackout. They can receive support from serious organizations like Brookings, but they will hit a journalistic wall.
- To take another example, until Obama Democratic administrations consistently had lower budget deficits (as a share of GDP) than Republican ones. And Obama faced the worst financial crisis and the worst downturn since WWII, inherited from the previous administration. Nonetheless, Republicans can successfully pose as fiscal conservatives who are against the deficit. And nobody laughs them out of the room. What you heard during the 1980s were lines like, “Well congress passes the budget.” True, but they typically throw back a budget hitting the same deficit targets as the Presidency.
Anyway, you need evidence because perspectives differ, as does the degree of good faith. Now I concede it takes a while to dig it up, and it helps to know VBulletin coding as well as CTRL-C, CTRL-V and CTRL-A (copy, paste and select all). And for this post, I needed a text editor.
I’m surprised you took that tack. In polite society and scientific discourse, you don’t question people’s motives: you just take their arguments at face value. If you insist on discussing motivation, you can take a sociological approach. That typically involves quoting polls. So no: it is humanely possible.
It’s not easy though. In fact it’s a bit of mugs game. I admit that the difficulty of the endeavor and the reluctance to engage in it plays into the hands of the publicly disingenuous. Which is the angle I thought you might have taken.