Stipulate for a moment that the board has traditionally allowed pretty vicious and even content-free attacks as long as they’re framed as attacks on the post, not on the poster. Whether or not that’s a wise rule (I tend to think it’s not and have argued as much in this forum), if there’s a change to the rule, wouldn’t you expect to see the change implemented through mod notes, not warnings?
Certainly, yes.
And I see that it’s been three months since you and I last discussed this issue. In that case, I argued for a moderator’s attention to posts that just barely attacked the post. There was a warning.
Maybe this isn’t such a new thing after all. Certainly I found Blake’s tone a lot more irritating, but I can’t rule out the possibility that that’s because I’m more sympathetic to the position he was arguing against.
I’ll let myself out of the thread quietly now :).
I am not sure how you respond to a post full of… let’s call it ignorance, without some level of insult toward the post.
As far as contributing, I may have felt tempted to waste my time explaining why that is a bad idea. IMd’s post spared me that.
If they thought it was threadshitting, that would be a case for the “Report post” button, not the “Reply with quote” button.
I tend to agree. If something is essentially content-free asshattery, you can’t debate it, so on a forum that bars insults, I suppose your choice is to make some mild understated sardonic comment, or to make no comment at all.
But really that’s part of the reason for a no-insults rule - to prevent escalation.
If you all decide to ban “insult the post”, reading this board is going to get a lot less interesting. As for living on the edge, that has always been pretty much the definition of SDMB. I for one enjoy it out here on the edge. If I’m the only one, well, I guess everything changes.
If you’re not living on the edge, you’re taking up too much space!
Here’s the problem, is there any “attack the post” that doesn’t “slantwise” attack the poster?
“That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read.” = Calling poster dumb.
“Your post is overflowing with wrong statements” = Calling poster a liar.
“The post made me rip my own eyeballs out just so I never have to take the chance of reading it again” = Saying the poster is <Redacted. I so wanted to put someone’s user name in here.>
Again, can you really not see the distinction between addressing the content of a post on its merits and just calling a post or a poster “dumb”?
If, in a debate about evolution, somebody (say) lays out half a dozen of the usual creationist tropes, we can either:
(a) say “Jeebus, that post is just so stupid”
or
(b) Explain why each objection to evolution is wrong, and based on ignorance or motivated reasoning.
If (b) makes the poster slantwise look stupid, no problem.
The objective is not to put the poster in a safe space where he can never feel bad about his evident stupidity. It’s to address the content of posts on their merits rather than just flinging simplistic insults that add nothing to the conversation, even if they are perfectly justified.
And how would you reply if someone said, “Anyone who believes in evolution should have to keep a monkey in their house.”
Is there actually any reason or debate to be had there?
What kind of monkey?
ETA: never mind. I think you are trying to make a point.
Well, calling a poster “dumb” is against the rules. Calling a post “dumb” is not supposed to be against the rules, but it would seem that some folks want to change that. We had all those discussions about racism where we were told that we can’t call posters racist (that’s an insult), but we can point out that post has racist content (that’s attacking the post).
Why bring up exactly the same point again? I have already stipulated that in a forum that bans insults, there is no suitable riposte to a post that is content-free asshattery, other than perhaps understated sarcasm.
But it’s supposed to be Great Debates, right? If a post is content-free asshattery, what debate are you planning to have? Why escalate and get drawn into an exchange of insults? It’s seems to me that either ignore or report are the best courses of action.
In this example, I’d suggest that the relevant distinction should be:
Addressing the content of the post on it’s merits:
(1) “[Aspects a, b, and c of your post, for reasons x, y & z] make this a racist post.”
(2) “[Aspects a, b, and c of your post, for reasons x, y & z] lead me to believe that you are a racist.”
vs
Just flinging insults:
(3) “That’s a blatantly racist post.”
(4) “You are obviously a racist.”
(1) and (2) are synonymous; if one is okay, they both are.
(3) and (4) are synonymous; if one is wrong, they both are.
Again, surely it’s the meaning that’s important not the technical grammatical structure. Or should I check the SDMB flag for fringes?
Again, you are arguing for a change in the rules. Currently*, your example #1 does not violate the rules, but #2 does. It’s not true that if 1 is OK, then 2 is OK.
As for 3 and 4, it has been my experience that even posts like #3 were not moderated, or at least did not earn a warning. Posts like #4 were inviting a warning.
I’d hate to think we’ve gotten to the point where your #1 is no longer allowed. But I think we’re going around in circles on this, and I’m happy to wait and see what the mod consensus is before taking this any further.
*Unless I’m just flat our wrong, which is possible.
Stipulated. Again.
As I’ve said, if the rule is the way you describe, it is a poor rule, and below the level that I’d expect of SDMB. I’m arguing for what a sensible rule should look like, one that’s based on intent and meaning, not superficial differences in the form of words.
I dispute the validity of these assertions, and without them, your argument and position falls apart.
ETA: Also, sometimes calling something stupid is a result of judging it on it’s own merits.
Sure you do, all of your posts are stupid, so I’m not surprised to see another stupid post that’s as stupid as all your other posts.*
No reflection on you, though. 
*satire, for the avoidance of doubt, I’m just kidding.
I agree with the syllogism you provided, but disagree that (1) : (2) or (3) : (4) are equivalent to “Your post is dumb” : “You are dumb”, thanks to the somewhat squishy relationship between language and formal logic.
I’d argue that in the common English connotation of the word, believing and advocating for even one racist position or idea is enough to at least suggest a strong possibility that the speaker is a racist, if not infer it outright. If Bob wants to deport everyone of Mexican descent, Bob is a racist, regardless of what else he thinks about anything – and in this case, the distinction between “that’s racist, Bob” and “you’re a racist, Bob” is one without a difference.
On the other hand, believing or advocating for one stupid thing has far less impact on the judgement of the speaker. When evaluating intelligence (in whatever form; erudition, knowledgeability, comprehension, etc.), the total “body of work” becomes much more relevant. I personally know that I’ve advocated for positions in the past that I now believe were based on reasoning that was not only flawed, but outright dunderheaded, and I don’t consider myself even then to have been a stupid person. I have friends I’ve debated with for years to whom I have no problem saying “well that was a dumbass argument” (and vice versa), with no implication on either side that we consider the other unintelligent. On this case, you really can “attack the post, not the poster” in a way that you can’t with accusations of racism.
All that said, that’s not how the current rule has ever been applied either, and your proposed rule is much better than the one we have. But, y’know…attacking the individual merits.