Little help with semantics here.

[Farmer_Jane]

Can someone explain what is and is not allowed in a non-Pit thread?

Can you read?
Obviously you can’t read. (I got called out on this one, but I’ve been told this about five times in the last 24 hours, amongst other things…no mod intervention, of course.)
Jews are elitist racists.
Blacks are genetically less intelligent than their white counterparts.
You speak an untruth.
You’re wrong.
You are lying.
Religious people are stupid.
Religions are stupid.
You’re blinded by your religion.
You can’t think coherently if you are religious.
Women are bitches.
Men are assholes.
Most women who claim rape are just feeling regret the morning after.
You are destroying your family.
Your actions are immoral.

I understand that saying something like, “Black people are idiots” isn’t a direct personal insult to a specific person, but it seems rather silly to not expect a black person to take personal offense…especially if you’re in a thread where being African American or “black” is the topic of conversation.**

Statements that are not directly personal but otherwise* inflammatory* and designed to insult a particular poster seem to be OK here. **

Example: A thread about the unemployment rate of Hispanics in the southwest.

Hispanic Doper A: It could be argued that Hispanics are subject to more discrimination in hiring practices and in education.
Non Hispanic Doper B: Hispanics are lazy. That’s just an excuse.
Doper A: Excuse me?
Doper B: <goes into detail about how Hispanics are lazy>
Doper A: You’re a racist jerk.
Moderator: Hispanic Doper A, we are not allowed to call people names here. WARNING.

Why? Why not just let insults fly if SD ignores subtle insults or catch-all racist/ethnocentric/sexist comments?

Do the rules really stipulate that if you want to insult someone, you must insult their entire ethnic group/religion/country/gender to make it ‘okay’?

So if I want to insult someone, I just make a generalized statement about their ethnic group or something and I’m safe? I got Warned for saying “What kind of sanctimonious asshole…?” that was suggestive of insulting a particular person when I was just saying that people who think xyz way were sanctimonious assholes.

I was Warned, which is fine, OK, but if I had just insulted that person’s ethnicity/religion/gender/sex/philosophy, I’m safe? Or if I say, “anyone who thinks that is a sanctimonious asshole”, it’s all right?

Just checkin’. I didn’t see any threads that explained this. Mods will always be inconsistent so I’d like to know what’s OK. I’ll respect the rules (as I suspect most Dopers would?) if I understand them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Personal insults are allowed in the Pit. If you want to call somebody an asshole, call them an asshole.

The stuff you’re talking about are rules for outside the Pit.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Personal insults are allowed in the Pit. If you want to call somebody an asshole, call them an asshole.

The stuff you’re talking about are rules for outside the Pit.

I said non-Pit thread.

[needscoffee]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Personal insults are allowed in the Pit. If you want to call somebody an asshole, call them an asshole.

The stuff you’re talking about are rules for outside the Pit.

@CitizenPained

I said non-Pit thread.

Wrong reply - you should have said*
Obviously you can’t read.*

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Oops.

Ok then, well outside the Pit you can’t direct insults directly at a poster, but insults towards general groups are not forbidden. You can say “Star Wars fans are dongs,” you can’t say “StarWarsFan is a dong.”

If you want to make generalized insults about racial groups, have at it, but if things become too inflammatory (and "too inflammatory is at the discretion of the mods), they might act accordingly, usually starting with just a note to tone it down or something.

As to why this would seem to permit indirect insults, I think the answer is generally because the board tries to opt for more freeedom of speech rather than less, and censoring critical statements about whole groups would have a stifling effect on discussions.

The rules of the board are moderated somewhat subjectively and not always with absolute consistency, but the default is to flex rather than constrict.

[Farmer_Jane]

@needscoffee

Wrong reply - you should have said*
Obviously you can’t read.*

But I’m serious! If I quote someone and say their ideas are stupid, is that a direct insult?

If I don’t quote someone, am I okay?

This dude more or less called us liars after 26,000 rounds of us trying to explain how you could be Jewish and atheist. The OP’s question, was, of course, a vaguely anti-Semitic one at that, but whatever.

@Polerius

Of course that’s the case. But, when people in this thread postulate that the rule is “works are paramount, not belief, that’s why atheists can be considered religious Jews” and I show that the “works are paramount, not belief” **should lead to the acceptance of people who believe in other gods, as long as they fulfill the works part of the Jewish religion, **and then people say, “well, we make the rules”, all I can deduce logically is that “works are paramount, not belief” is not the rule you have in place.

The rule you have in place is more like “you either believe in God or are an atheist, and you do the works”.

So belief does play a role, which is why all the hand-wringing that “NONE, not one, of the 613 commandments in Judaism requires affirming that G-d exists or requires Jews to believe in anything” is clearly false (in terms of explaining who can be accepted as a religious Jew)

Yes, you (the general you) of course can make up your own rules. But when you explain them to others, make sure you explain them accurately and don’t make up rules that you are clearly not using.

So we try a few more times to explain, and he keeps arguing that we’re wrong!

@Polerius

I’m pretty sure that if someone wanted to include atheists into Catholicism, they could do some very fine semantic parsing that enables it, just like the semantic parsing of the first commandment “I am the Lord your God” and the fourth commandment “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me” that seems to make it OK for atheist Jews to be considered part of the Jewish religion.

Finally, after rounds and rounds, I said, rather exasperated, since he didn’t seem to get 1.) What qualifies you to be Jewish
and
2.) that he can’t dictate another religion’s law:

@CitizenPained

Do you know what we call a Jew who believes in Jesus?

A Christian.

Do you know what we call a Jew who practices Budhhism?

A Jewish Buddhist, or JewBu.

Do you know what we call a Jew who believes in God?

A Jew.

Do you know what we call a Jew who doesn’t believe in any god?

A Jew.

Do you know what we call a person who just respects Judaism and likes matzoh ball soup but has not converted nor has been born of Jewish parents?

A Gentile.
**
What kind of sanctimonious a-hole presumes to tell thirteen million people that they are wrong about their concepts of religion, culture, ethnicity, or nationhood?**

And then I was Warned. :smack:

I can’t go tell a Buddhist that they don’t follow a religion because they aren’t theistic! I can’t go tell a Muslim that their religion is completely invalid on the grounds that it employs a caste system. HELLO. That’s now how religions work.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The rules of the board are moderated somewhat subjectively and not always with absolute consistency, but the default is to flex rather than constrict.

Unless you happen to be in any of these groups:

[ol]
[li]Jewish[/li][li]Republican[/li][li]Black[/li][li]“Religious”[/li][/ol]

[tomndebb]

@CitizenPained

And then I was Warned.

The Warning was for the direct use of “a-hole.”

If you do not consider that a direct personal insult, I suggest you limit your posts to The BBQ Pit.

[Farmer_Jane]

@tomndebb

The Warning was for the direct use of “a-hole.”

If you do not consider that a direct personal insult, I suggest you limit your posts to The BBQ Pit.

Okay. So I can’t swear?

I can say “jerk”?

I can say “bigot”?

90 per cent of debates are personal insults. Most of them are just a little covered.

[tomndebb]

@CitizenPained

Okay. So I can’t swear?

I can say “jerk”?

I can say “bigot”?

90 per cent of debates are personal insults. Most of them are just a little covered.

Actually, had you called the other poster a jerk or a bigot, you would also have received a Warning. If you had said that his posts demonstrated bigotry, you might have just been told to back off.

Direct insults tend to lead to more direct insults, provoking retaliation, derailing threads.
Insults regarding statements are less likely to cause immediate fights, so they get treated a bit differently.

[Farmer_Jane]

@tomndebb

Actually, had you called the other poster a jerk or a bigot, you would also have received a Warning. If you had said that his posts demonstrated bigotry, you might have just been told to back off.

Direct insults tend to lead to more direct insults, provoking retaliation, derailing threads.
Insults regarding statements are less likely to cause immediate fights, so they get treated a bit differently.

Oh. I was trying to say that those who shared his belief/did what he was doing were sanctimonious assholes. Kind of like how he (and others) asserted that our posts were reflective of bigotry and racism. Again, if I had said you are a ____, I get it. But I didn’t.

If I had said, ‘your posts are demonstrating Antisemitism’, then I would have been told to back off.

So it seems pretty clear to me - the Jews in that thread had no defenses and were open to assault.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@CitizenPained

Oh. I was trying to say that those who shared his belief/did what he was doing were sanctimonious assholes. Kind of like how he (and others) asserted that our posts were reflective of bigotry and racism. Again, if I had said you are a ____, I get it. But I didn’t.

If I had said, ‘your posts are demonstrating Antisemitism’, then I would have been told to back off.

So it seems pretty clear to me - the Jews in that thread had no defenses and were open to assault.

I notice a lot of “we” or “our” in your posts. Is that an editorial “we”? A royal one?

[VinylTurnip]

@CitizenPained

So it seems pretty clear to me - the Jews in that thread had no defenses and were open to assault.

While I’m sure it’s appreciated, Jews on this board have proven rather capable of defending themselves. Some of them, quite enthusiastically and at great length.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

To be fair, the Jewish posters in that thread, at least near the end part I’ve participated in, have done their best to keep cool, provide cogent arguments and insights just to be told again and again how deluded and wrong we are, how we’re playing semantic games and are generally being disingenuous. It’s been pretty tough to keep taking the high road in the face of some pretty harsh comments.

[Munch]

@tomndebb

The Warning was for the direct use of “a-hole.”

If you do not consider that a direct personal insult, I suggest you limit your posts to The BBQ Pit.

Tom, this isn’t helpful. The OP is a new user, and asked you a pretty pointed question so that he could better fit into this community. Could you please explain your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that the insult in question was both a “direct” and “personal” insult? Because I can see exactly where he’s confused - he did not directly* call Polerius an asshole, and you’re saying he did.

*“People who do X are assholes” is pretty much the definition of indirect.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Capitaine_Zombie

I notice a lot of “we” or “our” in your posts. Is that an editorial “we”? A royal one?

A royal ‘we’ would be capitalized. If you read the thread, you’ll see that I wasn’t a lone Macabee.

[Farmer_Jane]

@VinylTurnip

While I’m sure it’s appreciated, Jews on this board have proven rather capable of defending themselves. Some of them, quite enthusiastically and at great length.

I tried the high route for the first 200 posts, but then I got tired of defending myself against accusations of bigotry, racism, and hatred of little Christian children. Luckily “the Jews do bad stuff to others” re: Israel was shut down quickly.

When someone was making rather anti-Semitic remarks after we politely tried to inform him of religious law and ethnic practices, I suggested his views were ones of a sanctimonious a-hole, but that didn’t work out well.

Whoops. -1 for CP.

(also: I’m a she. :))

[tomndebb]

@Munch

Tom, this isn’t helpful. The OP is a new user, and asked you a pretty pointed question so that he could better fit into this community. Could you please explain your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that the insult in question was both a “direct” and “personal” insult? Because I can see exactly where he’s confused - he did not directly* call Polerius an asshole, and you’re saying he did.

*“People who do X are assholes” is pretty much the definition of indirect.

No, “people in political party X are assholes” might be indirect, but claiming that a person who holds belief Y is an asshole when directly replying to a person who has just espoused Y is merely being coy while being directly insulting.

[Farmer_Jane]

@tomndebb

No, “people in political party X are assholes” might be indirect, but claiming that a person who holds belief Y is an asshole when directly replying to a person who has just espoused Y is merely being coy while being directly insulting.

So if you quote someone and say people of a certain belief are a-holes and that person you quoted is of that belief, that’s not ok?
**
If I just say it without quotes, it’s Zen?**

That answers my question in post #6.

But I’m serious! If I quote someone and say their ideas are stupid, is that a direct insult?

If I don’t quote someone, am I okay?

trickay trickay

[Polerius]

@CitizenPained

So if you quote someone and say people of a certain belief are a-holes and that person you quoted is of that belief, that’s not ok?
**
If I just say it without quotes, it’s Zen?**

That answers my question in post #6.

trickay trickay

It’s not hard, really.

Scenario 1
[ul]
[li]Poster A: Which movie’s fans do you dislike the most? [/li][li]Poster B: People who love Ghost Busters are idiots[/li][/ul]
Scenario 2
[ul]
[li]Poster A: I just love the movie Ghost Busters![/li][li]Poster B: People who love Ghost Busters are idiots[/li][/ul]

No matter whether Poster B is quoting Poster A or not, in scenario 1 what he says is not a personal insult, whereas in scenario 2, even though he says exactly the same thing as in scenario 1, it is a personal insult.

It’s pretty clear in scenario 2 that Poster B is referring to Poster A,whereas in scenario 1, Poster B is not referring to anyone in particular in that thread.

If you still don’t get it, there’s not much you can do except observe the mod rulings for a few months to get the picture.