# Little help with semantics here. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 17, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763 "2011-04-17T22:25:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/61 "2011-04-18T18:11:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And I pointed out that her claim was wrong and resembled your post more than anything the OP actually said. Yes, bringing up my post was a digression, but her claim is still accurate. SFP claimed that “a LOT” of Jews and “many” Jews engaged in behavior which, he argued, was both elitist and racist. In point of fact, [when I showed that upwards of 50% of Jews do intermarry](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13655653&postcount=8), making SFP’s claims somewhat strange, he responded that he ["[found] it hard to believe [that I] speak for all jews. Or any jews, for that matter. "](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13655664&postcount=10) Obviously that answer was precisely because he was talking about Jews as a group. Else, why refuse to accept a cite as to the actual beliefs of Jews while claiming that the reason he was rejecting it was that I couldn’t speak for “all Jews?” What relevance would “all Jews” have if he wasn’t talking about Jews-as-a-group in the first place? > [@Marley23](#): > > Asking “if someone else did this, would it be elitist and racist?” may be assuming the conclusion, but it’s not the same as tarring all Jews with that accusation. It is the same thing as tarring “a LOT” and “many” Jews with that accusation. Do you see significant daylight between that and, say, NDD’s claim that many blacks are genetically inferior to whites, but some of the good ones can rise above that and are quite intelligent? If so, what are the differences beyond a genetic claims versus a claim that a group is generally somehow culturally/ideologically “racist” and “elitist”? > [@Marley23](#): > > For that matter I doubt that claim qualifies as hate speech in the first place. Eh. SFP did obviously want to make the thread all Jews-as-a-group, specifically, and not all of the many groups who prefer that they and their children marry with an in-group preference. He did claim that it revealed that “many” and “a LOT” of Jews were “elitist” “racists” and he did claim that “jews get a pass when it comes to racism”. The title, alone, makes it clear what SFP was getting at, since it was a claim that Jews-as-a-group get a pass for racism. That coupled with his rote denial of the fact that Jews were possibly split 50/50 on it in America with the claim that I couldn’t speak for “all Jews” makes it much more likely that **Citizen** ’s reading is correct, than that yours is. And saying that Jews who don’t want to intermarry are “elitists” and “racists” explicitly insults all such Jews in the thread, and as **Citizen** was one such Jew, I think you can see how she was both being personally insulted, and read it as such. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/62 "2011-04-18T18:43:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The OP never called Jews “elited bigoted racist [whatevers].” He asked if a certain behavior is elitist and racist. Although his question was related to a Jewish women he knew, he acknowledged that behavior is not unique to Jews. He _did_ ask if Jews, unlike other groups, got a pass for this behavior. “Jews are elitist bigoted racists” was **FinnAgain** ’s sarcastic paraphrase of the OP’s claim. And I moderated **FinnAgain** ’s comment because it was so over-the-top. Perhaps you agree with **FinnAgain** , but it seems to me that you’ve accepted his version of the OP’s contention at face value. That’s unfortunate and that’s exactly why I moderated his statement. The title was,\*\* why do jews get a pass when it comes to racism? \*\* That’s a clear and direct inflammatory statement about a particular ethnic group. The title wasn’t moderated, though. He contradicts himself by saying: > [@](#): > > Please let’s not get into a debate about this not being a racial issue because jews are not a race. **For this debate, Yes they are!** Most jews I know are not very religious, either, making this excuse doubly frustrating and annoying. So Finn is frustrated and I would have been, too. They’re yapping and the OP says that Finn doesn’t speak for _any_ Jews. Uh…Finn can’t speak for himself? But Finn tries to give a reasonable explanation and throws in a little Reform shul reference for those he may be speaking for. He seems to have a clear head and dismisses the idea of Jews marrying Jews as “bigotry” instead of “racism”. But clearly Finn was speaking for some Jews, because I think 10 (at least) of us chimed in later. SecondJudith said she agreed with his post (#14) first. Then so and so says there are some examples of Jewish racism, but not this one (and no one had a knee jerk reaction to it) and some people are very “gimme a break” at the thread. Someone calls it racism and here we go. (I’m not thinking you need a play-by-play, it’s just that I’m looking at post #23 and have yet to see Finn say something irrational but then you Moderate so it’s all good.) all right…now we have 3 self identifying Jews in the thread…er…still debating if Jews marrying other Jews is bigoted…and BANG! \*I do know that we endorse and subsidize Jewish racial entitlement, apartheid and ethnic cleansing to the tune of billions of dollars a year. \* But Marley saves the day 😃 and it’s shut down. The poster in question is not, you know, warned, I don’t think. Was that a clever circumvention of rules? But then Marley goes on lunch break or goes to sleep or whatever and the thread explodes into a pile of poo. The point is: You saw Finn as being ridiculous. Maybe I’m super biased (though I’ve stuck up for dang near every “group” on SD) but I didn’t see it. No one else commented. You’ll find that we (Jewish people) and others (Gentiles) AGREED with Finn throughout the whole thread! Jew Count is 4 now and Finn is asserting once again that Jews aren’t a race nor is marrying other Jews an expression of bigotry. Holy smokes, I feel bad for letting him take the heat alone. I was busy watching reruns of West Wing, but I chimed in to respectfully disagree on semantics and we have 5 Jews actively in this thread now. How in the heck is this thread _not_ about Jews? It is! So if it’s about Jews, it’s only fair to say that the 5 people at this point who are self-identifying Jews are probably going to be insulted if, from this point on, you start making generalizations about Jews. :smack: Six Jews (and fourteen opinions!) later, Finn is carefully trying to correct some ignorance about what makes a Jew a Jew. Form here on out, it’s Damage Control. Constant _misinformed_ statements, attacks on our personal beliefs, our practices, our rules, our parenting techniques…! Bricker is told he makes stupid analogies, but takes it like a man and its jajajajaja Dio says and someone says and jajajajaja **so at this point ANY Jewish person observing the thread is going to feel a little attacked** I mean, you were there, Marley. How is this kosher on SD? Is that the culture here? Corner some kids in the cafeteria and demand their lunch money? And yet, I _still_ think that conversation was pretty productive until it got\*\* personal\*\*. Telling a group that their practices are bigoted (and changing the definition of bigotry or that group to fit) is insulting, sure, but do ya hafta say it 10,000 times? :o OP comes back and calls someone _beyond pathetic_ and challenges us to come up with (another? didn’t Finn just spend 2 pages on that?) alternate definition to his “racism”. \*\*How is the OP in any way NOT being inflammatory? And when I say inflammatory, I’m talking about the kind that’s aimed to ruffle an ethnic group’s feathers and make them defensive. \*\* geez…post #146 and my eyes are bleeding…Finn and six others have taken the mantle. [Part of your problem is reading comprehension.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13658286&postcount=151) [OP asserting that Jews get a pass (again)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603574&page=4). [Anyone who thinks it’s OK for Jews should stick with Jews re: marriage thinks everyone is garbage.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603574&page=4) Whaa? [Finn is playing frum so he can justify our culture](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603574&page=4). Is he not being honest or something? [She’s a bigoted Jew.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603574&page=4) [Wait - atheist Jews who only marry Jews are bigoted, then, right? Yous talkin to me?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13690328&postcount=198) And then the thread just slides into “How you can be an atheist Jew”. Here we’re called absurd and told to redefine our identities. Finn [clearly states](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13692124&postcount=227) that you can’t do that to people, with P. claiming that we can’t be Jews, AT calling me a [bad parent](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13692198&postcount=233), and for the next three pages we defend ourselves. 😕 So Dio can break the rules because I was not polite, but I can’t suggest a person **who is actively arguing against every Jew in the thread** is a sanctimonious asshole if they belong to an anti-Semitic or ethno centric train of thought? Finn said it best: > [@](#): > > What exactly are you hoping to achieve here? The millions of Jews who subscribe to certain views on Jews and Judaism will, all of a sudden, say “Wow, a guy on the internet doesn’t agree with how we define in-group membership. Let’s change.” See why this is hard? Since we don’t want to look like racist bigots by not defending ourselves, we get stuck in 4 pages of “You are either a fake Jew or an ethnocentric bigot” crap. P. starts talking about definitions of other religions and I ask what kind of…anyway, [we just have our blinders on](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13699115&postcount=363). As Finn noted, the OP suggested we were racist elitist bigots at least twice. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/63 "2011-04-18T18:45:13Z")
Hey – I did report one of Dio’s comments, but since it went un moderated, I figured it was useless? > [@Marley23](#): > > Ah, I see - you’re asking about “you speak an untruth” vs. “what you said is not true?” Then I’ll agree pretty much the same thing. The unusual wording in “you speak an untruth” just makes it sound worse; I’ve never heard anyone say that. “What you said is not true” is fine, although being clear that the person is wrong rather than lying never hurts. **Irishman** is usually correct about these kinds of things, but I will point out that he’s not on the staff here. Yeah, I just don’t want to get busted or fiddle over the idea that “someone may think I’m saying the wrong thing” because they don’t know what the phrase means. Do you see how it’s hard to follow the rules? I specifically said “You speak an untruth” so that I would NOT call someone a liar. It was still against the rules. I generally refrain from “wrong” because “wrong” implies some kind of ethical or moral judgment (right v. wrong) whereas “truth” and “untruth” is indicative of factual or false statements. > [@](#): > > And I explicitly already said he didn’t break the rules: Yes, but some of the things he said broke the rules (by your definition). I was wondering why I got ‘moderated’ and he didn’t. You said you didn’t see need to moderate because I deserved it. Insulting one’s cognitive ability: **You just seem to be having some difficulty grasping what I’m saying.** (Murky) \*_You do understand the meaning of the word if[]/i], don’t you?_ **Read with comprehension.** Insinuating someone is a liar: **This is completele Bollocks.** _Bollocks_ is testicles, and this phrase is used in the UK to say that something (including opinions) is stupid. It’s also used in the U.S. to mean\* bullshit\* [someone pretending to be the authority on a subject they are not] or untruthful. It is a clear euphemism and insult. See wiki: > [@](#): > > Most commonly, it is a noun or interjection that refers to any use of misleading, disingenuous, or false language. and then of course the many times he just said I was ‘misinformed’, which I guess is another way of saying, “You’re wrong” to everything I say. But he followed it up with the kick-bag of claiming an _ad hominem_ attack. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/64 "2011-04-18T18:54:51Z")
Yes, I made up the word kick-bag. I also swear I didn’t see [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603593) until now. Finn may have a _reputation_ for being sarcastic or something, but I feel that he conducted himself in a personally reasonable fashion in the Jew/Bigot thread – something that I felt took some chutzpah, seeing as how he had to repeat himself 20 times. I mean, hey, I just woulda called someone an asshole. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/65 "2011-04-18T18:57:11Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > The title was,\*\* why do jews get a pass when it comes to racism? \*\* That’s a clear and direct inflammatory statement about a particular ethnic group. What is your question at this point? You weren’t moderated for anything in that thread. If you think the OP was wrong, well, so did just about every poster in the thread (myself included). Does that make the post hate speech? No. The thread title referenced Jews, but the thread included a broader question since the topic didn’t relate only to Jews. > [@](#): > > But then Marley goes on lunch break or goes to sleep or whatever and the thread explodes into a pile of poo. I don’t get lunch breaks from the SDMB. It’s not my job. We’re volunteers who do something else for a living and moderate on the forums because we like hanging out here. This is necessarily something we do in our spare time. If you think there was something I should have paid attention to at that point in the thread, you’re a bit late. At this point I’m really only interested in your participation here and your understanding of the rules and your own behavior - not what I said on page 1 of that thread almost two weeks ago, or even page 4 a week and a half ago. > [@](#): > > So Dio can break the rules because I was not polite, but I can’t suggest a person **who is actively arguing against every Jew in the thread** is a sanctimonious asshole if they belong to an anti-Semitic or ethno centric train of thought? As a matter of fact, no, you can’t call someone else a sanctimonious a-hole no matter what anyone else says. Period. Even if you think **Diogenes the Cynic** broke a rule by questioning your honesty in a post you did not feel obliged to report. And I did not say your behavior justified his comments. It doesn’t, and I would have told him to ease off if you had called the comments to my attention at the time. What I did say was that I’m not very sympathetic to your argument that **Diogenes the Cynic** was being unreasonable and provocative because you when you were doing the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/66 "2011-04-18T19:01:51Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Hey – I did report one of Dio’s comments, but since it went un moderated, I figured it was useless? You did not report any of his comments. Perhaps you intended to and forgot? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/67 "2011-04-18T19:38:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What is your question at this point? It was how the OP got away with that. > [@](#): > > You weren’t moderated for anything in that thread. Yes I was…hence the reason for my starting\* this \*thread. > [@](#): > > If you think the OP was wrong, well, so did just about every poster in the thread (myself included). Does that make the post hate speech? No. > > The thread title referenced Jews, but the thread included a broader question since the topic didn’t relate only to Jews. So if I say, “Jews smell. Rats smell. Aren’t Jews like rats because they smell?” OK? It doesn’t matter if he referenced other groups to _make his point_. He said we were a race for the purpose of this discussion and then cornered us. Or tried to. He made some pretty serious suggestions about a people who have been accused of racism, bigotry, killing Jesus, being sub human, propogandists, ja ja ja for _centuries_. The two statements that he made in that thread - Jews were a race and were bigoted for being religious - sound like they should be from a different place and time. > [@](#): > > I don’t get lunch breaks from the SDMB. It’s not my job. We’re volunteers who do something else for a living and moderate on the forums because we like hanging out here. This is necessarily something we do in our spare time. _joke_ > [@](#): > > If you think there was something I should have paid attention to at that point in the thread, you’re a bit late. Hmm. Okay. > [@](#): > > At this point I’m really only interested in your participation here and your understanding of the rules and your own behavior - not what I said on page 1 of that thread almost two weeks ago, or even page 4 a week and a half ago. Okay, but this is about something that occurred over the weekend. Apparently that OP got a free pass on bigotry. > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, no, you can’t call someone else a sanctimonious a-hole no matter what anyone else says. Period. I called a group of people assholes, and since the poster in question was apparently part of that group (which he clearly defined later), then I called him an asshole by proxy. So you can call someone a bigoted Jew, an idiot, whatever, just not an asshole. Check. > [@](#): > > Even if you think **Diogenes the Cynic** broke a rule by questioning your honesty in a post you did not feel obliged to report. I did! I reported the claim that I couldn’t read since it was so ridiculous because I was JUST moderated for the same thing! Maybe it didn’t go through (I don’t know how this works) but I really did peck out a little 3 sentence response in my report. > [@](#): > > And I did not say your behavior justified his comments. You said: > [@](#): > > your claim that Diogenes the Cynic “called you illiterate” is **balanced out** by the fact that **you** were being at least as hostile as he supposedly was. That suggests something else. It suggests that you don’t really think Dio was in appropriate and whatever actions he took were balanced by the fact that I was “hostile”. Earlier in this thread, you told me that certain comments were against the rules. When I noted that Dio broke the rules, they were all of the sudden **not** against the rules. When I asked for clarification, they were the rules - just not for Dio. Either there’s a rule for everyone or there’s a special set for Dio. Or me. Or Finn. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t, and I would have told him to ease off if you had called the comments to my attention at the time. What I did say was that I’m not very sympathetic to your argument that **Diogenes the Cynic** was being unreasonable and provocative because you when you were doing the same thing. Well, if answering to the “neener neener I’m right and you’re wrong” mentality with thought, thesis, history, citation, etc. is unreasonable and provocative, I’m going to go eat my kippah now. I’m pretty sure I’m not in the wrong for questioning Dio’s presence in the thread if his pattern was to shoot down anyone that didn’t agree with him without even citing anything and then claim everyone else was uneducated and misinformed! Maybe to you, posters like Finn and myself are sarcastic or \, but in truth, we’re just strong on convictions. And when we do take on an argument, you could ask us to write three sentences or a dissertation and we probably wouldn’t blink twice. This board is supposed to be about “Fighting Ignorance”. (I’m still politely correcting Dio on myths about Passover.) Well, Finn and I attempted to fight ignorance about perceived notions of Jewry/Jewish history in the threads in question and what do we get? A little swat on the butt for being impolite. Am I the super Jew type? No. But if I see dangerous speech, I’ll say something. Maybe I’m just not in sync with what goes on here and I shouldn’t register or you should ban me. It seems as though I’ll find myself in a Forum Rules trap I didn’t know existed until it was too late. I called a whole group of people who propagate ethnocentric and antisemitic beliefs assholes. Someone claims that my ethnicity is bigoted and anyone who doesn’t believe in God can’t be Jewish and is a fraud. Somehow, I made the error. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/68 "2011-04-18T19:41:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You did not report any of his comments. Perhaps you intended to and forgot? I do not know if you are insinuating that I’m lying for the audience or that I forgot, but I think the likely explanation is, “JoyAnn hit the report button, looked at the disclaimer at the bottom, bit her lip, hoped she wasn’t being too elementary, pecked out some comments and hit send but the computer gods interfered/net slowed/accidentally clicked off before something loaded/etc happened.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/69 "2011-04-18T19:52:34Z")
I don’t see any ambiguity problem here. Racist views and fallacious views aren’t necessarily hate speech. It’s hate speech and _direct insults_ that are banned. Find a direct equivalent of “you’re a sanctimonious a-hole” and you’ve got something. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/70 "2011-04-18T19:57:56Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I don’t see any ambiguity problem here. Racist views and fallacious views aren’t necessarily hate speech. It’s hate speech and _direct insults_ that are banned. Find a direct equivalent of “you’re a sanctimonious a-hole” and you’ve got something. 1.) I did not say _you are a sanctimonious asshole_. 2.) What is hate speech? 3.) Even if I did say, _you are a sanctimonious asshole_, how is that AGAINST THE RULES and saying, _You are an elitist racist bigot_ is NOT? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/71 "2011-04-18T20:02:04Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > 1.) I did not say _you are a sanctimonious asshole_. According to the mod’s judgment what you said amounted to as much. > [@](#): > > 2.) What is hate speech? Perhaps a mod should answer what hate speech is for the purposes of the SDMB. > [@](#): > > 3.) Even if I did say, _you are a sanctimonious asshole_, how is that AGAINST THE RULES and saying, _You are an elitist racist bigot_ is NOT? It is against the rules. But, so far as I can tell, nobody did that. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/72 "2011-04-18T20:16:05Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > It is against the rules. But, so far as I can tell, nobody did that. By precedent that mods have set forth in this thread, that’s what happened. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/73 "2011-04-18T20:17:01Z")
Well, our hate speech prohibitions are notoriously porous and flimsy, they’re not really worth having anyways as they’re pretty much just subsumed under the “don’t be a jerk” clause. But **Citizen** does have a point. If “someone who argues that [insert argument] is a sanctimonious asshole” is a direct personal insult if someone in the thread does argue that position (and for the record, I think that was the right call to make) then why is “Jews who choose to marry other Jews are elitists and racists” not a direct personal insult, especially to someone like **Citizen** who is a Jew who chose to only marry another Jew? That being said **Citizen** , I think you just need to get used to the subjective and somewhat capricious moderation we have around here. It’s not necessarily a _bad_ thing, mind you, but which mod answers your report, and what mood they’re in, can determine what, if anything, actually happens. You’re also over-analyzing some comments. We can insult other people’s arguments in GD all we want. You can, generally, call an argument “absurd”, “wrong”, “bullshit”, whatever (barring a mod feeling, that day, that they want the tone of the thread to go differently and deciding that people need to ‘tone down’ language). You do have a point, though, with the nature of group-based-insults. There’s been a lot of discussion on how to fairly implement a policy about them and while I admit I’m not quite sure, I know that the current one has major gaps and failings. As Fenris points out, if a policy that you can’t insult the people in a debate via group-insults was followed, posters like Der would’ve been banned long ago. It ends up coming down to a subjective roll of the dice. “Jews who only want to marry other Jews are elitist racists (or bigots, depending on who’s posting” is fine. “People who think that about Jews who want to marry other Jews, are assholes” is not. No real reason for it, other than that’s how a mod feels about it. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/74 "2011-04-18T20:23:21Z")
2 pages to understand that asshole is a direct insult while racist is not, in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/75 "2011-04-18T20:25:08Z")
Racist is a direct insult in Great Debates, and the mods have repeatedly clarified that. Ah well, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/76 "2011-04-18T20:39:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Well, our hate speech prohibitions are notoriously porous and flimsy, they’re not really worth having anyways as they’re pretty much just subsumed under the “don’t be a jerk” clause. But **Citizen** does have a point. If “someone who argues that [insert argument] is a sanctimonious asshole” is a direct personal insult if someone in the thread does argue that position (and for the record, I think that was the right call to make) then why is “Jews who choose to marry other Jews are elitists and racists” not a direct personal insult, especially to someone like **Citizen** who is a Jew who chose to only marry another Jew? > > That being said **Citizen** , I think you just need to get used to the subjective and somewhat capricious moderation we have around here. It’s not necessarily a _bad_ thing, mind you, but which mod answers your report, and what mood they’re in, can determine what, if anything, actually happens. You’re also over-analyzing some comments. We can insult other people’s arguments in GD all we want. You can, generally, call an argument “absurd”, “wrong”, “bullshit”, whatever (barring a mod feeling, that day, that they want the tone of the thread to go differently and deciding that people need to ‘tone down’ language). You do have a point, though, with the nature of group-based-insults. > > There’s been a lot of discussion on how to fairly implement a policy about them and while I admit I’m not quite sure, I know that the current one has major gaps and failings. As Fenris points out, if a policy that you can’t insult the people in a debate via group-insults was followed, posters like Der would’ve been banned long ago. It ends up coming down to a subjective roll of the dice. “Jews who only want to marry other Jews are elitist racists (or bigots, depending on who’s posting” if fine. “People who think that about Jews who want to marry other Jews, are assholes” is not. > No real reason for it, other than that’s how a mod feels about it. Yeah, I mean, like I said, if the rules are _that_ ambiguous, you can’t really expect me to follow them if there’s not much to follow. I’m fine with being Warned if I actually broke a rule. It’s written you can insult a \*group \*but not a person. It was written you can insult a group’s _mentality_ but not a person. When I did that, I got busted. It’s also been written here that making racist remarks isn’t hate speech! Re: Dio, the rules just don’t apply to him. Marley pretty much said so. But as you say, it’s the nature of things here. I prefer _less_ moderation on boards, but hey, if you’re gonna moderate and you do it poorly or on whims then the board just loses credibility. There seems to be a precedent that knocking people for their religion or ethnicity is fine - if not outright \*encouraged \* just to keep the pages refreshing. I donno. Maybe some of the mods agree with certain mentality and are influenced by it. I’m a big girl. You can claim that I have poor reading comprehension, or that my argument is stupid, or that all women are evil, or whatever. I really don’t get offended, but I was moderated for that same thing. I just don’t appreciate being targeted - mod, poster, whatever. The stuff we talked about is of a LOT more consequence than someone suggesting you can’t read well. I like posting here, but it’s kind of hard to be a productive part of the conversation when you feel like your may have accidentally tucked your skirt into your underwear and you have TP stuck on your shoe. I mean, how am I supposed to debate if I have a wedgie up my ass? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/77 "2011-04-18T20:41:50Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Racist is a direct insult in Great Debates, and the mods have repeatedly clarified that. > Ah well, eh? As made clear in the Africa threads. You _can_ be racist. You just can’t \*call _someone racist. You can be racist and call blacks inferior but it’s_ not \*hate speech. Hate speech is banned here. Hate speech is saying a potty word, unless, of course, you are talking about Sub Saharan Africa, Jews, Christians, or Muslims. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/78 "2011-04-18T20:43:54Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > 2 pages to understand that asshole is a direct insult while racist is not, in Great Debates? Yo. Pit thread is [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5). You can have yourself a whole entire thread for non productive snark. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/79 "2011-04-18T20:45:31Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > By precedent that mods have set forth in this thread, that’s what happened. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/80 "2011-04-18T21:03:16Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7696990#post7696990](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7696990#post7696990) > > [SDMB registration agreement as of 12/5/2005 - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347160) > > But it’s OK to call Jews elitist bigoted racist whatevers or display blatant anti-Muslim sentiment or say that blacks are less intelligent than whites. > > Check. Something you may have missed in the rules. > [@](#): > > Do not pester us for hypothetical examples of what does or does not constitute a violation - we believe our rules are reasonably clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=5)