Except this is not a rule applied evenly, hence the “not getting it”.
Poster A: Jews are bigoted.
Poster B: No we’re not.
Poster A: Yes you are.
Anyway, why am I responding to you? You said I wasn’t Jewish.
Because this thread isn’t about being Jewish?
(FYI, I said that you are culturally/ethnically Jewish and can be considered religiously-Jewish as long as Cthulu believers can also be considered religiously-Jewish)
Again. Insulting my religion. :rolleyes:
I think most dopers have an aversion for hive-mind mentality.
I don’t think what was going on in that thread, or what she’s describing here, comes close to hive-mind. We were all in agreement, but for more meaningful reasons.
Sorry but when a poster goes out of her way every two posts to give high five to anybody she might recognize as jewish (or posts freaking pictures of herself and her boyfriends ?? What the hell?) all the symptoms are there. She sounds like a jewish poet.
[Moderating]
Keep the debate in Great Debates and the questions about the rules in this thread. We don’t need the same argument in two threads.
[/Moderating]
I’ve read the last couple of pages of the “why do Jews get a pass?” thread and a few others you participated in, and I don’t see this anywhere. I’ll admit to not doing the most thorough search but the closest thing I saw was another poster saying “Don’t be blind,” which does not mean ‘you can’t read.’ Regardless if you think you’re being insulted, you should always report the post and not respond with insults. No exceptions. We try to be thorough in reading threads that are reported, but we don’t read every post or every thread, so if you don’t report there’s no guarantee we’re aware of it.
I can see you take offense to this but it’s not against the rules. We don’t moderate everything that any individual could take exception to. If we did, we couldn’t have a debate forum. For the most part we moderate comments that are directly insulting to individual posters or other statements that are likely to derail a thread.
It would be very hard to have a debate forum without this one.
Not directly against the rules. In context I might moderate these for being off-topic or for being inflammatory.
These are not against the rules (since categorical statements like this are usually allowed), but they also have zero debate value.
These are all personal. “You are lying” is explicitly against the rules, “you speak an untruth” looks intended to circumvent that rule on a technicality while making the same accusation. The others all make the discussion unnecessarily personal and are likely to get moderated.
That makes no sense Tom…and if true, I’ll look forward to seeing the night of long warnings occurring going forward for posters that haven’t been warned for exactly that but regularly (EVERY fucking thread type “regularly”) engage in exactly that behavior.
How many times have we seen:
Poster A (espousing political party 1 views in the thread): I believe such-and-such
Poster B: All political party 1 members are racists/misogynists/cowards/liars.
or, my personal favorite and yours:
Poster A (espousing religious views): My faith believes such and such about this issue.
Poster DT: All people who are religious are morons. Simplistic dolts. And evil. Evil as the day is long. Totally whacked.
How is that not exactly what you warned CitizenPained for?
Or more aptly:
A: I’m an atheist bur Jewish
B: people who claim that are disingenuous, with blinders on, hypocritical etc etc.
I wonder if the post I reported will get any comment
I gave the warning, not tomndebb. The violation is obvious: CitizenPained said Polerius was telling people what they believe and called him a “sanctimonious a-hole” for doing so. There’s no interpretation of the rules under which that is allowed.
For a long time the guideline here has been that you can say insulting things about groups of people (Republicans, atheists, whoever) that Dopers are a part of and it is not considered a personal insult. We don’t know what associations are and are not represented here, and there wouldn’t be much room to discuss anything if you could not say anything negative about any group of people. When you respond directly to a statement made in the thread by saying “anyone who believes this is an idiot/asshole/whatever,” you are clearly insulting them individually rather than responding to the argument.
I think Marley23 sums it up admirably. People may well feel personally insulted if their group is maligned but the fact is it doesn’t become a personal insult unless it is clearly aimed at an individual member. Mods are old hands at detecting when a group insult is, so to speak, a personal insult in sheep’s clothing and to tell the truth it’s usually pretty obvious, as it is in the particular instance for which the OP was warned.
The post is confrontational but I don’t think any comment was called for.
In a thread about mate selection, I noted I wasn’t attracted to certain ‘looks’. That’s a biological response.
I also think it’s pretty obvious who’s a Jew in a thread about Jews. :rolleyes:
wtf. You wanna pit me, go take it to the Pit. You and Dio can have a party.
Capitaine Zombie and CitizenPained, take the original topic back to the Great Debates thread and take any personal inssues (as CitizenPained said) to the Pit. This is the wrong forum for those arguments.
thumbs.
It was in the Jesus and literacy thread. I think Dio said it twice. It’s actually less annoying than someone blowing up parts of your quote and saying, “I’m making this easier for you to read.”
I did. Once. But it’s hard to report posts cause then I feel a little tattle tale ish. I could actually go through and cite inflammatory posts in that thread, but that’s not really the point. I don’t think. And doesn’t constant post reporting bother you? Anyway, the search function keeps kapooing on me.
Wasn’t knockin’ mods, just curious as to how it all works. 
The last few pages of the Jew/Racist thread were pretty G-rated.
I thought inflammatory statements like some of the ones I listed were against the rules?
:eek:
Doper A: I’m religious.
Doper B: If you are religious, you can’t think coherently.
is not insulting?
Well, yeah, but so do most others I’ve seen. 
I’m sorry. I guess I feel that the rules are slippery, slightly ambiguous, and rulings aren’t binding or follow precedent. I do appreciate you going through the list, though I’m sure I’ll get into trouble with semantics. It always sucks to get busted when you’re trying to behave. 
Well, I did say sanctimonious a-hole, so it was completely relevant to the topic. 
I was puzzled at what the purpose of making new rules for someone else’s religion was.
I wasn’t specifically referring to Polerius (though since that comment I’m starting to wonder) but he kept asking me what if this, what if that, well why can’t people believe this or that, why why why + infusing his (factually incorrect? false? not true? help!) ideas of someone else’s religious history into the conversation.
Either he was trying to egg me on or he was really curious. Or ignorant.
I still stand by that statement. What kind of sanctimonious a-hole (a jerk who thinks he’s morally superior) tries to redefine another religious group’s rules? In other words, “What’s the purpose of this Inquisition?”
I can’t go and tell his religion that their rules are wrong and then change them! That’s impossible. To presume I* could *do so would mean I’d have to assert some kind of moral or intellectual superiority, not to mention the power to enforce such a change. And actually trying to do that just kinda makes me a jerk.
[ol]
[li]So yeah, I kind of think anyone who tries to define Jews as a race by Mengelean standards is an anti-Semitic jerk. [/li]
[li]Anyone who tries to re-write the rules for someone else’s religion to make it acceptable to their own beliefs is a sanctimonious asshole. [/li]
[li]People who decry members of opposition political parties as “idiots” without discussion probably a) don’t know public policy b) don’t know how to debate c) are too tired to think it through d) one or more of the above and and in any case should refrain from commentary until their neural pathways are a little more formed.[/li][/ol]
Soooo I think some opinions on general groups are more valid than others - especially when that general group is inflammatory, rude, bigoted, racist, hateful, or otherwise just not freakin’ capable of productive conversation.
I don’t think you’ve reported a post to this point. And you’re not required to ever report anything. But if you don’t, you really can’t complain if we don’t do anything about insults in your direction because we may not be aware of them. Other people may report the posts and they may not.
No. Most of the forums here are too busy for us to read every thread or post, so we need people to help us out by reporting threads and posts that could present a problem. And if you’re constantly reporting posts that are not against the rules, we’ll just ignore you. 
There is no rule against inflammatory statements, and no one ever said there was. An inflammatory statement is often the subject of debate, but there are situations in which those statements get moderated.
Yes, that’s insulting. By the way this is exactly what you did with Polerius.
I think if you hang around here and get a sense of how discussions here usually work, you’ll get the hang of it.
They’re pretty much the same. But you didn’t say Christians are sanctimonious assholes. I probably would have just moderated that for being off topic.
I recognize the difference between “You are lying” and “You are speaking an untruth.” But someone who reads “you are speaking an untruth” may not make that distinction because it leaves open the possibility the person is lying. “You are wrong” addresses the same issue without imputing ill intent, so it works better.
My bad, and my apologies for the error.
Great–then I’ll look forward to seeing many, MANY, MANY more warnings under this interpretation. Der Trihs* does exactly this in every religion thread I’ve seen him in, most abortion threads and many political threads. When this interpretation is applied, he’ll be banned within a day. Ditto several others on both sides of the political fence. (And GD will be a better place for it)
(Please note, I fully, 100% support this new interpretation. No snark, I think it’s a change for the better. I think it’s a huge positive for GD and for the SDMB. I’m just eager to see it applied)
*Yes, I know the idiotic new rules of ATMB frowns on naming names, but it’s fucking impossible to discuss moderator actions without naming names. Speaking of rules that need to be revised, that one needs a serious look,
Sort of. I wasn’t 100 per cent positive if he was in that group. But I did refrain from saying, “You are a sanctimonious asshole” based on all the precedent I’ve seen on SD this week…
I’m tired. If I’m not allowed to give examples in here (as Fenris just said) then I donno what to say.
Okay.
I’m here for the ride. rubs eyes Time for coffee.
I think maybe you should reread what you wrote, because no doubts are evident in the post.
I’m not sure where he is getting that. It’s hard to ask about the rules without ever using an example. Attacking people personally is not allowed.
That being said, you’re not required to like Diogenes the Cynic but you’re inserting potshots against him into a lot of your posts, and that is still not appropriate outside the Pit. I’m rereading the thread about Jesus and literacy and frankly, 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.