I truly appreciate both the moderators and the moderation here. Truly.
This may be my first time questioning a mod note, then.
On the Ethics of Food Stamps thread, a poster described the way in which Food Stamps are funded by all of us, implying that we might, collectively, have a say in how that money is spent at the receiver level:
I invoked health care as an analogy to illustrate the innumerable ways that individual actions result in collective costs. While that’s true, my point was that singling out a food stamp recipient seemed a bit arbitrary and discriminatory:
It was hidden as being off-topic. I simply don’t think it was. I didn’t get a warning. Nobody was mean to me. I’m just trying to understand if, and how, it strayed too far from the path.
I think that was way too heavy-handed moderation for IMHO. Everything marked off-topic was addressing the OP’s question of whether his behavior was ill-advised. Calling it a “hijack” would be questionable in P&E–but in IMHO? I disagree with that call completely.
Was it on topic specifically to the OP? No. But the mods often times will let threads grow organically and this thread was doing so. So I agree that in IMHO the mods should have left it alone.
I reread the OP, and I kinda see what you mean. If the OP was meant to address a broad social issue, with the anecdote just illustrative, then yeah–the stuff I was talking about wasn’t strictly related to the OP (although you’re right that it was related to the path the thread had taken). But I read it as talking more about how broad social issues applied to the OP’s conversational partner–in which case, the context is definitely relevant.
LHoD’s post was off-topic to the question if buying “luxury” items with food stamps is ethical, but it’s on-topic to the question “am I the asshole?” The OP (including the subject line) asked both, so I could see it being moderated either way. The back and forth had become counter productive, though, so I’d have cut it off for that reason, not because it was off topic.
DNR’s post seemed on-topic to me. I think it was collateral damage because the thread was wandering at that point.
As I said in the thread, it was relevant to the question of whether the OP ITA. You hid the explanation of its relevance, but here it is. I disagree that it was a hijack–especially since the OP brought up Asheville, not me, and then kept insisting, not that it was irrelevant, but that his friend wasn’t affected by this context.
I don’t want IMHO to be moderated like P&E, and it feels like it’s moving in that direction, which is disappointing. But it’s not the end of the world, and I don’t want to go around in circles, so unless something new comes up, I’ll leave it there.
You know what? Going back to the thread, I’m thinking LHOD might be on-topic although that is an exercise for the reader. I would like to rephrase their argument even if it is not what they meant.
The friend may be going through a tough time. I mean they’re broke-ass so their life ain’t easy to begin with. But maybe something has occurred in their life. Maybe not a hurricane, maybe just deciding what bills to pay that month but something and he craves comfort food (like caviar).
I disagree. It boiled down to, “You don’t know his situation, so you can’t judge.”
MAYBE it was over-specific re: the hurricane and I thought it was off-topic too but upon further review it was missing the forest for the trees.