Mod ruling: an argument "retarded" since it isn't personal

[Little_Nemo]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There’s a long history of mods accepting the transparent fiction of calling a post stupid to avoid calling a poster stupid, and also a long history of the mods not letting it slide. I can’t figure out any pattern except for what side of the bed the mod got out of that morning.

This is a long standing sore point. Could all the mods push their beds up against a wall so they have to emerge from the same side every day?

@Jonathan_Chance

Wouldn’t help. We’ve have to sleep in the same bed for it to work.

Thanks, but no. God knows where the other two have been.

But sometimes it’s the same person.

Tomndebb gave a moderator warning on this statement:

I’ve never seen someone spew so much retarded campaign style platitude rhetoric on a message board.

But according to the OP, tomndebb said this statement wasn’t a violation:

That is one of the most retarded arguments ever presented by the anti-gun side of the debate.

I don’t see a lot of daylight between those two statements. Both used the word retarded to describe a post. So why did one merit a warning and the other did not?

[Bryan_Ekers]

The first one is more personal.

[John_Mace]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t see a lot of daylight between those two statements. Both used the word retarded to describe a post. So why did one merit a warning and the other did not?

The daylight is in the parts you left off. Here’s the full quote and moderator note:

[quote=]
…I’ve never seen someone spew so much retarded campaign style platitude rhetoric on a message board. You realize this isn’t a forum for that sort of thing, at least not a very good one? You should be out on the streets with a megaphone where you belong.
. . .
Not joking so much as making fun of your childish, uninformed and totally naive and lacking understanding of the economy.
[/quote]

@tomndebb moderating

“Retarded”? “Childish”? Even without those specific adjectives, this is more an attack than a discussion.
Dial it back or take it to The BBQ Pit.

[Riemann]

@aldiboronti

And using it of a person would be a slur. But how do offend an argument?

I’m with BigT on this. Do we make a distinction between “you are a liar” and “that statement is a lie”?

Likewise, I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between “you are an idiot” and “that argument is idiotic”. If the latter is all that’s said, it simply means that’s an argument that only an idiot would make. It’s ad hominem by transparent circumlocution.

I think there’s a gray area if you say “that argument is idiotic…” but then go on with a substantial explanation of just why you think the argument is idiotic, something that contributes to the debate. No doubt I’ve been guilty of that myself sometimes. But without that substance, the form of words should not matter. Content-free invective that’s nominally directed toward a statement is still just ad hominem.

[cochrane]

@Bone

I’m no fan of the word “retarded” being used in this way and while I may be personally bothered or even mildly offended, we’re not acting as editors here making sure everyone makes their most cogent arguments.

All three of us (and I assume Gaudere too) saw the report, and all independently came to the same conclusion. No moderation was necessary. Obviously there may be times when similar usage would warrant action, depending on context. This was not one of those times.

But would Gaudere take action on a post if it didn’t contain a spelling or grammatical error?

[DSYoungEsq]

@Riemann

I’m with BigT on this. Do we make a distinction between “you are a liar” and “that statement is a lie”?

Likewise, I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between “you are an idiot” and “that argument is idiotic”. If the latter is all that’s said, it simply means that’s an argument that only an idiot would make. It’s ad hominem by transparent circumlocution.

I think there’s a gray area if you say “that argument is idiotic…” but then go on with a substantial explanation of just why you think the argument is idiotic, something that contributes to the debate. No doubt I’ve been guilty of that myself sometimes. But without that substance, the form of words should not matter. Content-free invective that’s nominally directed toward a statement is still just ad hominem.

No. I disagree.

“Idiotic” does not mean “something made/done by an idiot.” Per Merriam-Webster, it can mean “showing complete lack of thought or common sense.” Princess Google’s definition is “very stupid.” Google goes on to give the example: “I was able to hum its idiotic theme tune.”

So in making an idiotic argument, one is not necessarily being an idiot. But one is making an argument that lacks thought or common sense. Amazingly, even non-idiots do that from time to time. Myself included.

[John_Mace]

Let he among you who is without idiocy cast the first insult.

Riemann: IIRC, we (or TPTB) decided a few years ago that even if there is little difference between insulting the post and insulting the poster, we will maintain the fiction that there is rather than forbid people from attacking the post, or allowing them to attack the poster. It’s a slippery slope, and we put a stop in it to prevent further sliding.

[bobot]

@QuickSilver

While we’re on the subject of retarded arguments, I’m wondering why this particular topic remains in GD… ?

Maybe you could PM a Mod and then publicly post the contents of the PM.

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilver

While we’re on the subject of retarded arguments, I’m wondering why this particular topic remains in GD… ?

It takes 200 posts to figure out it’s not GD.

[Fenris]

@Riemann

Likewise, I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between “you are an idiot” and “that argument is idiotic”. If the latter is all that’s said, it simply means that’s an argument that only an idiot would make. It’s ad hominem by transparent circumlocution.

You are correct that there’s no actual distinction between the two phrases, but it’s the line that’s been drawn as long as I’ve been here and has the advantage of being relatively bright-line and consistent*

*It’s a stupid distiction, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and it’s better than “I know it when I see it”