I don’t think so:
Whether she’s actually calling people sexual assailants or she’s saying they endorse/support/promote sexual assault through their jokes, it’s not a “giant difference.” It’s a pretty serious accusation and/or implication either way. One poster has already been warned for being too loose with accusations and implications of sexual assault against other posters here. That’s my beef.
To use a phrase I read on the other side of this debate recently, she’s using language meant to “sexually shame” a group of posters on this board. There is no, I repeat NO, endorsement of sexual assault coming from these damn dirty jokes in the pantsless pope thread nor the sorority tirade thread. Nor is there any actual sexual assault taking place. Nor are there any deviant sexual fantasies being disclosed or carried out.
That is such a bad idea that Pandora herself would say “Even I wouldn’t open that box!”
Watch out! That was dangerously close to the types of comments that got modded in the Pantsless Pope thread in the first place. Opening a box is clearly making a joke about how much you want to sexually assault that chick.
Your take is (sadly) incorrect.
(bolding mine-Fenris)
So…the new standard is the colossal screw-up in the Pantsless Pope Girl and Sorority Girl threads.
Which is a shame.
So when do we get the t-shirt “I survived The Straight Dope Misogyfest, 2013”? Or… at least a campaign-style button to wear?
Careful Drew, your t-shirt is one “R” away from being a mod-able offense.
Giving the utmost respect to the SDMB staff as well as the stated intent of the new rules as set forth by both the administration and member advocates, it’s beginning to look like that the refusal to retract the modding in those threads really is just a face-saving measure and not truly an example of how the policy is to be implemented. If that’s the case, I can be comfortable with that.
Well, you have to survive it first, right?
Except this is Ellen–she’s one of the few mods who doesn’t have a problem retracting modding. I think she’s serious. 
I’m trying very hard to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and see this is the best possible light.
Actually, this raises a great question. Would the post made by Vinyl Turnip be moddable now? For those who don’t feel like clicking through, thread is titled “The agony of big boobs”, started by a poster whose breast size causes her back ache, and 12 posts in, VT goes “Funny, I’ve never found them anything but pleasant.”
First, yeah, there IS a giant difference between endorsing something and doing it. I’ll let you try out the analogies yourself, so that I don’t confuse Hentor any more than he already is–but there’s no ethical or legal precedent for claiming that there’s only a minor difference between endorsing something and doing it.
Second, there’s another giant difference between joking about something and endorsing it.
So if you’re reading complaints about joking about sexual assault as complaining that you’re (impersonal you’re) endorsing sexual assault, you’re already off-base. Then if you’re reading complaints about endorsing sexual assaults as accusing you (impersonal you) of committing sexual assault, you’re off-base again.
(post #421)
Gah!
That should be “I think so.”
Meaning, it appears that these new… clarifications of the rules we already have… apply to the pit.
That’s OK- you were right the first time.
Hey, you made the romantic restaurant analogy, then you frantically backpedaled. You’re the one who looked confused there.
What romantic restaurant analogy? It was a yodeling obscenities analogy!
Again: you fail at analogies if you think the goal of them is to pick an irrelevant detail from them and do your best Dr. Phil After Too Many Gin and Tonics impression. It’s not backpedaling to explain to people how analogies work.
Let’s see…
I think that post would (and should) be modded according to the new rules. It’s a gratuitous sexual comment in a serious, non-sexual thread - it falls smack dab in the middle of criterion 2.
I can’t dig up links at the moment, but in at least one or two of the monster threads, I posted many of the same links that you’re referring to. I also recall a few others doing the same.
Ding ding ding, this is totally what I was talking about. And I’m sorry, you guys are often joking about sexual assault. That’s whole damned problem here. It’s genuinely astonishing to me that some of you are so voraciously trying to defend otherwise.
But for clarity’s sake: joking about sexual assault doesn’t a rapist make. I’m not calling you a rapist or someone who wants to sexually assault someone. You are, however, making jokes about sexual assault. That’s the whole point.
but it’s not sexual assault because in my joke, she wanted it