# No bone to pick

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-bone-to-pick/818466>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [July 23, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-bone-to-pick/818466 "2018-07-23T18:53:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 55

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-bone-to-pick/818466/55 "2018-07-25T13:51:49Z")

</div>

> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> You _did_ equate them, on one property - as things mods can raise that posters can’t - thereby drawing an equivalency between them. Or was your response sentence supposed to be wholly unrelated to the quote it sits under?

You got the ‘things mods can do that posters can’t’ part right, but the two things being used as an example part wrong - the “them” part in your post. The proximity of of the phrase ‘anti-white’ in the paragraph may cause it to appear as one of the two things, however it is not.  
[ul]  
[li]One of the things is accusing other posters of trolling. I can do that when moderating, but other posters cannot do that outside the Pit.[/li][li]The other thing is personalizing an argument, essentially attacking the person’s character or insulting them. I can do that when moderating, but other posters cannot do that outside the Pit.[/li][/ul]  
To fit this construction, where I did something that other posters cannot, it would have to be something like this:  
_One of the things is being anti-white. I can be anti-white when moderating, but other posters cannot be anti-white._  
That doesn’t make sense. It’s more clear when looking at the commentary in context. Here is what Huey said above:

> [@Huey\_Freeman](#):
>
> I also don’t think it’s the moderator’s job to impugn my posts as “anti-white”, either.

He was objecting to this comment from me while moderating:

> [@George Will says vote Dem in November](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-says-vote-dem-in-november/816619/25):
>
> You seem to be very interested in introducing anti-white sentiment in your posts. And while that can be fine or not depending on context, this type of language above is not. Calling people “negro” in this context is not okay.

Huey apparently felt slighted/insulted/impugned by my comment. My response was responding to that sentiment, that yes I offered personalized commentary and that may be necessary when moderating. I specifically state that introducing anti-white sentiment can be fine, depending on context. It can also be not fine, depending on context. Given there has been no action taken wrt anti-white sentiment offered thus far, it’s a good indication that nothing has crossed a line.

> [@](#):
>
> But if being “anti-White” isn’t actually a moddable offence, like trolling is, I don’t see why you needed to mention it, anyway. We’ve been told, time and time again, that outright racism of other sorts isn’t in-and-of-itself against the rules, as long as it’s not done via other rule-breaking like insults. So even if you are correct, no rules were broken by that fact.
> 
> I mean, you’re not modding posters _differently_ just because they display anti-_White_ bias, are you? I don’t recall any mods specifically calling posters out as “anti-Black” in any of those “Africans are teh dumb!” or “white genocide in SA” threads. So why mention it here? :dubious:

I question your conclusion that outright racism is not moddable, however given topics dealing with race are both sensitive and complex, context plays a big role. Here you seem to want to re-litigate past history - I decline your invitation.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-bone-to-pick/818466)._