Unfortunately, dammit.
Not even preview is invincible. 
DocCathode wrote:
Ooh, a Watchmen quote!
So, what do I win for identifying it?
Manhattan said some things that even floored me . I now see the value of censored debate. If I were to say such things I have no doubt that I would be banned from this place without opportunity for such a weak apology that does not back down from indictment of the whole church.
Manhattan, you obviously have some good friends here, that speaks well of you, otherwise you would be out on your ear.
This is not an apology. It sounds like one, but in truth its just an attempt to shirk responsibilities. You have “issues”. Well boo-fucking-hoo. Your diatribe was bigotted and vulgar, and you should have been banned. I firmly believe that any normal member would have been. At the very least, they should ahve stripped you of any and all responsibility on the board.
That someone can spit in the face of every Catholic here, and then come into this thread and tell us/them that we/they have to like it, and is still a “leader” around here, says a lot about those who run this place.
Kirk
For some reason the idea of a [banned poster/moderator is very appealing. LOL I like the ‘sock’ idea/ two hats thing.
I wonder how long a person would still work as a moderator if their posting privilages were banned?
Consistency is a very hard thing for me to do so I guess I need to remember,
The world is Round!
It is not Fair,
It is just Damm Round!
The discussion happened before I was on staff, but I seem to remember that this was proposed before and rejected. Personally I would hate the idea because I would have to remember to keep logging off / logging on everytime I change posting mode from moderator to regular poster.
Not quite the end. I’m really steamed by this whole debacle. It’s a total disgrace. I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!
I’m really pissed that he was scolded for speaking his mind in the pit. The BBQ Pit, according to the description, is the place for strongly worded opinions, and for rants in general.
-
His opinion is valid. Failing to condemn the offenders’ actions is to condone them. But the church’s leadership, and indeed the church itself, has gone beyond that - They help to cover up the offenses, they hide the priests by moving them around to new parishes instead of turning them in to the police for their crimes.
-
Whether Guinistasia likes it or not, her church is encouraging that behavior by helping to hide it and helping them to get away with it. The church does in fact behave like a sex cult, and her personal feelings on the matter don’t change the fact that she’s a member of an organization that does so.
-
Why is it ok for regular posters to call each other fucking cock sniffing assclowns for any reason at all (or even no reason), but Manhattan is dressed down for speaking his opinion IN THE PROPER FORUM, and as a poster, and without the figurative “moderator hat”?
To be honest, I think it’s a bunch of crap, and it’s the type of decision that is usually made by a two-bit assclown. No offense.
Oh yeah peeps get banned from the SDMB all the time - right. Who believes that if any one else had said the RCC was a child sex cult they would be banned? IMBO No one else would be banned for such an off the cuff sarcastic comment! In fact the PIT is full of rants and ugly comments and disgusting subjects - Dopers give each other points for clever diatribes full of curses and insults!
So some dopers feelings were hurt? TOO BAD. Light a candle and pray for the sinners soul - pinheads
However, it wasn’t sarcastic. I will admit that when I first read the post, I thought it was. However, in his “apology” he implied he was serious. Was it something he should be banned for? IMO, no…if it were a normal poster. By posting his second post, in a pseudo-apology did not help. He would have been better off posting nothing at all. But that is just my opinion, of course, and means jack-shit.
The fact is the mods have the final say on these boards. If they feel he should not be banned, then there is nothing anyone can do about it.
However, I do find it ironic that they are trying to “sweep it under the rug” the same way Manny implies the RCC is doing. That and the debacle of a few weeks ago when a poster got banned just because he simulposted something after Manny said not to.
Oh fuck off. If you can’t see the difference in keeping my religious beliefs and excusing what the church has done, then you need your head fucking examined.
Ok, here are two statements:
a) You condone pedophilia
b) The leadership of you church condones and protects pedophilia
Only one of those two is what I said. If you can’t see the difference between them, then you should have your OWN head examined.
Way to represent and defend your church…Especially when the conduct of members of said church is the WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD… :rolleyes:
No, you accused me of being a member of an organization that behaves like a child sex cult.
I don’t appreciate THAT. I too have major issues with the church, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to call it a sex cult. Try morally ignorant at times, stupid and just plain close-minded. How about bigoted and behind the times?
But I am NOT part of the hierarchy. Remember-there is no democracy in the Catholic church. I am NOT a member of the hierarchy, but of the laity, and there’s a big damn difference there, fuckstick.
Be that as it may, posters are still not allowed to be a jerk in here.
This, however, is not entirely what he said. He said, “…the Catholic Church in the United States is a child sex cult, and you are a member.”
Not that the RCC is acting like or behaves in the manner of, but that it is a child sex cult. And then takes it one step further by declaring a fellow poster of being a memeber of said child sex cult. I’m sure you can see the difference here between simply stating one’s opinion and an unwarranted attack on a fellow poster.
**
Please give me an example of posters attacking other posters for no reason at all wherein the attacker did not get reprimanded by mods or fellow posters. And “any reason at all”? I think you’re oversimplifying. Sure, attacks are made, but unfounded attacks are met with reprimand, even here in the Pit. I think manhattan has been treated as would any other poster would have been treated over the same remarks.
Get the fuck over it. She can’t be human as well as Catholic and subject to human emotion? And since when is it Guin’s job to defend her church? as I’ve seen it, she does not condone these actions of the church heiarchy, so why should she defend them?
Go back into lurk mode Joe; that way you seem less like a drooling masturbating chimp with internet access. (Sorry, I just like that insult better than "fucking cock sniffing assclown.)
Sorry if this is ATMBish, but is there anything in the new software that would help enable something to that effect? I just think that the benefits would far outweigh the inconvenience - I can think of several reasons why people would want to see a coding distinction between the membership and the moderatorship of Dopers.
cagiva, fuck off. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. If you honestly think that manhattan’s comment was “off the cuff” and “sarcastic,” then I suggest you take a gander at the fact that those “sarcastic” comments had to be apologized for and the poster reprimanded for them.
No one is calling for anyone to be banned for such a comment simply because that is not the comment that was made.
Joe_Cool, eat a dick. It seems it is you who have lost sight of what this discussion is about. It is not about the church, it is about manhattan being a jerk, and circuitously calling Guin (and all other Catholics) a child sex cultist.
Just to bring you up to speed, since it is apparent that you don’t get updates with your head so far up your ass, “the church” is synonomous with “the congregation.” The congregation of the Catholic Church has just recently become widely aware of the transgressions. How exactly can they “cover up” and “hide the priests” when they don’t know about it?
You know what, don’t answer that. That isn’t what this discussion is about. It’s about manhattan’s actions.
Yes it is. However, despite its colorfulness and the fact that it was in the Pit, people who post deplorable and borderline hate speech are routinely banned. However, the frequency of such idiocy is understandably and thankfully low. I’m sorry, but a half-assed apology and an apparant reprimand hardly compensate for a moderator breaking rule #1.
There may be no democracy, but membership is, actually, voluntary.
May I again sugest the formation of a Catholic Church of America?
Keep the faith, lose the Pope and Curia.
[sub]Damn, I’m good at solutions…**
typing is hard… 
So…at what point do the insults being flung about here and elsewhere in the Pit cross the line into “jerk” territory?
I’m not sure exactly where the line is, but I am pretty sure that calling Guinastasia a pedophile is well past it.
Actually, there isn’t any line.
As it is stated in the FAQs (paraphrasing):
We reserve the right to ban you for any reason at all, or no reason at all.
It’s all politics. Not that there is anything wrong with that, as the CR sets the rules, and it’s their board. You can either accept their decision, or post elsewhere.
When the insult crosses over into an attack on someone for her ethnicity, creed, national origin, or sexual preference, as long as said preference is ACTUALLY that of the person AND is legal. When that attack is not only on her but on many other members, which is why it seems we can abuse the Amish.
Calling someone an “ass clown” does not fit those criteria, as it is really a nonsense term. “Goat felcher” does not meet the legality criterion, but it has been accepted here as a standard insult that is not based on the belief that the person actually felches goats. Using a false generalization to damn an entire group is not allowed; Black women cannot be characterized as crack whores; Muslims cannot be catagorically described as terrorists; French people cannot—well, it seems like open season on the French here, so they don’t count—and Roman Catholics cannot all be called members of “a child sex cult.” With the help of some of our posters we are even, finally, becoming aware that not all Fundamentalist Christians are pointy-headed morons. Perhaps we’ll stop insulting them AS A GROUP.
Individuals who have EARNED flaming for a valid and accepted reason will deservedly get flamed. Individuals who have NOT earned it will be defended. If the insult is awful enough, as the one manny made, the poster’s continued acceptance in the community will be questioned.