You cross into “jerk” territory if you EVER -
call anyone Naven R Johnson.
Tell someone to get an opti-grab.
Sing a song about a thermos.
Go back on your promise to send Mr Hartoonian a postcard.
The current aruging upsets me quite a bit. I’d like to do something comical to distract all of you but I can’t because…
I’m getting…Happy Feet!
Sounds like the ELCA, as made gentle fun of by Garrison Kiellor, that I invited manny to join. No Pope (well, we have a Presiding Bishop, but he has a limited term), no Curia, plenty of female pastors, gay pastors, leftist politics, cute Norwegian girls*, pretty good food. No St Joseph’s Tables, but you don’t get them in Irish parishes, where you’re stuck with Irish cooking.
I don’t see it as being any worse than calling someone a goat-fucker or anything else of that nature. The whole point of insulting someone is to hurt their feelings. That in itself constitutes jerkishness in my book. And yet, again, the Pit is filled with such. What makes being called “this” worse than being called “that”?
[after preview…]
Again, the point of the insult, regardless whether it may be based on the person’s race, creed, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or just random swear words thrown together, is to be hurtful. Many of the insults (however creatively they may be phrased) hurled about here are references, whether direct or indirect, to the perceived intelligence of the insultee. “Ass clown” may be nonsense, but the intent is still, in many cases, to belittle the poster.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I am not calling for a kinder, gentler Pit here. I just think there’s a fair amount of hypocrisy involved in saying that what manny said was wrong, yet other insults are accepted as “proper”. Hell, read just about any political thread here in the Pit and you can see a lot more viciousness than calling someone a pedophile.
Either people need to grow thicker skins if they venture this far down, or they need to realize they aren’t any better than manny, just because their insults are more “creative”.
This is my opinion and has no bearing on how this board is run… or you feel the thread hasn’t been hijacked enough? Your question can be interpreted a couple ways: Do you want a justification of my opinion on why I think manhattan deserved the reprimand and that the apology was called for? Or do you want a discussion of where the jerk-line is, which you can probably find with a search.
The general cop-out answer:
It’s all subjective and not my call to make. In the end I guess it comes down to when the mods say it is.
The why I think manny owed an apology answer:
One thing that will get thrown into the “jerk” catagory rather easily (as far as I have seen) is hate speech: bigotry towards race, nationality, religion, etc. These statements usually can be summed up as “All ____ are ____.” Such as “All Polish people are stupid.” or “All Christians are homophobes.” The initial comment that started all this certainly seems to have qualified, “…the Catholic Church in the United States is a child sex cult, and you are a member.” This has the odor of hate speech, seemingly condemning all members of the RCC in the US - Guin in particular since that who the comment was directed at - for the actions of a few.
Let’s wander into analogy country for a sec (yes, we all love this game, don’t we?) Let’s say you’re (and I don’t mean anyone in particular here, just ‘you’ in general) at a family reunion where you learn a distant cousin molested a kid. Some great-aunt and uncle covered it up, not wanting to be embarassed in front of the rest of the family. You never knew about this. In fact, only the aunt, uncle, and a cousin twice removed knew. They covered it up. Does this make the entire family a child sex cult? By being a member of the family, do you condone the act? You still love your parents and brothers and sisters, so you don’t want to disown your family, cuz the majority of them are good people. Now the cousin’s acts are made public and I come along and tell you your entire family is a child sex cult and you’re a member. Is that fair to you or am I a jerk for saying that about something so obviously close to your heart?
My personal and not at all relevant to anything opinion answer:
When the attacks go beyond what a poster says and does on the boards. Some examples: “You’re from the South?! You’re a KKK sister-fucking racist!” or “I may be wrong about (subject), but I just came from your homepage and Christ, you’re a fat ugly sonofabitch. Do you eat entire third-world nations for breakfast or what?”
Blatant inflammatory generalizations and bigotry such as “All gays spread AIDS and should be moved to an island somewhere.” or “The entire RCC in the US is a child sex cult and you’re a member.”
As I see it, it’s not so much about the intent to hurt, but what the intent is based in. If I started a thread called “Darwin’s Finch is a goat-felching assclown crack-whore” and in the OP have no real reason for attacking you, then I am being a jerk. However, if the OP then has links and cites and shows what you did and why I’m angered, then it’s fair game.
It’s not necessarily the insult that’s jerk-like, it’s the motive behind the insult.
Of course, I want to emphasize, this is just my take on things, YMMV and I’m sure if someone really wants to hijack this pointless side-discussion further, they can point out exceptions or other examples, etc.
All that said, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m still pissed and harping at manny or anything. He made an emotional mistake and apologized and it’s over, as far as I care. However, I disagree with those who claim his comments were justified and that no apology was necessary. Indicting the entire RCC, including the laity, when most had no knowledge of the incidents is an unfair attack. You want to pound those that made the cover ups and were in the know? Fine, go ahead, start a new thread in fact, since this one isn’t about that. But quit holding all Catholics responsible for things they new nothing about.
IMHO, dropzone hit the nail on the head. For the last six months or so, posters have been roundly called out for calling Muslims terrorists, at least one poster has been banned for making equally stupid comments about Jewish people, but somehow calling all Catholics members of a “child sex cult” slides by with a rather mild reprimand. Um, either hateful characterizations of groups of people are allowed, or they are not. Which is it? I would think the latter would be preferred, in a forum for fighting ignorance.
I did not intend to hijack this thread, I assure you. I asked because I felt the question was relevant, given there are apparently at least a few members who felt that manhattan was being a jerk. I asked because, while I believe the apology was warranted, I do not feel he was being any more “jerkish” than a good many other Pit posters who fling insults with wild abandon. That’s all 
I agree and I for one could have done without that “apology”!
I’ll take that challenge.
Look around, you’ll find appologies from me, most right here in the pit. I think I can safely say that I know how to 'fess up. There are any number of ways to appologise. The best, IMO, is to just come right out an say it, keeping explanations to a necessary minimum. The worst, also IMO, is to weasel-word your way through it, avoiding, as much as possible, a retraction of what you’d said.
manhatten chose the path of the weasel, IMO.
What annoys me to no end is the fact that after his offensive ‘apology’, manny never bothered to answer any of the posts to this thread.
Darwin’s Finch…
I see why Guin might be a liitle pissed off…
You could call me a “masturbating chimp with an internet connection” or a “goat felching syphilitic ass clown” and I would just smile and nod because those terms are fairly amusing and I know I’m not a goat felching syphilitic ass clown.
Calling someone a pedophile or even implying that someone might support child abuse is a much different matter.
Try doing it with someone face to face and see what happens…
I will bear no respnsibility if you take me up on this but I would tell you to prepare yourself for the ass whupping of your life.
We’re pretty safe here… we can say a lot of things to each other that aren’t nice but imagine the peron you were speaking to was right in front of you, it makes a world of difference.
of course, you realize that he hasn’t posted anything since then? (I checked his profile, at this point, the ‘last posting by’ was this thread).
Oops! Sorry, I hadn’t checked. I should have, but didn’t think of it. Will do the next time, though.
Since he hasn’t posted anything since that post, it could be there is more going on than we know. Or he could just be away and not seen the responses to his thread.
I just hope I didn’t come accross too big an asshole.
Would I be allowed to characterize the Ku Klux Klan as an organization of domestic terrorists, racist killers, and to say derogatory things about an individual on the basis of that person’s membership in abovementioned org?
Even though the KKK doesn’t characterize itself as a pro-violence organization, but instead as some kind of ‘Christian knights’ society for the preservation of white people’s culture, values, and political concerns?
The problem with religion is that we tend to treat it as roughly parallel to race or sex when it comes to issues of defamation or the belittling of individuals based on their membership in that category. But religion is, as has been pointed out, a process in which one’s membership (at least in non-theocracies) is voluntary. And those organizations – those churches, denominations, entire religions – are inherently political.
None of this means that the Catholic Church is either a child sex cult or is morally akin to the KKK in any meaningful sense, but I think it does mean that under some circumstances it could be, it might be; and therefore it strikes me as valid that someone should be permitted to hold and voice such an opinion.
For my own part, the one thing I truly appreciate about the Catholic Church (as a theology and an institution with a history) is that it so thoroughly represents everything I’m opposed to morally politically and theologically; and it is sometimes nice and convenient sometimes to have a clearly defined and recognizable antithesis. So I tend to agree with Manhattan’s original statement about the church (and with his modified variant as posted in his apology concerning the responsibilities and duties of individual members thereof), and I could go on to say worse things. And might.
By the same token, you could call me a pedophile (even in person), and I probably wouldn’t care much. Why? Because, as you noted, I know I am not one, and those who know me know likewise. It’s ultimately a matter of what people choose to take offense to.
Again, no matter how “amusing” or creative the insult may be, whether you call me a “pig-raping ass clown” or “a member of a child sex cult”, if your intent is to hurt my feelings or belittle me, then if one statement is an example of jerkish behavior, so is the other.
I disagree. If I overheard some one being called a ‘pig fucking clown’, I’d think “oh, he’s being insulted” If I overheard some one being called a pedophile, I’d think it was a specific accusation.
Since you folks are going back and forth on this, I’ll explain MY reasoning and maybe you can try it yourself.
The part of the original post that I most objected to was directed at Guinestasia. She was okayish with his “apology” so I’m in no position to hold a grudge.
manny and I may not be close friends, but we are acquaintances and I like him fine. Part of getting along in a society is to understand that some people, sometimes people to whom you are very close, will hold opinions that you disagree with. You do what you can to persuade them and, failing that, you roll your eyes and go on. If the other person’s other qualities are such that you wish to continue the relationship you now know a conversation topic to avoid. If not, there are other people out there, but you don’t want to stay too absolutist or you will find that the circle of people with whom you can have a civil conversation shrinks until all you have to talk to are echos of you.
Although his “apology” is as lame as hell and reads more like a defense than a confession of guilt, some of the points he makes are valid and would bear further consideration. I’m not going to shoot our relationship to hell because I disagree with SOME of what he says.
Life is too short to bear grudges against anybody, people. manny has generally shown himself to be a responsible contributor to this board but nobody’s perfect. The occasional screwup is to be expected and accepted.
Dropzone’s reasoning appears to be quite reasonable, and seems to be an appropriate way for an individual poster to reconcile himself to Manhattan and his half-assed apology. For the SDMB community, though, I think two issues remain unresolved:
[ul]
[li]Can one person (i.e., Guinistasia) accept an apology on behalf of the larger community to which she belongs? If I am in a room full of friends and acquaintences who happen to be black, and in the heat of the moment I (of course inexcusably) call one friend a “nigger” within earshot of all the others, does my apology need to be accepted only by that one friend in order for everything to be peachy keen all around once more?[/li]
[li]A real, straightforward apology should benefit the person apologizing as much as anyone. The fact that Manhattan is still afraid to show his face on the boards bespeaks a conscience yet unshriven. He should try making an apology once again for his own sake. That, or (heh heh) go to confession. [/li][/ul]
Manhattan’s continued absence indicates that his reluctance to come clean has crippled his ability to act as a moderator. I would suggest that he impose something of a probationary period upon himself and resign from his position as a moderator. He could go back to his duties at some point in the future when he, we, and the administrators agree that the time is right.
How about that?
Do you have kids? Have you thought about what pedophilia really is?
OK, never mind your own personal feelings and let’s look at cause and effect. If you have kids, and I yell “you pig raping ass clown” at you in the middle of a crowded mall, probably nothing will come of it. You won’t have a visit from the ASPCA. But–and this is no joke–you may very well get a visit from your local child protection agency if I yelled that you were a pedophile. You still think it’s a joke? You could have your kids taken away from you, for months if not permanently. Your employer could decide that this reputation you’ve developed is reason enough to check out your Internet cache at work. And if he finds something questionable there–God help you. You could face the prospect of going to prison with a “child molester” label stuck on you.
Still think it’s a joke?
Okay.
First, for us Christians in this thread, Andros posted the sole applicable criterion. If we don’t want to listen to the Guy that he quoted, we might as well shut up.
Second, Manhattan has issues with the RCC – he said as much in his OP. I would wager that there is not a person on this board, myself included, who has not had his ire aroused by some remark made somewhere on the board. Many of us have posted in anger and lived to regret it.
Third, it’s up to the management here to decide to what extent moderators will be “held to a higher standard.” This means that any opinions any of us have regarding Manny’s status count for precisely zilch – with the possible exception of Guinastasia as the injured party, the administration having in the past been willing to listen to the views of the party who has been, so to speak, sinned against.
Fourth, indicting the pedophiles among the Catholic clergy, or Catholic Church’s hierarchy for covering up the molestations, does not equate to indicting the Catholic Church as an institution.
Fifth, Manny’s post in the other thread was over the top, as he himself admits. He’s taken action to explain why he reacted as he did – and I for one would welcome his raising the issues that gave him cause to be angry at the Catholic Church in a thread in the appropriate forum (GD or the Pit, as he chooses) – if and only if he sees fit to do so. [FTR, I have serious issues with the polity of the United Methodist Church, owing to really major offenses against myself and my family by a pastor and the Official Board he had turned into yes-men, and the total incompetence of the authorities (District Superintendent, Annual Conference, and Bishop) who were supposed to be dealing with that sort of stuff. Never brought this up before except in passing; never had any reason to – the pastor is gone, thrown out of the ministry, the family members other than me are dead, and what’s been destroyed cannot be restored. But if knowing it, and knowing that I can still respect that church in general though not the particular people in question, will help to heal this situation, then I’m glad to share it.]
Sixth, those of you who have quick-and-easy solutions for the Catholics are forgetting the polity of that church and the theology behind it. If the sacraments require ordained priests and bishops (as all but two do), if participation in the sacraments is essential to one’s spiritual life (as Catholics believe), if communion with the Pope is essential to being truly a part of the church (a gross simplification of what Catholics believe), then “going off and starting on your own” is not a viable answer – much like not liking what the Supreme Court says, so we appoint minty green, SuaSponte, and seven other members of the bar and the board as our own SCOTUS and believe their rulings – guess what? It just ain’t legal. Neither is “the Catholic Association of America” and the other solutions.
[Unabashed prejudiced puffery of my own church: On the other hand, you can find a church that preserves the apostolic succession, the sacraments as they are understood in Catholic doctrine and a liturgy almost identical to the English language post-Vatican II Mass, a call to do things because you feel them to be morally right rather than as legislated by a hierarchy – just look for little blue-and-white signs bearing a shield with St. Andrew’s Cross in the corner and saying “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.”]
Now, if Ed, Jenny, Lynn, and the rest of the authorities here wanted my opinion, I’d say that Manny has done what he needed to do – confessed his posting error and apologized. That’s what it takes for a banned poster to come back. I see no reason for asking him for more.
At the same time, I think now that the issue has come up, it might be good for him to work through the anger that came out in that post – that’s why I suggested him posting. However, that does not mean that every moron who feels that his opinions regarding religion in general and moderators in general deserve to be heard by all and sundry have open license to chew off a piece of Manny’s hide.
And, at the risk of hijacking this thread, I’d like to observe that that “Vatican spokesman” has no clue of what will help to solve the problem, and should leave moral teachings to the bishops and such that are supposed, according to good Catholic doctrine, to be doing the teaching of them.