Fine, he singled out another poster by name. However, several posters in the thread identified as being pro-life, yet many posts were made to the effect of how pro-lifers do not really mean what they say lest they would be bombing more abortion clinics. Or another post, in a thread with people who voted for Trump, saying that “MAGAbots” were just like Nazis and outside the realm of debate and civil discourse should no longer apply.
I understand that the rule is “attack the post, not the poster” and that people not on the board can be personally attacked, but this, IMHO elevates form over substance.
Is it just rules lawyering? I can say as many nasty things I want about a belief system which the poster before me just stated he belonged to? The only thing is to not name the poster? If instead of naming the poster, HurricaneDitka substituted the word “liberals” for the poster’s name, would everything have been okay?
I was wondering about this warning too. A few posts above the warning is this post:
The reference in the first line to “the go-to example for how “the government forces us to give up our rights” is something that hasn’t been relevant for about twice the length of my life and almost certainly never will be again” is clearly a reference to my posts. He goes on to question why people “engage with pro-life arguments” and then uses some variation of “lie” five times. What gives? The paper-thin veneer of “they” is enough of an impersonalization that it’s not considered an accusation of lying?
I didn’t accuse you of lying. I think the movement as a whole is built on lies from top to bottom, but I have no idea whether you’re one of those true believers who take it all in, or whether you’re just stirring the pot. I mean, the comparison to the draft was so painfully bad as to not be worth addressing, and is exactly the kind of thing one might expect a movement with nothing to go on but lies to hold on to, but for all I know, you’re saying that because you honestly believe it, and you know what? Good on you for sticking to your principles.
(For anyone who finds that questionable, imagine I’m talking to Kellyanne Conway about the Trump administration and she’s making an argument that Trump had the biggest election turnout ever or something similarly inane. Or that I’m talking to a YEC and they’re bringing up moon dust.)
There was just a Mod note on that post. I don’t understand. If I have a post that says “Republicans lie all the time about everything”, will that similarly be noted as “close to calling Republican board members liars”?
It appears that the frustration of some Dopers that [ul][li]Trump is still President, and HurricaneDitka won’t post in the Pit[/ul]is spilling over into other forums. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve written about this previously here (added the “not” in the quote):
Group insults do *not *lend themselves to bright line rules. In discussions all across the Great Debates and Elections there are disparaging comments towards groups that it is clear from past posting history that some of our posters are members of. Insults towards Republicans, Democrats, and libertarians abound and while I personally am not a fan of sweeping generalizations, it’s not something that I’d prefer to moderate.
It is when the attack on a group is inseparable from an attack on a poster where a person can run afoul of the rules. This would be context dependent. I gave an example in post #3 where a group insult would be inseparable from a personal insult towards another poster.
On the other hand, we often have posts along the lines of ‘Democrats are thieves because they want to tax all our money away!’, or ‘Republicans are racists who hate the poor!’. Both of those are childish and add little to productive discussion, but probably not something I’d moderate for personal insults (withholding judgment for other potential violations). However, depending on the direction of the thread, if it’s clear that the intent is to disparage other posters by adding the veneer of the group insult, then that would be moderated. In general I’d avoid sweeping generalizations since they are often false.
No, it’s the reason that some Dopers start rants outside the Pit, and also why some Dopers are trying to bait HurricaneDitka into getting warnings. Read the HD Pit thread. One Doper is taking credit for setting HD up to get the warning.
Except that iiandyiiii said something quite reasonable, not directed at HD at all, and he decided to call iiandyiiii a lying racist troll pretty much out of the blue.
So are you accusing andy of having some X-Men-like level of mind control? If that’s the case, excuse me because I need to go cut out enough boxtops to get his brochure on his amazing psy powers, so I can apply them in my everyday life.
As manson1972 says, that was quite obviously a joke. And if that was “baiting someone into getting a warning,” then many of HurricaneDitka’s posts would quality as well.
My feeling on the subject is that “baiting someone into getting a warning” is Hurricane Ditka’s personal mission on the SDMB.
I really think that the next time he starts another thread that’s a variant on “Why liberals hate America”, it should be immediately moved to the Pit. Even though he’s too cowardly to post there. Toughen up or don’t play.
