So, if a poster says, “I believe all this climate change stuff is a hoax,” and I respond, “Well, that’s a ridiculous belief,” I’ve attacked the poster?
That was my reaction as well. I’ve been posting in GD for a long time, and frankly, “your opinion is silly” seems to be the sort of thing that forum was designed for.
Well, I wasn’t infuriated, but I was (and still am) perplexed. In my view I received mod guidance that I have no idea what to do with.
Count me as another one for the “That Was Attacking The Post, Not The Poster” team.
As for snark/sarcasm being considered an attack, I’ve more than once in the past few years flagged a post that seemed overly hostile (to the extent that they were deliberately misinterpreting/misrepresenting a quote from me) and was told that snark and sarcasm are key parts of the culture at SDMB, so the mods won’t do anything about them and I need to suck it up and take it. So I am absolutely clueless about what was being moderated here.
I’m not a mod, of course, but I suspect that wording could be at least mod noted. There is a difference between saying “you have a ridiculous belief” and “your belief is wrong and not supported by science” (for example). Just as there is a narrow difference in my mind between saying “your belief is ridiculous” and “you are a ridiculous person for having that belief,” but they seem to be too similar for some mods at least.
There’s been a lot of silly moderating in that thread, i.e.
This wasn’t a hijack - it was perfectly topical. And the redirect thread? Stale for 9 months. Are we to understand that only one thread on the board is suitable for Joss Whedon discussions, and we’re to continually revive it though it’s been abandoned for 9 months? Will this be the sole and eternal Joss Whedon thread? It’s a considerable stretch.
I felt it was heading for a hijack. But if you feel a need for a new Whedon thread you can start one. I didn’t say you couldn’t. You’re making some assumptions.
You wrote, in bold, " This is not the thread for a Joss Whedon Debate. There is one already for it." That strongly implies that the linked thread is where Joss Whedon discussions should go.
A year and 9 months.
That’s fair, poorly written.
I quite agree with you here. In my perception, “attacking the poster” used to mean personal insults, and this has slipped well down the slope to include mild sarcasm. Not that sarcasm ought to be anyone’s first resort, but sometimes it’s the right tool at the right time (this occasion was very well-suited IMO).
IMO if it can’t be made clearer than this, then likewise it’s not clearly an attack on the poster.
As someone who loves a good blast of sarcasm, but also as someone whose good blasts of sarcasm have frequently been misinterpreted - even face to face, where the other person can clearly see the expression on my face, hear my tone of voice, and yes, read my body language - I can tell you with absolute certainty that sarcasm is frequently not a good way to make a point. This is especially important in written communications.
Yes, there is a difference, because they are saying different things. Sometimes a belief is not merely wrong and unsupported by science, it’s absolutely absurd.
Why in the world is it beyond the pale to point that out, and how is that not attacking the belief (not the poster)? It’s right there in the statement: “Your belief is ridiculous.”
IMO, there’s an enormous difference. My niece is a college-educated, functioning, normal member of society. She also believes in astrology. As far as I know, this is the only goofy belief she has. Her belief is ridiculous. She is not ridiculous, and I would never say she was.
Yeah, I am positively unenlightened by WE’s response.
Perhaps you can be the person who can finally help me get over this blind spot (apparently shared by several other posters).
Whether or not sarcasm is your preferred method of communicating, can you paraphrase for me what attack on the poster my post inflicted? What veiled insult did it contain? The poster I responded to could reasonably infer that I think what, exactly, about her?
If I could tell when sarcasm goes over the line, I wouldn’t have had a boss who had to tell my clients, “You’re going to love working with Kent eventually, but you have to wait at least a month before you ask me to take him off your account.”
All I can advise is that we don’t unleash our sarcasm on people who don’t know us.
Your post reads as attacking another poster. The “you” is a big part of it. The sarcasm is allowed, but sarcasm does not excuse attacking the poster instead of the post.
I suspect you disagree. So do some others.
What is the attack exactly that the use of “you” implies? What bad thing did I insinuate about the poster?
Seriously? That is a real question?
Yes, seriously. If you think I attacked the poster, it seems as if you could articulate what exactly the veiled insult was about the poster. Pointing out the use of a pronoun without indicating how it was misused is not helpful. Give it a try. Something like “You implied that she is a dope.” Something like that.
You’re not seriously saying that any post that contains “you” is self-evidently an attack, are you?