You wrote “Well, if you found her body language untrustworthy, that’s good enough for me.” The subject of that is clearly “you”, which references the poster in general and not their specific opinion on the topic.
You are basically saying something like “oh, it’s you that posted that, ok, fine” which with the sarcasm added is clearly an attack on the user. On the other hand, “oh, that’s what you think on that topic, ok, fine” is an attack only on the specific opinion about the topic and isn’t a broad-sweeping attack on the user.
I had a very similar question a couple of months ago. The bit that finally helped me understand where @What_Exit was coming from was this:
I’m not sure that this matches how things have been moderated historically, but that doesn’t much matter: if “hostile words directed at a poster by name or ‘you’” is moderatable, I can post accordingly.
Okay, in all honesty this makes sense to me now. I get it. The comment was directly targeted at the poster. The post, being sarcastic, strongly implied if not outright stated that the poster was untrustworthy. That’s an insult, and I get why that would be moderated outside of the Pit.
Yeah, I now get why this was moderated, that seems warranted to me. That sort of thing doesn’t fly outside of the Pit. I just didn’t get it before.
Well, you “attack the post” by attacking the CONTENTS of the post only. You attack the poster when your attack goes outside the contents themselves. Example: “Only a moron or a fool would actually believe that statement.” I honestly don’t see the complexity here.
I must be dense. How is restating exactly what she said (Anita Hill’s body language was dodgy, leading to a conclusion that she was clearly lying) an attack on the poster? How is your “within the rules” paraphrase different than the phrase I posted in any meaningful way?
I know I keep asking it, but what insult or offense (paraphrasing it would be fine) did my post contain? Did I imply she’s a dummy? A liar? What is the attack exactly? I’m not getting it from your explanation.
In the first example, the focus is solely on the user, and the sarcasm indicates that it is the user in general, and not their opinion, that is being disparaged.
In the second example, the focus is on the topic and not the user. It is the opinion on the topic that is being disparaged, not the user.
True, your bash was far more subtle than that, but it did constitute ridicule. I’d like to point out that you didn’t get a formal warning, just an admonishment. This seems to be much ado about nothing.
This is the first time my question has actually been answered. I don’t agree with your interpretation, but that would be insulting.
I don’t see how my post implies the poster’s untrustworthiness, but I consider you a reasonable poster, so I’ll accept that that’s a sane interpretation.
I think the plainest read of it is, “that’s about the goofiest way of arriving at a conclusion regarding someone’s credibility, absent any other evidence, that I can think of at the moment.”
You’re saying that since it’s that particular poster who is judging a person’s body language, that’s not good enough for you, because that poster is either stupid or dishonest. You’re not explicitly saying that, but it seems to be strongly implied.
That particular phrasing would probably have been fine, I am guessing. But the way you had put it was more open-ended, and implied something worse.
For what it’s worth, I read your post as having the emphasis on “body language” and not “you” and so the sarcasm was directed at the evidence and not the person presenting it.
I do agree it’s not a big deal at all. I enjoy rules lawyering, as I stated. I will lose no sleep and harbor no hard feelings over the matter!
I’ll just add that I also agree that my post did contain ridicule, but as I’ve pointed out, it was directed at the idea that it’s reasonable to conclude Anita Hill was lying because of her body language. We can all agree that’s a bonkers notion, right?
That may have been your intention, in fact it makes sense that it was your intention. But your post was pretty vague, and your intent wasn’t clear. Unfortunately that is very common with sarcasm, and it’s one of the reasons why it’s a weak rhetorical device. Especially when it’s in a written medium.
Rules lawyering is generally viewed as a lousy hobby around here. It tends to be equated with pressing to test on the mods’ boundaries. Which boundaries can become more fluid once irritated.
Intent matters lots. But the intent that matters is the one others infer from our writing; not the intent we had when we wrote it. That disconnect has been the downfall of many a poster.
Like they used to say in politics: Avoid not only impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.
I’m not What Exit but I think the argument would go like this.
You wrote “Well, if you found her body language untrustworthy, that’s good enough for me.” which you have acknowledged was intended to be sarcasm. Because you were being sarcastic you were not really saying you accepted the other person’s judgement. The sarcasm gave your statement the opposite meaning; you were saying this person’s judgement is not good enough for you to accept their conclusion. In effect you were telling the other person they have a poor ability to judge people’s body language.
If you’re willing to stretch and read an insult into use of “you”, then why not put in the effort to read the obvious intent: “that’s just your personal opinion, man”, which last I looked isn’t an insult? Or is the use of “your” too edgy and personal?
Look, I get the motivation not to personalize attacks, but when using the second-person pronoun in a debate is cause for noting, I’d suggest the tripwires have gotten a bit too sensitive and should be dialed back.
