Frankly I think Ed_Zotti is wrong about the existing rules.
The same existing rule would apply to saying people deserve cancer, that relatives deserve to die, &etc.
~Max
It depends on the intent. A victim of abuse is vulnerable and that should be acknowledged. We protect the elderly, children, and the indigent in our society for a reason - we recognize that people who are vulnerable need special protection.
Indeed. And I think getting rid of the Pit will just kill any progress that has been made.
Moderator Note
That’s a topic for a different thread. Please take it elsewhere.
This is remarkably similar to what I’ve read about the 2010 Cesario/pedophilia episode. I would be surprised if rules or policy supposedly put in place then do not cover what you want here.
~Max
Umm, maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t it,
A: “I was harmed.”
B: “I don’t believe you.”
I strongly disagree that a former victim of abuse belongs on a list of vulnerable with children and the elderly. There is a large difference between talking to someone still in their hospital bed and telling him he shouldn’t have mouthed off to that biker gang and telling the guy 20 years later that that was a bad idea. He remains a victim no matter how far into the future but to imply there is no difference to an abused boy scout and the man he becomes just wrong. We should protect the young who cannot defend themselves and we should protect the elderly who have become frail and infirm but those groups should be protected from physical harm. Until the elderly lose their minds they should not be protected from words like we do children and similarly we should not need to protect women from words like we would children just because they were victims in the past.
My read of Split_p_j’s argument is that the rape victim (a board member) should feel “guilty” and “dumb” for being raped, because she made the decision to accept the drinks. Split_p_j’s disbelief and calls for proof concern her suspicion of being drugged, not the sex act itself or the trauma that followed.
~Max
Interesting point.
I just fear getting too deep into the weeds and ignoring the grass that needs cutting.
Peeps are concerned about making this a friendlier place. I’d suggest that fearing that posting about personal traumas and the like will be used to dismiss your arguments isn’t helping.
I’ve been here a while and I just don’t post much personal stuff because I’ve seen how it’s used.
(I’ll add, this concern, for me, goes all the way back to the last time someone tried to fix this problem in the Pit and gave us "cuntflap’ instead.)
Just to make it clear: that’s an official Warning, right?
An ex post facto warning? He said that it wasn’t against the rules at the time. I know that the SDMB is not bound by the US Constitution, but that hardly seems fair.
Le sigh…
My understanding was it was a “warning” in the sense of do this specific thing again and you’ll be banned not a warning that stays on your record and you can collect several to dozens.
So anytime someone expresses the hope in the Pit that someone sent to prison gets raped should be out of bounds, too, right? (I can understand the sentiment, depending on just how vile the convicted person is, but it makes me uncomfortable to see it. I rather hope that mods start strongly suggesting that this stop.)
It should be.
Or how about when Ted Bundy III’s execution date is tomorrow and his clemency petition is pending and someone hopes the Governor denies it?
I already pointed out that it is within the moderator’s purview, even without an explicit rule. The rules say that there are limits, and any reasonable person would know that this would be far past them. There is also precedent for something egregiously bad to result in a Warning, even if there is not explicit rule against it. And there is precedent for rape apologia to be moderated: the poster I described actually got banned without ever getting a Warning.
Do note that a Warning is ultimately just an official reprimand. It’s not like, say, a ticket, where you have to pay a fine. There’s no punishment other than knowing that you are now closer to being suspended or banned.
So, no, I do not feel a Warning would be unfair. I could see a debate about whether a suspension was fair, but not a Warning. I actually feel that not getting at least an official reprimand would undermine the post. Severe infractions always get Warnings or more.
It also isn’t fair to post about a horrific experience and be told you asked for it.
I’m not a mod but my understanding is that it is within their discretion. The official rules say it will not always be strictly applied, for example in discussions of war or capital punishment.
~Max
That sounds like a new game. Make up a personal trauma or tragedy that someone is arguing against and use it as an argument why the person is wrong. Instant win!
They get banned and you win either way.
I’ve seen that play out before. Fun! /s
.