# So I guess we really DIDN'T mean it this time **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 15, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276 "2013-10-15T02:47:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/101 "2013-10-19T19:41:32Z")
I’d like to offer a comparative example here, if i may, and ask **Jonathan Chance** (and anyone else who wants to chime in) what he makes of it. All bolding is mine. Here is the exchange that led **John Mace** to open this thread: > [@Liberal Mind vs. Conservative Mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind/670974/72): > > No; conservatives throughout history have done wrong things because _they_ are evil people. I see no reason to care that they think that they are doing the right thing; that’s no consolation to the people being oppressed, exploited or slaughtered. Did it do any good for the blacks who were lynched during Jim Crow that their murderers thought they were in the right? > [@Liberal Mind vs. Conservative Mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind/670974/73): > > Der Trihs, this post is unhelpful in the extreme and both hurts and stifles whatever debate may be possible. I appreciate that your political feelings are strong - many people’s are - but spouting hatred and such with **a broad brush accomplishes nothing. Make a better, more reasoned, argument or avoid Great Debates entirely**. > > No warning issued but further examples will earn them. > [@Liberal Mind vs. Conservative Mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind/670974/75): > > Why does conservatism get this special treatment? People condemn other people for everything from racism or communism to liberalism to feminism all the time; it’s only when it comes to _conservatism_ that condemning people for their politics becomes taboo. > > \*\*Bending over backwards to pretend that conservatives are reasonable, well meaning people is a major factor in how bad off America has gotten. \*\*Over and over again the Democrats and Obama and liberals & moderates of all sorts insist on pretending that conservatives mean well, and _surely_ they can be talked into a compromise…and again and again the conservatives take everything they’ve been offered, give nothing in return and do everything they can to cause harm. Just _how bad_ does conservatism have to get before it becomes OK to condemn it? > [@Liberal Mind vs. Conservative Mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind/670974/81): > > \*\*It’s not clear at all that my accusations are inaccurate; on the contrary, finding counterexamples is far harder \*\*(which is why people trying to defend conservatism seldom try to come up with any, but just declare any criticism of conservatism unfair). And it’s _humanly impossible_ to speak of large groups of people without using a “broad brush”; insisting that someone only criticize millions of people on a individual basis is just a means of saying that criticism of that group is forbidden. > > Nor is condemning people for holding different beliefs either unusual or unethical; every time someone condemns someone for supporting racism, sexism, homophobia, or any number of other evils, that’s _exactly what they are doing._ The only question is if conservatism deserves to be added to that list, and I think it does. > [@Liberal Mind vs. Conservative Mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind/670974/82): > > Der Trihs (God, I can never spell that properly)- > > Again, I support your right to strongly held beliefs. However, it is your willingness to throw rhetorical bombs as a form of facile, non-thoughtful debate that I am moderating. > > \ > > In short, respect other people whose beliefs - both personal and political - differ from yours. There are certainly ways of getting your point across without being disrespectful. I encourage you to explore them. And here is an exchange that **Jonathan Chance** had just this morning with a different poster: > [@the concept of faith](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/350): > > I’m right on the edge of closing this thing as being pointless. > > Lekatt, **debating is about more than bland assertions**. While witnessing is inherently a part of GD usually it doesn’t include pages of non-debate. > > Do it again and you’ll receive an infraction. > [@the concept of faith](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/352): > > What does it matter that we put a man on the moon and still kill each other over most everything of value. That we hold prejudices against people not like us or think differently than we do. A man on the moon is not progress nor assembling a pile of money such a grand thing. All we did is crawl out of one box into another. In religion you were told to obey a certain doctrine and in science the same thing. Theories are not realities only guesses the same as church doctrine. Science says this and God says that, when will we learn. > [@the concept of faith](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/353): > > I made my last post before reading this. I wondered how long before this would happen. Science assertions are OK but not spiritual. Shut it down as you wish. There were others who shared my views that were treated rudely and left. This is basically a atheist/science board and all others are not welcome. > [@the concept of faith](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/355): > > Bzzt. That earns the warning. > > **Focus, my friend. Make arguments, not assertions.** People will pay more attention to you that way AND communication will happen. I know that the two examples are not perfectly symmetrical. After the initial caution by the moderator, **Der Trihs** and **lekatt** took different strategies in responding. **Der Trihs** chose to argue that his “broad brush” characterizations were actually accurate, while **lekatt** simply made another “bland assertion.” But it seems to me that, in terms of actual contribution to the debate, and in terms of the spirit of honest debate, this is essentially a distinction without a difference. Not only that, but **lekatt** explicitly made clear that he had made his most recent post _before_ seeing the caution posted by the moderator. i find this very easy to believe, especially since he noted this _before_ receiving his warning. I’m just not seeing the substantive differences between these two cases, and i say that as someone who has far more in common with **Der Trihs** , politically and intellectually, than with **lekatt**. You offer essentially the same advice to each poster about what constitutes reasonable debate—advice i agree with, by the way—but only one gets a warning. And this goes back to the issue of long-term patterns of behavior. You will probably argue that **lekatt** was filling that thread with bland assertions, while **Der Trihs** only made a single problematic post before you cautioned him. But, as others have pointed out _ad nauseum_, this debating style is par for the course from Der Trihs in GD threads. It’s not new behavior, any more than **lekatt** ’s was. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/102 "2013-10-19T21:25:06Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Yeah, I’d like to see a cite that the quote you posted was about Hickman. From the wiki… > > Like most of the blind hatred that gets thrown at Rand, you ignore context. Ok, you’re making a number of claims. The first is that the quote doesn’t apply to Hickman. The second is that it is taken out of context (but _does_ apply to Hickman??) Anyway I’m cool with providing a cite - and give props for the inquiry as the claim is pretty extraordinary in my view. Right? I mean you’d have to be a nutcase to write something like that. My contention is that Ayn Rand’s position was that if you ignore the murdering and dismembering bit, that Hickman was a swell guy, based upon his statements to the press. Which normal people thought were sociopathic. My source is _The Journals of Ayn Rand_ (1999), p. 36-37. As for context, how many sentences do you want me to quote before and after the passage? Look again and note the length of my quote and the absence of ellipses. The description given was under the heading _The Hickman Case_. So, yeah, she was referring to William Edward Hickman. I deny any expression of hatred: I was just reporting the facts. Full disclosure: I do confess to a certain amusement. Apologies to the mods for this hijack. > [@fenris](#): > > I want to know if this _finally_ means that you’re giving all members explicit permission to post exactly like Trihs does (maybe with the parties swapped, maybe not) with the stated guarantee that everyone’ll just be mod-noted at worst? It’s harder than it looks. People sometimes try in the Pit _and it’s just not the same_.\* If Der was banned I can’t say the fight against ignorance would suffer much, but for me the entertainment value of the board would plummet. And to be clear, I’m not laughing _with_ him. Recall that he sometimes targets agnostics, of which I am one. The behavior that bothers me most on this board are false claims of fact. Because it takes me longer to track them down and correct them than it does to fabricate baloney. Der’s arguments, in contrast, can be annihilated with a single word. Here, I’ll show you how it’s done: _ **Cite?** _ - Although admittedly post 98 was a brave and true effort. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/103 "2013-10-20T01:55:57Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I’m just not seeing the substantive differences between these two cases… Because there is none. Jonathan has dug his heels in and he’s made it clear that that’s the end of it. That’s fine, it’s in his power and prerogative. The unfortunate part is that he seems to think because he has the final say that make him right. That has led (in my opinion) to his belittling other posters in this thread for their observations and comments. Per his earlier post, any moderating he has done in other parts of his life (however righteous they might have been) are irrelevant to this issue. The moderation on this board has made it clear in the past - ‘Don’t like my moderation? Take it to ATMB’. I have seen many warnings given for “making their case” after a mod note. In my opinion JC dropped the ball on this one. And now it appears he is outraged that his objectivity has been called into question - and that outrage is clouding his judgment. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/104 "2013-10-20T04:07:53Z")
I am curious as to why TPTB continue to hold this “we don’t treat poster “x” differently” mantra, when clearly the evidence suggests otherwise. **Tubadiva’s** interesting moderation in this thread is a case in point… Clearly, the staff, mods, and whoever has a coffee cup (free, not purchased) all see the same thing, while the TM overwhelmingly have echoed the opposite viewpoint. Are we all ganging up on one poster? I don’t think so. Is this some coordinated effort to get someone banned? No. Is this a poster that holds a conservative viewpoint which is most definitely in the minority on this board, and that’s why he’s being singled out? Nope. The board membership is a group of people of incredibly different backgrounds, beliefs, experiences, and even motives who have seen time and time again what they perceive is one person being held to one set of standards, while the rest of the members are held to a different, and more restrictive set. Consistency is all that is being asked for, and yet it seems impossible to achieve. Why? I have read all of the posts, and the reasoning given by the mod. And here is my thought. If DT’s posts were to appear with any other USERNAME attached to them, then mod action would be swift and predictable. However, for some reason, when DT’s name appears, “modspeak” comes out, and leniency is justified. It can’t be EVERYONE’S imagination, can it? If it were possible to read a thread without username’s appearing, but instead a generic poster\_1, poster\_2 labeling be used, I wonder if the same results would occur. I suspect the answer would be yes, but only because DT’s posting style is so distinctive, and most people can recognize it now. However, if it was possible to go back and do this from the beginning, I’m confident that DT would have bounced himself out of this community long ago. Just MHO, of course. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/105 "2013-10-20T04:17:50Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > My contention is that Ayn Rand’s position was that if you ignore the murdering and dismembering bit, that Hickman was a swell guy, based upon his statements to the press. Which normal people thought were sociopathic. This is what I’m saying too. And your initial quote does not at all represent this. The ‘except for the murdering and dismembering bit’ is quite important. If you think Hannibal Lecter is a fascinating character, ‘except for the murdering and eating people bit’, would that be wrong in some way? Because he is, and millions of people think so. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/106 "2013-10-20T04:40:47Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > I have read all of the posts, and the reasoning given by the mod. And here is my thought. If DT’s posts were to appear with any other USERNAME attached to them, then mod action would be swift and predictable. However, for some reason, when DT’s name appears, “modspeak” comes out, and leniency is justified. > > It can’t be EVERYONE’S imagination, can it?. I don’t think they treat him any different than anyone else. I don’t think JC made a bad call. I _do_ think they need to clamp down on DT a bit more. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/107 "2013-10-20T04:52:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I don’t think they treat him any different than anyone else. I don’t think JC made a bad call. > > I _do_ think they need to clamp down on DT a bit more. Huh? If you don’t think they treat him differently than everyone else, why would they need to clamp down on him a bit more? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/108 "2013-10-20T05:11:51Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > This is what I’m saying too. And your initial quote does not at all represent this. The ‘except for the murdering and dismembering bit’ is quite important. If you think Hannibal Lecter is a fascinating character, ‘except for the murdering and eating people bit’, would that be wrong in some way? Because he is, and millions of people think so. Fascinating? Odd but I guess ok. Heroic? Normal people don’t think like that. Let’s reroll the tape with emphasis: “It is repulsive to see all **those beings with worse sins and crimes** in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…” To me kidnapping and murdering a 12 year old girl pretty much pegs the needle insofar as sin is concerned. Look there’s more. Rand goes on for pages and pages about the guy. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/109 "2013-10-20T06:33:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I don’t think they treat him any different than anyone else. I don’t think JC made a bad call. > > I _do_ think they need to clamp down on DT a bit more. Serious question, do you think if I posted as he did and questioned a mod note _in the thread that I got it in_, I would be immune from a warning? Honestly, I’m not seeing the logic in your post. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/110 "2013-10-20T06:34:19Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Fascinating? Odd but I guess ok. Heroic? Normal people don’t think like that. Do you deny that Lecter was the main character of books that have sold millions of copies? I think lots of people liked his character. > [@](#): > > Let’s reroll the tape with emphasis: “It is repulsive to see all **those beings with worse sins and crimes** in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…” To me kidnapping and murdering a 12 year old girl pretty much pegs the needle insofar as sin is concerned. > > Look there’s more. Rand goes on for pages and pages about the guy. Yes, and in my opinion you misread those pages, and are quoting out of context, as is usually the case with Rand’s critics. The specific paragraph you quote for instance, reads to me more like a rant at mobs in general. Further, this whole Hickman thing is overblown in my view. She saw this case in her early twenties, which inspired her to attempt a story, which \*she didn’t ultimately think was worth writing, and left some notes in her own private journal. \*The main character of which was, in her own words > [@](#): > > [My hero is] very far from him, of course. \*\*The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. \*\*It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me. She further goes on to say, in the pages and pages you refer to > [@](#): > > Yes, he is a monster—now.But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this. Isn’t it significant that society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything to out-balance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at his crime, it should be horrified at the crime’s ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime—the greater its guilt. What could society answer, if that boy were to say: “Yes, I’m a monstrous criminal, but what are you?” > > … > > I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn’t. But it does not make any difference. If he isn‘t, he could be, and that’s enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. And when you take that one of the primary precepts of the philosophy that she laid out at great(really, really great) length over the years was the non initiation of violence against others, it’s quite strange that people keep wanting to point out that she ‘idolised a killer’. Don’t get me wrong, she is far from flawless, and her ideas and writings have plenty of failings, but the way in which criticism is usually done, including what you’re doing, is just petty character assassination. We should be better than that. P.S Sorry mods, this will be my last post on this subject in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/111 "2013-10-20T07:52:30Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Or, something like [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=705297): > > Now, obviously Libertarianism isn’t exactly a well respected philosophy in these parts. Even a board Mod felt the need to get in a dig at Ayn Rand in the thread linked to above after all. But Der feels the need to just blow the doors off the discussion by saying that Libertarians are psychopaths and the ideology is an imitation of psychopathy. And, of course, no one bats and eye at this…it’s just another day on the board with Der flaming in GD. But it’s only insulting to Libertarians, and who cares about them…or conservatives for that matter? Or folks of a religious bent? They are all psychopaths anyway. Maybe if Libertarians don’t want to be insulted, they shouldn’t start threads in GD claiming women are inferior? Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/112 "2013-10-20T15:10:49Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Maybe if Libertarians don’t want to be insulted, they shouldn’t start threads in GD claiming women are inferior? Just a thought. Ah, I see. So, if, oh, say a guy who is sympathetic to liberals says something stupid then it can be open season on all liberals, with respect to insults. Is that correct? Glad we cleared that up then. Let’s see if the Mods are on board with this loophole in GD rules that will allow for insults to entire groups. I think they might be, as long as the poster is DT and the target is Libertarians/Conservatives/Republicans/Theists/Whoever Is Pissing Him Off This Week™. Just a thought… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/113 "2013-10-20T15:11:32Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Maybe if Libertarians don’t want to be insulted, they shouldn’t start threads in GD claiming women are inferior? Just a thought. I’m sure they’ll put that on the agenda at the next Libertarian Council Meeting under: Mandatory Thread Starting Rules for All Libertarians. :rolleyes: But it’s not really about “insults”. It’s about threadshitting in every thread about Libertarians-- taking a dump in every thread with the same unsupported crap. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/114 "2013-10-20T18:06:14Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > P.S Sorry mods, this will be my last post on this subject in the thread. Meta: My initial post on the subject addressed the _plausibility_ of a claim made by a poster. I think I’ve done that. Now we’re in GD territory. I haven’t read all of Ayn Rand’s thoughts on Hickman. I’m going to let you have the last substantive post on this subject (above). No, I don’t endorse it. If I get around to slouching through Rand’s treatment of the child murderer, I’ll consider opening up a GD thread. > [@XT](#): > > Let’s see if the Mods are on board with this loophole in GD rules that will allow for insults to entire groups. 😕😕 Um: I understand that there is a loophole for insulting entire (non-racial, not gendered) groups. As I try not to snuggle up to within an inch of the rule-line, I’m not sure about its exact contours. But I see broad insulting generalization about ideological groupings all the time by a variety of posters. That they don’t reach Der’s level of vitriol is only because that sort of posting style tends to make the writer appear ridiculous. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not outraged. I’m befuddled. If I were outraged, I’d be posting in the Pit. Disagreeing with you does not equal outrage. I don’t see “Befuddllement”. I see, “Gunning for the Big Ban Stick”. Across multiple threads. It seems obvious to me that Jonathan Chance wants to raise the level of debate in GD. Slowly. And after he takes some time to get his bearings. For all the outrage voiced by our resident libertarian apologists, I see little interest in that: they are too obsessed with what appear to be vendettas. Ironically! > [@](#): > > But it’s not really about “insults”. It’s about threadshitting in every thread about Libertarians-- taking a dump in every thread with the same unsupported crap. AFAIK, Der dumps more on Christians (while actually targeting fundamentalist Christians). I’ll observe that the rules on threadshitting are rather less restrictive in GD than they are in Cafe Society, as challenging premises is part of what we do there. Still, that’s a possible angle - the insult gambit wasn’t going anywhere. To be honest though, I suspect what’s going on is that JM got frustrated with challenging Der with basically the same critique (cite?!?!?11) sometime near round 500. Since I’ve only done it a few dozen times, the amusement hasn’t quite worn off yet. Maybe in a few years, I’ll be pushed over the edge too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/115 "2013-10-20T18:21:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I don’t see “Befuddllement”. I see, “Gunning for the Big Ban Stick”. Nope. He’s perfectly fine in CS, but his common behavior in GD serves no purpose other than to lower the tone of debate in that forum and to spread ignorance in a message board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance. In fact, the warning that precipitated this thread insinuated excluding the poster from GD unless the behavior changed. We’ll see if they “really mean it” this time. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/116 "2013-10-20T23:07:09Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] It seems obvious to me that Jonathan Chance wants to raise the level of debate in GD. [/QUOTE] I wonder what would be a good first step in accomplishing that? For the record, so far I’m a fan of Jonathan Chance and his Manhattan-like style in general. I just wish he would apply it equally. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/117 "2013-10-20T23:19:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. He’s perfectly fine in CS, but his common behavior in GD serves no purpose other than to lower the tone of debate in that forum and to spread ignorance in a message board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance. I’m going to nitpick. Lower the tone of debate? Definitely: methinks Der is our resident GD sub-woofer. Spread ignorance? I don’t think so. Contentless and unsubstantiated characterizations are noise, not falsehood. There’s a difference. I suppose you could argue that he creates a hostile ignorance-fighting environment, but that’s different and an over-statement besides. Crosspost **PlainJane** : “I wonder what would be a good first step in accomplishing that?” 1. I think his first steps have been fine. 2. This might be due to the posts I’ve read, but I don’t see a Manhattan-like style. Manhattan ruled GQ with less coverage, a gruff demeanor and a hammer-like fist. This is the guy who modded GQ _singlehandedly_ for several years. It was an exciting time as the teeming millions competed neck and neck with Manhattan’s sanity until the latter finally collapsed from exhaustion. It was a noble battle. Later mods tightened up the mizzen-masts: there’s less nonsense in GQ now (IMHO). ## I see JC as more of a careful, deliberate mod relative to the mod-emeritus Manhattan. ETA: If Der is banned from GD, I’m going to beg and plead for a Der Trihs Amnesty Week. Celebrate it once a year in GD, when scum-sucking moonbats and garbage encrusted wingnuts can join hands and make preposterously broad characterizations of one another _without hurtling direct insults against posters themselves_. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/118 "2013-10-20T23:38:54Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Maybe if Libertarians don’t want to be insulted, they shouldn’t start threads in GD claiming women are inferior? Just a thought. You do realize that you just admitted that Der did in fact insult posters in GD? You’re not helping his case. For the record, I’m hardly a right-winger much less a libertarian. I also wouldn’t present Der as a big defender of women since he claims that he thinks that “the typical American woman” including by his own admission most of the board’s female posters, are so untrustworthy and so vile that men should secretly videotape their sexual encounters to make sure they don’t falsely get accused of rape? Incidentally, would you be such a big defender of someone who made such arguments about blacks or Muslims? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/119 "2013-10-20T23:59:43Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] Um: I understand that there is a loophole for insulting entire (non-racial, not gendered) groups. As I try not to snuggle up to within an inch of the rule-line, I’m not sure about its exact contours. But I see broad insulting generalization about ideological groupings all the time by a variety of posters. That they don’t reach Der’s level of vitriol is only because that sort of posting style tends to make the writer appear ridiculous. [/QUOTE] Well, that’s the point though, isn’t it? Yeah, you see people insulting ideologies all the time, but there are limits. As I said before, if I went into a thread about liberals and used the sorts of terms that Der COMMONLY uses against conservatives, libertarians, Americans or the religious I’d be banned…especially considering that, unless I’m a fucking idiot I would know that, you know, there would be a liberal or two participating in the thread where I’m flaming. Unless you feel HE is a fucking idiot, then this whole dance and shuffle is just stupid. He went into that thread where pretty much everyone else was just making fun of the OP and decided to insult all Libertarians and call them and their philosophy psychopathic, knowing that there are a few Libertarians/libertarians who post on this board. But it’s cool, because most of the board doesn’t like libertarians, so nuke away. And the funny thing is…for him, this was pretty mild. Go back and look at some of the stuff he has said about the other groups I brought up. In anyone else this would be ban hammer territory. What irritates me about this, and is increasingly irritating me about this as more folks weigh in as you have, is the level of sophistry. You KNOW what he’s doing…so do the Mods. So does everyone else. And so does HE. He’s not a stupid guy, and obviously he’s able to control himself from flying off the handle in other discussions in other forums. We have the Pit for the kinds of nuclear flaming he is fond of…why does he get a fucking pass in GD? Because he is the way he is? What a load of horse shit. > [@](#): > > ETA: If Der is banned from GD, I’m going to beg and plead for a Der Trihs Amnesty Week. Celebrate it once a year in GD, when scum-sucking moonbats and garbage encrusted wingnuts can join hands and make preposterously broad characterizations of one another without hurtling direct insults against posters themselves. Why? Why do we need to allow his sort of ridiculous antics in GD? We have the Pit for that after all. And this isn’t about getting him banned, it’s about having him show some small level of restraint when he’s in GD…and haven’t the Mods, who are generally top shelf on this board actually enforce the rules of the board and MAKE him show that restraint. It would be a travesty to ban him right now. I mean, why SHOULD he restrain himself in GD? He never has had to before after all because, for whatever reason the Mods have allowed him to run wild and free and do whatever he likes. It’s not helped him, and it’s not helped this board either. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276/120 "2013-10-21T02:40:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m sure they’ll put that on the agenda at the next Libertarian Council Meeting under: Mandatory Thread Starting Rules for All Libertarians. > > :rolleyes: > > But it’s not really about “insults”. It’s about threadshitting in every thread about Libertarians-- taking a dump in every thread with the same unsupported crap. I think pointing to a thread that was specifically made to attack people based on their gender and political beliefs with “look how mean he is here, see, I told you” is really damn silly, is all. Maybe you should maybe not hold up proof of “Look how nasty he was in a thread started where somebody was claiming that the vast majority of everyone in the world was inferior to him”. It weakens your case. I also find it really sad that some of the people bitching about DT are people who think it’s OK to make racist jokes in threads where people are talking about how racist jokes hurt them, but don’t you dare say anything about Christians or Republicans especially if it’s true. Maybe we can crack down on some of the racism and sexism, too, although that really isn’t a popular thing to do for some reason… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-guess-we-really-didnt-mean-it-this-time/671276.md?page=7)