So, addressed to a specific Doper, in the Pit, saying “you think of blacks who vote Democratic as niggers” is OK, correct? Since it is an attack on a (perceived) racist, and is not an attack on black people.
Regards,
Shodan
Translation: You’re punking out because you know that statement is indefensible.
This post of yours might itself have been better-suited for the Pit than this forum, but if you’re interested, I’m working on formulating a response to the GD thread on the topic. Check back there later.
Maybe TPTB could raise a few bucks by selling Junior Mod badges that could also be used as avatars.
I get e-mails linked to places I don’t want to be every day and I see links here to other threads I may not enjoy. If I follow them and am shocked or insulted I’m taking some of the blame myself. Yeah, snfaulkner played it but IMHO he did it damn well and within the rules. And as most Pit rants go I think his was both well written and amusing even though I disagree with everything it says.
I know you are smart guys. You can’t possibly be still confused over this.
The obvious answer to UltraVires’s question is that the mods would treat trying to use this as a loophole as a warnable offense. The mods have not been shy about doing this before, so why would this be any different?
The mere fact of trying to find a loophole in the “don’t be a jerk” style rules is being a jerk, so it’s warnable.
What I said seems to follow logically from Miller’s ruling. And I think Bricker’s characterization of the ruling is quite straightforward.
If “you are the sort of person who calls people n*ggers” is OK, then nobody is confused about anything. If there is some other factor whereby it is OK in situation X but not otherwise, then I would like to know what that factor is.
If it can’t be explained, well, then it would be natural to be confused.
I don’t know what this means. What is the difference between “trying to find a loophole”, and posting in accordance with the rules?
Regards,
Shodan
Man’s understanding is powerless against the lure of the precious “gotcha.”
The former is “How can I work around the rules to do what it intends to prohibit?”, and the latter is posting in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of the rules.
True, but neither of you were STATING the ruling, you were ASKING about it. As if you didn’t already know the answer to the questions you were asking. Which you had to have known, as shown in this very post that I am quoting.
Dammit! Now I’m hungry for Mexican food. Or maybe Fried Chicken.
Yes, that is exactly the substance of this ruling.
It’s not directly an attack on black people. The quote is essentially a longhand version of “racist pig”.
The question becomes, did you use this longhand version of “racist pig” to more pointedly insult the racist pig, or did you use it as a backdoor way to get that slur used in front of the people it usually slurs?
I hear the food at Tacos El Negro is pretty good.
I vote no warning for taco naggers.
How does one determine the answer to that question?
Regards,
Shodan
I guess, in theory, one way would be if the person saying “you look like the kind of person who would thinks of Black democrat voters as niggers” has, themselves, some sort of history of using, and defending the use of, other slurs against people of colour. That would seem to be a sign that they’re just using it so they can say nigger and get away with it. Hypothetically, of course.
And I’m thinking pelmeni and some raw beef ------- maybe something salted from Baikal. Could be we’re at opposite ends of the pool. 
There’s a possibility that after you get busted open, you’ll be full of candy.
Metaphorically, of course.