# tomndebb's warning of DigitalC **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 7, 2016, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305 "2016-07-07T11:59:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/21 "2016-07-07T13:56:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > “All conservatives I know are racist, misogynist and xenophobic” > > Is that statement permitted in the Elections forum? I’ll let the moderators answer that, but now we’re closer to the point of accurately representing what **adaher** posted. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/22 "2016-07-07T14:02:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ll let the moderators answer that… It doesn’t even make a difference. If they allow it, then \*\*DigitalC \*\*is not subject to moderation; if they don’t, then \*\*adaher \*\*is subject to moderation. \ ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/23 "2016-07-07T14:39:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The point is, his comment was within the guidelines for that forum; his comment was directed at conservatism not conservatives, so he was not insulting a poster, he was insulting the philosophy. I think this is the key point for two reasons. 1. It accurately identifies that DigitalC insulted the political philosophy of conservatism. One may take issue with his characterization, but arguing about political philosophies is fair game. If anyone - including tomndeb - thinks DigitalC’s assertion about conservatism is incorrect, then they should step up and prove it. After all, that’s the same argument that the mods make for allowing racist assertions, isn’t it. 2. There is in fact an awful lot of data points in support for DigitalC’s assertion that conservatism is a philosophy of xenophobia and racism. Here’s a link to a recent Salon article about a Reuters study that found that Trump’s supporters in particular > **[The disturbing data on Republicans and racism: Trump backers are the most...](https://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/the_disturbing_data_on_republicans_and_racism_trump_backers_are_the_most_bigoted_within_the_gop/)** > > Racists are more likely to be Republicans — and the most extreme among them are Donald Trump supporters I’m providing this link because it aggregates several other links and summarizes them thusly: > [@Salon Article](#): > > For example, recent research by Michael Tesler has shown how “old fashioned racism”, what was once thought to be all but vanquished from American society, is resurgent among white voters in the Age of Obama. David Sears has also demonstrated how “modern racism” now predicts party identification for Republican voters in former Confederacy. Other researchers have shown that the Republican Party’s ostensibly “race neutral” talking points about “small government” and “personal responsibility” are in fact signals to white racial resentment. > > In many ways, Donald Trump’s voters are the 2008 and 2012 Tea Party faction rebooted for the 2016 presidential election. Like the John Birch Society of the 1950s and 1960s, the Tea Party maintained its influence over the Republican Party while remaining under the radar of the so-called “liberal” corporate news media. As social scientists Christopher Parker, Eric Knowles, and others have extensively documented, Tea Party supporters possess high levels of racial hostility and antipathy towards people of color. And here are links to the research - [ul] [li] **Reuter’s poll with pretty graphs:** [/li] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW[/ul]](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW%5B/ul%5D) [ul] [li]Tom Jacobs - [/li] **Obama’s Unwanted Legacy: The Renewed Influence of ‘Old-Fashioned Racism’** [https://psmag.com/obama-s-unwanted-legacy-the-renewed-influence-of-old-fashioned-racism-6b036b5dd7c7#.pjuuonwgn](https://psmag.com/obama-s-unwanted-legacy-the-renewed-influence-of-old-fashioned-racism-6b036b5dd7c7#.pjuuonwgn) [/ul] [ul] [li]Wesley Lowery, Washington Post[/li] **Does small-government conservative ideology have racist roots? Academics offer a history lesson.** [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/does-small-government-conservative-ideology-have-racist-roots-academics-offer-a-history-lesson/[/ul]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/does-small-government-conservative-ideology-have-racist-roots-academics-offer-a-history-lesson/%5B/ul%5D) [ul] [li]Paul Rosenberg, Salon[/li]\*\*It’s racism, not “principled conservatism”: The South, civil rights, GOP myths — and the roots of Ferguson \*\* [http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/theyre\_racists\_not\_principled\_conservatives\_the\_south\_civil\_rights\_gop\_myths\_and\_the\_roots\_of\_ferguson/[/ul]](http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/theyre_racists_not_principled_conservatives_the_south_civil_rights_gop_myths_and_the_roots_of_ferguson/%5B/ul%5D) [ul] [li]Eric Knowles et al[/li] **Race, Ideology, and the Tea Party: A Longitudinal Study** > **[Race, Ideology, and the Tea Party: A Longitudinal Study](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0067110)** > > The Tea Party movement, which rose to prominence in the United States after the election of President Barack Obama, provides an ideal context in which to examine the roles of racial concerns and ideology in politics. A three-wave longitudinal study... [/ul] The reason I’m saying this is because I think it’s important to show that DigitalC’s assertion that conservatism is racism is an arguable position - not simply partisan insults. I don’t want to actually argue about any of that research at this time. I’m aware that some may not find it persuasive. That’s good! That means it’s a viable topic for discussion on this, a message board. Calling conservatism a racist philosophy is not a mindless insult. It may be uncomfortable for conservatives to hear - but the onus is on them to explain why the research is wrong and to defend their positions. Just like the every other subject we discuss on this message board. Ding DigitalC for not supporting his position if you want. Ding him for making a crappy, low-effort argument. But it’s inappropriate to try and restrict a discussion of the merits of a political philosophy from the political forum. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/24 "2016-07-07T14:48:41Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Here’s a link to a recent Salon article about a Reuters study that found that Trump’s supporters in particular > > [http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/the\_disturbing\_data\_on\_republicans\_and\_racism\_trump\_backers\_are\_the\_most\_bigoted\_within\_the\_gop/](http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/the_disturbing_data_on_republicans_and_racism_trump_backers_are_the_most_bigoted_within_the_gop/) I’ve been supportive of DigitalC here on other grounds, but IMO your post misses the point entirely. DigitalC’s entire point was that there’s no meaningful difference between Trump supporters and other Republicans. So your posting data about “Trump supporters in particular” from an article about how “trump\_backers\_are\_the\_most\_bigoted\_within\_the\_gop” is off target in terms of supporting his point. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/25 "2016-07-07T14:55:39Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It doesn’t even make a difference. If they allow it, then \*\*DigitalC \*\*is not subject to moderation; if they don’t, then \*\*adaher \*\*is subject to moderation. \ No. Because adaher was talking about (the few) Trump supporters he knows, not all Trump supporters. You honestly can’t see the difference between talking about specific people you know and talking about millions of people you don’t know? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/26 "2016-07-07T15:02:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve been supportive of DigitalC here on other grounds, but IMO your post misses the point entirely. DigitalC’s entire point was that there’s no meaningful difference between Trump supporters and other Republicans. So your posting data about “Trump supporters in particular” from an article about how “trump\_backers\_are\_the\_most\_bigoted\_within\_the\_gop” is off target in terms of supporting his point. I’m not going to defend or debate any of the links I offered in this thread. My only point in offering them is that they _are_ debatable. There’s a real conversation to be had about conservatism and racism/xenophobia. We should be able to have this conversation about the political philosophy of conservatism in the political forum - even, as you correctly noted, if someone finds it insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/27 "2016-07-07T15:05:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. Because adaher was talking about (the few) Trump supporters he knows, not all Trump supporters. You honestly can’t see the difference between talking about specific people you know and talking about millions of people you don’t know? The difference doesn’t apply here. Adaher was making a factual statement about the few Trump supporters he knows, but the premise of his post was that you could extrapolate from these to Trump supporters generally. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/28 "2016-07-07T15:08:37Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > \*\*tomndebb \*\*issued a warning to \*\*DigitalC \*\*in the [If the Republicans do end up nominating someone else…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=797597) thread for asserting that “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia”, characterizing it as “ludicrous, partisan nonsense”. Bear in mind, this is in the Elections forum, where partisan comments are not exactly unheard of, and ludicrous is a subjective judgement, depending on whose ox is being gored. As one of those who reported that post, I can tell you that I took exception to the comment. The Election forum is not the Pit. Compare ‘Conservatism is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’ with ‘Islam is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’. (I’ve corrected the language.) A comment very much like the latter deservedly got a warning in another thread and I’m disappointed that **DigitalC** didn’t get an official warning. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/29 "2016-07-07T15:16:49Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Compare ‘Conservatism is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’ with ‘Islam is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’. (I’ve corrected the language.) The response to this identical to Fear Itself’s response in [Post 5](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19459796&postcount=5) to Jonathon Chance’s Jewish example: “Being Jewish represents a cultural and religious identity, indistinguishable from the person, and a protected class as well. Conservatism is a political ideology which may be held by any race or religion, and is not a protected class.” ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/30 "2016-07-07T15:23:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I was almost ready to agree with you, **Fear** , but if you go back and read **DigitalC’s** post, it’s pretty clear he is directing his comments at the people and the idea, not just the idea: > " Whether people and/or the idea, if that isn’t trolling then I don’t know what is…which could very well be the case. Is trolling allowed in Elections? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/31 "2016-07-07T15:57:24Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > As one of those who reported that post, I can tell you that I took exception to the comment. The Election forum is not the Pit. > > Compare ‘Conservatism is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’ with ‘Islam is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’. (I’ve corrected the language.) A comment very much like the latter deservedly got a warning in another thread and I’m disappointed that **DigitalC** didn’t get an official warning. Like the “Jewish” example, Islam is a cultural and religious identity, indistinguishable from the person. Conservatism is a political ideology which may be held by any race or religion. Attacking conservatism is specifically allowed by the “attack the post, not the poster” rules for the Election forum. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/32 "2016-07-07T16:21:24Z")
The difference I see is summed up in the difference between: Conservatives have worked hard to earn their reputation of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. and Jews have worked hard to earn their reputation as greedy secret rulers of the banking system. The former is a perfectly rational assessment of the modern political climate; the latter is imaginary conspiracy theory. That doesn’t meant the rational assessment is a fact: it remains an opinion. A harsh opinion, but one that can be defended by non-bigots and can’t be dismissed as “ludicrous, partisan nonsense” unless you admit that equal “ludicrous, partisan nonsense” appears in ever thread in Elections and is never moderated. Tom, you were plain wrong and went way overboard in your note. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/33 "2016-07-07T16:33:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. Because adaher was talking about (the few) Trump supporters he knows, not all Trump supporters. You honestly can’t see the difference between talking about specific people you know and talking about millions of people you don’t know? I see no difference between the two. “All the \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I know are \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” are just weasel words to imply that “All \_\_\_\_\_ are \_\_\_\_\_\_.” Just like when Trumps says, “Mexico is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers. And some, I assume, are good people.” Are we really suppose to give him a pass because he added that disclaimer? “All the \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I know are \_\_\_\_\_\_.” is bigotry, plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/34 "2016-07-07T16:41:48Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Well, I hope it has a rationalizing effect on discussion and debate. > > Are you seriously arguing for the right to treat your debate opponents in an insulting and dismissive manner here? Because that won’t get you very far if you are. > > As for the ‘protected class’ thing? Last I heard we’re not a branch of the federal government - if we are I want my pension - and such doesn’t apply. You might as well argue that we violate someone’s first amendment rights are being violated when they are banned. > > In short, learn to debate and discuss, not accuse. Great Debates and Elections are about the discussion. Things that cut away from that mission are looked at unsympathetically. What I think people want is a fixed set of things that they can know are wrong, and not feel like everything is at the whim of the mods and how they are feeling that day. I mean, **tom** ’s post is more hostile than the post he was moderating. There is no set of rules that one can follow that will guarantee no moderation against them in GD. You guys say you don’t want to hand out Warnings, but you never actually sit down and give rules so we know how to color within the lines. We actually just had a moderation instruction to keep the partisan stuff out of Elections. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? No guideline on what the problem actually is. Just that it’s “ludicrous”–despite being a common belief–and that it’s “partisan”–when nearly every post in Elections is partisan to some extent. There’s a reason why there are posts you can make in Elections you can’t make in GQ. This thread is full of people after the fact trying to figure out what in the world was wrong with that post. That should never be the case! I think posters want consistent and clear instructions on how to act. They’d probably prefer polite but firm, as well. Remember, you wouldn’t moderate “Clintonistas” and “Bernie Bros.” Yet they caused more people to get upset than this one thing that got no response at all. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/35 "2016-07-07T17:03:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > a cultural and religious identity, indistinguishable from the person I deny that cultural and religious identity is indistinguishable from the person. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/36 "2016-07-07T18:14:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You think there is an Angstrom of difference between these two groups: > > All Trump voters > Trump voters whom **adaher** knows > > More like a light year. I have to disagree with you, **John** , I think **Fear Itself** has a point. You can micro-analyze the words and claim that the sentences are saying different things, but in this sort of context they’re really not. One is a broad generality but the other is just a more tangible, supportable statement that _ **implies** _ exactly the same generality. Saying “all Trump supporters are bigots” isn’t factually supportable, but saying “I’ve done random sampling and every Trump supporter I’ve talked to is a bigot” is ostensibly a statement of fact. Yet the basic message of the two is essentially the same. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Then why wasn’t \*\*adaher \*\*moderated for calling anyone who votes for Trump a “low information voter that has never been on board with conservatism”? \*\*DigitalC \*\*responded, “This IS the base.” All he did was expand adaher’s characterization from Trump voters to the whole Republican base. If \*\*DigitalC \*\*is guilty, then so is **adaher**. **DigitalC’s** following comment, “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia” is within the rules. I agreed with your previous point that \*\*adaher \*\*'s wording and **DigitalC** ’s wording are effectively the same, but that’s not the issue here. As you just said, “All he did was expand adaher’s characterization from Trump voters to the whole Republican base.” The issue that seems to have attracted moderator attention is precisely the fact that a very large group has been characterized in rather extreme terms. For instance we know that at least a subset of Trump supporters fit the above description, because white supremacists support him. Extending such a description to the entire Republican base might be considered hyperbolic and unreasonable. Whether this deserves a mod note or warning I leave to wiser heads than mine. > [@Quartz](#): > > As one of those who reported that post, I can tell you that I took exception to the comment. The Election forum is not the Pit. > > Compare ‘Conservatism is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’ with ‘Islam is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’. (I’ve corrected the language.) A comment very much like the latter deservedly got a warning in another thread and I’m disappointed that **DigitalC** didn’t get an official warning. In my view there’s a significant difference between a religion and a political ideology. Religion is often just an accident of culture, ethnicity, or nationality, and like those latter attributes, one can’t necessarily associate them with what every member of the group believes. Furthermore, those are the groups that have been historically associated with just such broad-brush characterizations, and we call that bigotry. Hence particular caution is called for in avoiding them. Whereas a political ideology attracts adherents _ **precisely because of** _ a shared set of values and beliefs. There’s nothing bigoted about a good-faith effort to try to define what one thinks those common values and beliefs are. A statement like “all Muslims are …” is already off to a bad start. But a statement like “all conservatives are…” might be quite accurate – all conservatives are at least conservative, if nothing else! ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/37 "2016-07-07T18:52:10Z")
Moderation of “partisan stuff” in the Elections forum is silly. That is what it was designed for. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/38 "2016-07-07T19:01:09Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Moderation of “partisan stuff” in the Elections forum is silly. That is what it was designed for. That went well beyond partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/39 "2016-07-07T19:13:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > That went well beyond partisan. But it was not directed at any person. That is the bright line in the rules. His comment was directed at the ideology, not the person. It should not be subject to moderation. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/40 "2016-07-07T19:40:09Z")
It’s not that bright, really. We’ve had posters in the past that have attempted to take shots at people with almost exactly those words. “All X are Y! Oh, you’re Y? Heavens!” No part of that promotes debate. It’s simply an attack on people with a certain set of values that posters know are participating. We moderate it - at our discretion - based on when we believe it goes too far into the pejorative. Certainly if there’s no back up to the accusation it’s going to look like an attempt to let emotion trump reason. “All X are Y and here’s my evidence for such.” is better than “All X are Y.” The first is an attempt at debate and discussion. The second is just hurtful opinion. And we value reason and debate here, not attempts at harming others through line seeking. I have no interest in getting pulled into a series of hypotheticals in an attempt to establish safe harbors for insults. If you’d like to remain inside a safe harbor I’d encourage you to avoid insulting others in any way. Honestly, what’s to be gained? You don’t promote either the debate or your own side of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305.md?page=3)