# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/41 "2016-07-07T19:47:45Z")
I find that “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia” is little different than “Conservatives are racists, misogynists and xenophobics.” and hiding the insult like DigitalC did has been modded before. I felt attacked because I was called a racist because you know being a Republican that didn’t like Obama is all about him being black and I have been called both a racist and a xenophobe simply because I believe we should enforce our immigration laws like most other countries do. So I think it was directed at the conservative members of this board as a direct insult. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/42 "2016-07-07T19:49:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Again, you are changing what **adaher** said in order to fit your conclusion. There was nothing about “random sampling”. More importantly, he didn’t say they were bigots. He said they were low information voters. It was **DigitalC** who threw in the racist, etc comments. And I don’t think posters should be held responsible for things they don’t say but that you might extrapolate from what they said. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/43 "2016-07-07T19:50:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. Which is subject to the immediate and predictable counterargument of “The handful of Trump supporters you know are hardly representative of all of them,” in a way that another statement generally characterizing all of them as a body, would not be. Things like this inform us that there is a difference between the two statements. All of the Trump supporters I know are blonde, woo-believing hairdressers. But then I know exactly one person who will admit to supporting Trump. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/44 "2016-07-07T20:00:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Again, you are changing what **adaher** said in order to fit your conclusion. There was nothing about “random sampling”. More importantly, he didn’t say they were bigots. He said they were low information voters. Are you saying one is an insult, and the other isn’t? Should Trump voters take being called a “low information voter” as a compliment? ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/45 "2016-07-07T20:24:07Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > Which is subject to the immediate and predictable counterargument of “The handful of Trump supporters you know are hardly representative of all of them,” in a way that another statement generally characterizing all of them as a body, would not be. Things like this inform us that there is a difference between the two statements. There are differences between all sorts of things. What counts are relevant differences. The difference you highlight is not relevant to the specific question of whether the statements insulted large groups of people. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/46 "2016-07-07T20:49:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Again, you are changing what **adaher** said in order to fit your conclusion. There was nothing about “random sampling”. More importantly, he didn’t say they were bigots. He said they were low information voters. And to be fair, it seems like most Americans are low-information voters so I gotta agree with adaher considering the same could be said for Clintion, Cruz, Sanders, Bush2, Obama etc. voters. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/47 "2016-07-07T20:56:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Are you saying one is an insult, and the other isn’t? Should Trump voters take being called a “low information voter” as a compliment? “All the Trump voters I know are low information voters”. I just don’t see anything wrong with that. I wouldn’t even see anything wrong if he had added “I think that is pretty typical” afterwards. I would not advise calling another poster here a “low information voter”, if that’s what you’re asking. Because you seem to imply that we can’t ever insult non-posters, which is simply incorrect. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/48 "2016-07-07T21:11:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I would not advise calling another poster here a “low information voter”, if that’s what you’re asking. Are there no Trump voters here? If I called all conservatives “low information voters”, should I be moderated? ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/49 "2016-07-07T21:36:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Again, you are changing what **adaher** said in order to fit your conclusion. There was nothing about “random sampling”. More importantly, he didn’t say they were bigots. He said they were low information voters. It was **DigitalC** who threw in the racist, etc comments. And I don’t think posters should be held responsible for things they don’t say but that you might extrapolate from what they said. You’re now completely changing the argument. My comment was with regard to your claim that a statement of the form “all {common expression for some subset of X} are \_\_\_\_” is not the same as saying “all X are \_\_\_\_”. But at least some others here seem to agree that it effectively is the same. Come on, if I say “every Trump supporter I know is an idiot” is there any reasonable way to interpret that other than a belief that Trump supporters in general are idiots? > [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > All of the Trump supporters I know are blonde, woo-believing hairdressers. But then I know exactly one person who will admit to supporting Trump. In view of the last sentence, any statement you might make of the form “all the Trump supporters I know…” would be intentionally deceptive. IOW, you wouldn’t be in a position to make such a statement as an honest claim of fact unless you knew quite a large number of Trump supporters, because the clear implication is that what is true for your sample is true for the whole. If it wasn’t, there is really no point in making such a statement at all! ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/50 "2016-07-07T22:07:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You’re now completely changing the argument. My comment was with regard to your claim that a statement of the form “all {common expression for some subset of X} are \_\_\_\_” is not the same as saying “all X are \_\_\_\_”. But at least some others here seem to agree that it effectively is the same. Come on, if I say “every Trump supporter I know is an idiot” is there any reasonable way to interpret that other than a belief that Trump supporters in general are idiots? I’m not changing anything. I’m responding to your post. You added quite a bit extra from what was in **adaher’s** post, not me. Don’t blame me if I responded to those additions. And yes, there are other reasonable ways to interpret the statement of “Every Trump supporter I know is X”. But first that assumes you even need to interpret it for more than what it is in the first place. I’m not seeing that you have to. But, if for argument’s sake you have to, one reasonable interpretation would be “Most [although not necessarily all] Trump supporters are X”. No need to extrapolate it to the worst case possible. Is it too much to ask that we wait until the poster actually says “All Trump supporters are X”? ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/51 "2016-07-07T22:22:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And yes, there are other reasonable ways to interpret the statement of “Every Trump supporter I know is X”. But first that assumes you even need to interpret it for more than what it is in the first place. I’m not seeing that you have to. But, if for argument’s sake you have to, one reasonable interpretation would be “Most [although not necessarily all] Trump supporters are X”. No need to extrapolate it to the worst case possible. Is it too much to ask that we wait until the poster actually says “All Trump supporters are X”? Of course you have to interpret the statement for more than what it is. If you refuse to do that, communication breaks down entirely. That’s the way people talk. They don’t spell out every detail they’re saying, but rely on the listener to understand context. In this case, Adaher said: “_I’m not convinced Trump voters are the party’s base. Every Trump voter I know is a low information voter that has never been on board with conservatism. Trump changed the base, he didn’t win the base._” The first and third sentences were general statements about Trump supporters. It’s obvious that the middle sentence was intended to support those general statements. Otherwise it had no place in that paragraph. It sounds like you would advocate taking that sentence as a statement about the few Trump supporters that Adaher knows personally and then sitting there puzzled as to why he’s relating this in the thread. That’s not a proper or realistic approach to discussions. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/52 "2016-07-07T23:12:35Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course you have to interpret the statement for more than what it is. If you refuse to do that, communication breaks down entirely. > > That’s the way people talk. They don’t spell out every detail they’re saying, but rely on the listener to understand context. > > In this case, Adaher said: “_I’m not convinced Trump voters are the party’s base. Every Trump voter I know is a low information voter that has never been on board with conservatism. Trump changed the base, he didn’t win the base._” The first and third sentences were general statements about Trump supporters. It’s obvious that the middle sentence was intended to support those general statements. Otherwise it had no place in that paragraph. It sounds like you would advocate taking that sentence as a statement about the few Trump supporters that Adaher knows personally and then sitting there puzzled as to why he’s relating this in the thread. That’s not a proper or realistic approach to discussions. Eh. If you want to go that route we could just as easily argue that interpreting it so that it must mean “all Trump supporters…” is an insult to the poster since it implies the poster is too stupid to know the difference between “the dozen or so Trump supporters I know” and “every single Trump supporter out there, which is counted in the millions”. That is why I said that if you feel the need to extrapolate, give the guy the benefit of the doubt and extrapolate to “Most [but not necessarily all].” Especially since what we’re talking about here is whether a post deserves moderator action or not. Heaven forbid we actually ask a poster for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions!! ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/53 "2016-07-07T23:18:15Z")
Actually I don’t think he meant “every single Trump supporter out there”, and that he did mean “most Trump supporters”. I was reacting to your suggestion that even that extrapolation was not necessary and that ideally we wouldn’t read anything more than what was actually said (you only suggested the “most” interpretation in a “for argument’s sake” context). This is not workable, as I pointed out. But FWIW, I don’t know that there’s a substantive difference for purposes of MB rules between saying “most of Group X are …” and “all of Group X are …”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/54 "2016-07-08T03:02:54Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 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.” What’s the relevance of a protected class in this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/55 "2016-07-08T04:32:36Z")
> [@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? There’s a part of me that wants to say “_pfffft_. **adaher** was clearly inviting the reader to extrapolate the Trump supporters of his acquaintance to represent ALL Trump supporters.” But I think I’ll hold off for now, and remark that sharp-eyed readers of that thread will note that one of my posts was a “nm.” JFTR, that post represents my having pulled back a statement, that, while contradicting **Digital C** ’s assertion, could have been construed as having the same degree of partisanship that the Mod note objected to. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/56 "2016-07-08T04:38:55Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 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.” > [@Bricker](#): > > What’s the relevance of a protected class in this discussion? Not to answer for **Merneith** , but I’ll note that for purposes of analogy, Board rules about “hate speech” seem to map on to groups described as protected classes in general, and not so much onto chosen affinity groups that would not qualify as such. Such is my impression, anyway. I welcome correction, should it be forthcoming. ---
**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 8, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/57 "2016-07-08T05:22:51Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > There’s a part of me that wants to say “_pfffft_. **adaher** was clearly inviting the reader to extrapolate the Trump supporters of his acquaintance to represent ALL Trump supporters.” > > But I think I’ll hold off for now, and remark that sharp-eyed readers of that thread will note that one of my posts was a “nm.” JFTR, that post represents my having pulled back a statement, that, while contradicting **Digital C** ’s assertion, could have been construed as having the same degree of partisanship that the Mod note objected to. Alternatively, why not just ask the poster if that’s what he meant before assuming you can read his mind? But keep in mind that we’re not even talking about what you, as a poster, should think. We’re talking about what the mods should think about such a post. Do you really want all such posts to receive moderator action? ---
**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:** [July 8, 2016, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/58 "2016-07-08T05:52:44Z")
I perceive this as a moderator misstep. How could we have done better? > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > …it’s one of those grey lines. I was tempted to note it myself. We have, in the past, had posters attempting to demonize the opposition in Great Debates and Elections by presented their opponents beliefs as some sort of horrible never-get-overs. It’s a cheap tactic and one that precludes further debate as well as possibly punching the ‘hate speech’ button. > > Examples: > > “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia.” > “Being Jewish IS greed, cowardice and hook-nosed.” > > Both use the same presentation and both are demonstrably wrong on the face of it. The difference is that the reader may agree with one and not the other and consider it acceptable because of that. > > But really, it’s the need to demonize one’s debate opposition that should cause some inner reflection. Refuted here: > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > “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. Much better, though I don’t think there was line dancing involved. I can live with the remainder. **DigitalC** made a claim that could be substantiated and it would have a chilling effect on the fight against ignorance if such salvos were banned from Elections or GD. Sure the claim was insulting against an ideology. But it wouldn’t be hard to elaborate upon. The problem was that DigitalC made an inflammatory comment that was unsubstantiated, not softened and left without nuance. > [@If the Republicans do end up nominating someone else...](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-republicans-do-end-up-nominating-someone-else/759133/30): > > Keep this sort of ludicrous, partisan nonsense in The BBQ Pit. > > [/Moderating] That said, since it was borderline, tomndebb worded his note badly in my view. There was the potential for a claim that, while uncomfortable, would belong in Elections. I can see how Tom could have reacted that way, but given the overall themes of the Trump campaign, I don’t find DigitalC’s point to be obviously ludicrous, regardless of its accuracy. No worries though, no warning was issued, yada, yada. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/59 "2016-07-08T12:29:21Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > …given the overall themes of the Trump campaign, I don’t find DigitalC’s point to be obviously ludicrous, regardless of its accuracy. I doubt there would’ve been a problem with saying “Trump and many of his supporters have worked hard to earn their reputation of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.” ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305/60 "2016-07-08T15:21:36Z")
Pointing out that conservatism, and American conservatives in particular, have been promoting and benefiting from racism, misogyny and xenophobia for decades now is an equally factual statement. More to the point - it’s a debatable statement and one that should be acceptable for debate in the forum dedicated to debating partisan political statements. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305.md?page=4)