# tomndebb's warning of DigitalC

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 58

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebbs-warning-of-digitalc/759305)._