Once again, this example is not even close to the topic here. **DigitalC **did not call anyone a racist, misogynist or xenophobe. Characterizing an ideology is not a personal insult. Attack the post, not the poster has always been the rule here. If that has changed, it should be in the sticky and the user agreement.
So, it would be okay if Poster B said:
The belief that we should build a wall along the Mexican border is racist and xenophobic. ?
You would think that he is only attacking the post and not suggesting that Poster A is racist or xenophobic?
Your view is that posters outside the Pit should not be permitted to express the view that the wall is xenophobic?
Yes, it is OK under the current rules.
How about this:
Poster A: Conservatism promotes smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.
Poster B: Conservatism also promotes racism, misogyny and xenophobia.
Is one permissible, but not the other? Why?
Poster C: Oh yeah? Liberalism promotes loose morals, laziness, dependency, and hatred of our country!!
And now we have the basis for debate.
A wall is just a tool, one of its purposes being to regulate immigration. If a wall is xenophobic, so is E-verify, biometric entry/exit systems, Border Patrol, and the regulation of immigration in any form.
Not that I would think mod response to accusations that the wall is xenophobic are necessary. That seems to me to just be a dumb argument that can be easily refuted.
So…you agree with me then?
Yes.
Yes, I think SDMB mods can easily make such distinctions and that the Feds can’t. The federal government can’t rely upon discretion: they need clear rules. The mods here have always relied upon discretion. Because the penalties the government has under its power are so much greater, they must exercise prudence and restraint. The most the mods here can do is ban someone from this plot of private property.
I remain unconvinced by your argument via analogy. I think it’s pretty straightforward to sort out proper expression between the pit and elections. I opine that banning partisan nonsense outright would be deeply problematic. But that stuff isn’t banned: it’s merely allocated to the pit. And there’s a bright and enforceable line (for example) between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims.
None of that strikes me as responsive to my argument, which is restated in my reply to Pleonast.
Indeed, the paragraph of my post you omitted anticipates your second paragraph directly.
I did not intend to misrepresent Richard Parker, and I’ll quote him in full here.
and
I honestly don’t see any evidence that content is being moderated, as opposed to style. I think it’s appropriate for mods to say they are not banning substantiated partisan jabs in elections, if in fact that is correct. I perceive that the argument that the distinction between style and content cannot be reliably drawn rests upon an analogy. I think the distinction can be drawn pretty easily.
Unfortunately, I confess that I don’t see much misrepresentation on my part. Maybe I’m missing something. I mean I thought that the central part of RP’s argument is that the Feds can’t distinguish between style and content and therefore the mods here can’t: “A lot of really smart people have debated for about a century now the question of whether an idea can be fully separated form it’s expression. The general weight of opinion is “no.” In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of a philosopher or legal scholar who thinks otherwise, though I’m sure they exist.”
But I think Federal regulation of style is very different than the sort regulated here. And that if indeed the mods here can’t make use of the style/content distinction, then it would be easy to find direct examples of that. As opposed to examples in the realm of federal or state law and jurisprudence.
I thought the argument you were making is that mods can make the distinction because, unlike state censorship, there’s room for discretion and error when there’s always the safety valve of the Pit.
That argument doesn’t strike me as responsive because I don’t think it addresses the fundamental difficulty in untangling style from content, which exists in every context regardless of who is doing the distinguishing. “Fuck the draft” really does mean something different from “the draft is a really bad idea.”
I think tomndebb’s examples in this thread of alternate versions of the argument show that he’s really talking about content, not style.
But let me add that I’m unwisely posting in between other tasks, so I might easily be missing something in your argument Measure for Measure. You’re generally my guide star for reasonableness.
Statement A: [House lights come up.] * Ladies and gentlemen, a fire has been reported at the back of the theater. Please proceed to the EXIT signs located at the sides of the stage and exit the building. We will inform you whether and when it is safe to return to your seats.*
Statement B: FIRE!!!
= = = =
It may not be possible to fully separate an idea from its expression. That hardly means that all expressions need to be accepted, equally. Beyond that, your argument appears to be based on appeals to Constitutional Law. Moderating a discussion to avoid the sort of chaos found on many Youtube comments sections is different from a government suppressing a citizen’s right of expression.
I don’t agree at all. A continuum obviously exists of the ways the same idea can be expressed. (Actually, it’s probably multi-dimensional but that’s not germane to this discussion.) As someone who lived through that era, my response would be that of course “fuck the draft” was merely a more extremely worded version of “the draft is a really bad idea.” There was no meaningful polite way to be against the draft than there is a polite way to be against “racism, misogynism and xenophobia.” Politeness was antithetical: it allowed the wrong to continue. (And all that is separate from the ludicrous analogy of courtesy on a message board and of public speech found legal by the government.)
John Mace’s attempt at false equivalence is equally invalid. “Loose morals, laziness, dependency, and hatred of our country!” are not the evils that “racism, misogynism and xenophobia” are, nor are they what liberals advocate. You might argue that liberal policies produce those problems, but that’s not the same as advocacy.
I’m not arguing that all discussion in Elections should be inflammatory and insulting. I’m saying instead that the same rules that allow criticism of the position rather than the poster should be applied even if the criticism is loud and fervent. I don’t envy the mods who need to judge where lines should be drawn. The current lines aren’t the right ones, though.
Oy. If you think grammar is what matters in that sort of change, then you’ve missed the entire point. The sentence structure was simply a matter of copying what Fear wrote about conservatives. You’r making this way more complicated than it needs to be. The first of Fear’s statement lends itself to reasoned debate. The second doesn’t. That’s all.
I still think this is an attack on the conservatives on this board and in general and furthermore is not factual. However if the statement were " American politicians pandering to conservatives in particular, have been promoting and benefiting from racism, misogyny and xenophobia for decades." I would have no argument with that.
Your post is not based on a careful reading of my argument. But I should have anticipated that quoting a Supreme Court case would lead to your misunderstanding. Next time, I’ll quote Frege instead and I’ll bold and underline the part explaining how this isn’t about constitutional law or the First Amendment.
I’ve lost what your point is. Yes, style is a subset of content and this board has always moderated both. That’s a good thing, right? I wouldn’t read or post here if it wasn’t well moderated. I’m not sure why anyone would be loath to admit it.