"Too ranty" for GD or IMHO?

I’m with @GreysonCarlisle - that second paragraph felt pretty rant-like. The first made good, arguable points, but the second, plus the title, felt like venting.

And in case I wasn’t clear, I do absolutely see the point in the arguments in said first paragraph that I was complimenting, but you were coming close to killing any good-faith debate with that second. So better to rephrase / move to have a better discussion.

People who don’t care about something (one way or the other) seldom post about it. Just sayin’…

Clean it up a bit and keep it in GD, sez me.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this news story lately. I think it would spark some interesting debate.

The second paragraph was maybe a 5 on the Beaufort rant scale.

But isn’t the more important criterion whether the OP raises an issue worthy of substantive debate, rather than the tone in which it is expressed? Seems like there’s a debate there, and I can’t see that it really compromises that debate for OP to have expressed strong feelings on the issue.

Not really. I don’t see much of a Debate framed and it is ranty.

Explain to me what I’m missing. is pretty much IMHO territory and not GD. The rest is a rant.

A better framed Debate and less rant would be needed for GD.

Not to mention, the title is pretty much a rant. Why Should I care is not a good fit for GD or IMHO really.

How is this different than:

Why Should I PERSONALLY Care About Politics?


That post doesn’t read as a rant at all, it’s someone asking a question he has laid out fairly well.

Dinsdale’s original post about Brittnay Griner could have been phrased as a serious discussion, but his 2nd paragraph made it obvious he already had a passionate, personal belief about it–further, that he had come to his conclusion, and he wanted you to know that it was that Brittany Griner was a scumbag worthy of condemnation. That doesn’t seem like the opening to a real debate, just a place for him to get in a back-and-forth angry argument.

“I hear about politics day-in and day-out. On the news, social media, in books, games, magazines, the radio, random conversations, etc. But, why? Why should I care?”

Looks a tad ranty to me. I mean, just as a referent.

It’s a subjective standard. My opinion is that passage is less ranty than this:

Explain to me what I’m missing. She DID bring drugs into Russia, and got caught. Now US policy is supposed to be tweaked to get her out? Maybe instead Americans should realize the importance of either not going to hostile countries, or if they wish to, keeping their drugs at home.

Not everything can be boiled down to black and white objective measures.

OK, you win.

GD should be called GQ. It’s all questions that beg the issue. A GD OP should present a resolution or major premise that is to be defended, otherwise the topic of the debate is not stated - ie:

‘Brittany Griner violated the laws of Russia and should not receive aid from the US Consulate.’

‘Brittany Griner did something stupid and does not deserve media sympathy’

‘Brittany Grider did not commit a crime and deserves my sympathy’

This post is an example of one I think is ranty.

Well Dinsdale, regardless of the category, I completely agree with you. I really don’t understand why some people don’t understand how some countries work.

This is not the thread or forum for such a discussion. Please refrain.

The “rant” thread was closed before clearly delineating what was or wasn’t a rant. I think the mod was a tad quick on the trigger in this case, judging the perceived tone rather than the context. I doubt it would take too much to find GD threads in which the OP expressed a “passionate, personal belief.” But I’m not going to exert the effort. And at least one person in this thread has indicated an interest in the subject matter. I’m not sure whose sensitivities were being protected here.

I guess by definition, the mod is always right. He/she knows a rant when he/she sees it. End of discussion. :roll_eyes:

The title reads like a rant, though. In general, I’d say “Why should I care?” comes off more about expressing anger than a legitimate question. Such a title works against you, and you have to kinda subvert it.

Dinsdale’s post, on the other hand, definitely came across like it confirmed the implication of its title, and that the purpose of the post was to rant about how stupid the person in question is, and that people are dumb to be sympathetic towards her.

It didn’t come across to me like it was looking for an answer.

That said, I do think maybe there is room for a slightly change here in policy. I suggest you specifically mention why it came off as a rant, so that the OP has a better chance of reopening the thread. It’s quite likely the OP disagrees about it being a rant, so such clarification would be helpful.

Or, at the very least, explicitly mention that you can PM the mod to get that information. Sure, that’s always the case, but reminding people could help facilitate that exchange, rather than an angry ATMB post.

It can still be reopened in the pit. Or, if you want to try again with a tone more open to discussion, i think you could do that, too. (I am not a GD mod, though. Best to confirm with one of them.)

Sure - I could do either of these things. But the mod action left a bad taste in my mouth. I honestly do not understand the concerns that warranted closing my thread. Sure, I COULD have phrased it differently. But I did not understand that my choice of words was over the line. Characterizing a position someone considers reasonable as a “rant” is pretty offensive and provocative in itself.

The mods may feel that the action taken was necessary, reasonable, and unobjectionable. That’s fine. I perceived it otherwise. Like I said, there was no attempt to ascertain my motivation, or see if the thread could be “salvaged.” Having me take additional steps may strike folk as a very minor measure, and many/most may consider me unreasonable. Again, that is fine. But given that I thought this particular moderation unnecessary and offensive, I was not interested in taking that minor step.

To me that seems like fairly good evidence you were more interested in a rant than a discussion. If making minor style changes to your verbiage is so upsetting that seems like it wasn’t a good likelihood of being a debate vs an emotional argument about a personal rant.

Seems like the mods read this one correctly.

OK - I know I said I wouldn’t do this, but without going past the first page, how is this thread qualitatively different than mine, such that the OP was not immediately closed. It describes a cultural practice as “grotesque” in its title, refers to “Chinese lowlifes” and alleges animal torture for pleasure not supported by the linked source. I seriously do not see a workable distinction.

And given this:

I find it amusing that my closed thread is currently adjacent to “Why should I PERSONALLY care about politics”! :smiley:

MH - just because YOU personally think a specific action minor, does not mean that someone else should willingly undertake it. And does not mean that person is unreasonable or interested in merely “ranting.” To again cite the Chinese animal eating thread - that poses “a debate vs an emotional argument about an emotional rant”?

Nevermind…too snarky.