I agree with the broader applicability, but it’s hard to say this isn’t a Pit of Jasmine when her name is in the thread title. It’s literally saying that it’s specifically about her opinions.
I like the idea of the thread as a discussion of the concept (and I agree very much with Stranger’s sentiments in the OP) and I think holding the discussion in the Pit where people can let out their feelings on a very emotional subject is a great one. But it’s hard to not see this as Pitting a poster in the way it was constructed.
Maybe if this is supposed to be a broader discussion not focused on one person, a mod should be asked to change the title.
Ya’ll simply aggravated Jasmine had an unpopular opinion.
Or a knee-jerk opinion.
Or maybe wrong headed? IDK.
In a forum that was incorrect. She acknowledged this.
Her name us in the title. What are we to think this thread is about?
So…my ignorant, homespun advice?..get off her ass. It wasn’t so bad.
Quit tryna make this about me.
Get a hobby.
Read a book.
Plant a flower.
It’s not hard at all. Unlike other threads entitled “Pitting {Poster-name}” this one is clearly about a particular opinion on a specific subject, which as it happens is an ignorant view that is widely held. This isn’t really a “pitting” at all, but a discussion about why such a view is wrong, and I presume the OP chose to start it in the Pit to allow a freer discussion.
The whole “Pitting so-and-so” is not a universal convention, and it only came about when Discourse forced us to change the rules about Pit threads that had insults in them toward posters. Otherwise, linking to a Pit thread with an insulting title puts an insult outside of the Pit into the thread with the link, which then violates our rules.
But we’ve always had thread titles like this one…
Which by your reasoning is about anyone who believes Trump’s tweets but no, that was just a thread about Sam Stone. It’s unusual for a Pit thread to be about a general subject and still mention a poster’s name in the title. In fact, this is the only one I can think of that’s similar to this one:
And that also led to the assumption that the thread was Pitting Uzi, because you don’t mention a person’s name in a Pit thread title unless you’re targeting them. That’s the only real standard I see.
There is also this Pit thread:
While it was a larger discussion of Hamas and Israel, it very much targeted Babale, which is why the name is in the thread title.
But it’s really easy. If you don’t want to target a person, don’t mention their name in the thread. And don’t get indignant if people think you are targeting them. That’s ridiculous.
I read the other thread. I read this one. Every word.
I’m sorry you don’t agree. In future I’ll make sure I go with the crowd on controversial subjects.
Is that what you want?
Everyone to be on your side and yes-man you? Applaud your genius in fucking nit picking this board to death?(not you personally @hajario. Just people in general.)
Guess what? Not everyone thinks the same as you. How boring would that be?
You know I have a particular fear of vigilantes taking to the streets and being crazed and upset. Shooting folks in broad daylight.
I’ve dealt with insurance companies my whole life. Hell, yeah they are frustrating. Not one time have I ever thought “well, I’m pissed think I’ll go shoot the CEO.”
Killing someone, murdering someone no matter your grief with them is just wrong. IMO.
And yes, punishment should be shock and awe.(not L------d, not put to death, be clear, I do NOT want the guy dead) We need to discourage this behavior.
Might be a whole other discussion but I’m not sure this will discourage folks in this political climate. I can only hope.
I don’t know how to make this any more clear to you. It’s not that you disagree with the mainstream here. It’s that you are discussing a totally different (sometime tangentially related) topic.
Okay. If you say so. In my head its related.
Granted my head is generally swimming upstream. Can I run my posts by you, if I’m unsure? You got time to kill?
But, dang it. I like Jasmine. I hate how people are just trashed in the pit for thinking differently.
This is one of those pit threads that are sneaky snakes. Twisting around peoples thoughts and ideas.
And, the clever picking out tiny snippets of a persons whole post, to make it fit your narrative is evil.
And I agree, which is why I tried very hard to put in a number of qualifiers about the quality of our legal system.
Really, @jasmine had a poor post, and this thread was started before they had a chance to reconsider, and has since acknowledged it. About 80-90% of this thread is a fine subject for debate in a non-Pit thread, though we have many good debates here anyway. And as @Atamasama pointed out, the text of the OP was more about said general argument than Jasmine personally. It is a jumping off point as it were. And credit to @Jasmine, they’ve not thrown gasoline on the fire by trying to say it was something else. Many of us (myself included!) have not responded nearly as well when they come up in these threads.
As for Stranger, I admit to having (at my base) a very similar rationalistic/legalistic mentality, after all I mentioned I own up to being Lawful Neutral. I don’t chose to be blind to the problems of that however. Which is why posted what I did about emotionally driven vs. legalistic driven interpretations of events. Both have value, but as we’re social creatures, minding TPO is always a concern.
Are you thinking of another poster (Maybe Johanna)? I don’t recall any posts by her on those subjects, but I may just be reading the wrong threads or fora.