Warning for personal insults from Bone

Here is the post with the warning.

First off, I’m not going to contest the warning as such, as I accept I was wrong for “sexualising the poster”. I wouldn’t have phrased what I did as that, exactly, but I remember now that it’s against the rules, and for that I apologise.

However, I disagree that observing the depraved morality of someone is a personal insult. To be specific, I don’t see how someone who wants revenge on innocent people who are actively trying to help society, and by extension themself as an individual, is an insult.

The comparison to lynchers was to show exactly how badly society (now) thinks of those who seek extrajudicial punishment due to prejudice.

If we’re not supposed to criticise the morality of other posters, fine, but if that were applied consistently there would have to be a massive change in how GD and Elections are moderated. I’ve not reported such criticisms against myself as I don’t consider them insults, and it’s happened on a few occasions.

Your sin is to attack the actual person, rather than his position. As Bone said, instead of simply making the analogy to a similar position, you then went so far as to say that the poster himself was a worse person than the type of person you brought up.

Simply say something like, “No, in fact, your position here is worse than that, because …” Should solve everything.

I get what you’re saying. I really do. But I see “you are worse” as a pretty bright line. You can say “your morality is worse” or “your argument is worse,” but saying “you are worse” seems to cross the line into a personal insult, It attacks the person, not the argument.

Hmm, perhaps. But in the warning, Bone specifically says it was comparing the morality that was the issue, not that I used an unqualified “you are worse”.

If it’s cleared up that what I said was wrong, but your usage would have been fine, that would be fine I think.

Bone bolded (and noted the bolding) of “you are worse” in his warning. What more do you want?

I’m actually more interested in the second mod note in that link where Bone tells the other poster not to make “ridiculous analogies”. Since when was that against the rules?

Also, the warning specifically said

(bolding added). I don’t see any way that this is not clearly about something that is obviously a personal insult. He could have left out “in terms of morality” and the sentence would have had the same meaning.

Steophan, from your link:
“Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults…”

Fuck me. What the fuck? Edgy. I guess.

If you framed it more like this, I doubt it would be an issue. If you had not included the “Actually no, you are worse” part I likely would have made it a note instead of a warning. Not because I think the remainder was okay, but I could conceive of a way the prior section was analogizing the rationale being used rather than the poster them self. The note would have been to not sexualize other posters, and cool it with the unnecessary slurs.

I imagine something along the lines of, ‘the reasoning you are using in an attempt to punish police officers extra-judiciously is the same rationale that racists used to justify lynching extra-judiciously.’ This at least attacks the reasoning and not the poster, eliminates the unnecessarily inflammatory language, the multiple racial slurs, etc.

Ridiculous analogies are not against the rules, nor are tortured ones. What could be is if the analogy was used in a way that was clearly a personal insult. I was attempting to head off the hijack war of comparing other posters to Nazis.

Really, after reading the responses to this thread, all I’d like to know is whether stating that someone’s morality is worse than that of whoever (as per BigT’s post) is acceptable. I’m not arguing that what I said is acceptable, anymore.

That’s actually another good question. I took it as a general note to people in the thread to cool down rather than respond to me in kind, rather than a statement of a rule.

I think it would help if you made it clear what you were moderating for-- i.e., to prevent a hijack. That’s not at all how I would have read this if it had been directed at me:

“Please do not make a habit of ridiculous analogies, especially tit for tat. This is a note and not a warning because it lacks the personalization bolded above and describes the rationale, however, I’d rather not engage in this level of hair splitting.”

Thanks, that answers my questions and seems pretty fair and consistent. I’ll keep it in mind when posting in the future.

My 2c is that you crossed the line, but only a little bit.

The application of the ‘‘sexualizing another poster’’ rule seems a bit off, here.

I think you could get away with saying, ‘‘this position is morally worse than X’’ but saying, ‘‘you are morally worse than X’’ is a different kettle of fish. We all know that the former really means the latter, but decorum mandates we phrase it that way.

I agree with this. ISTM that “having a hard on” is not traditionally used to sexualize people but rather to express that the person has a strong desire for something. From here where the term is discussed,

That page quotes Full Metal Jacket

Here is the actual rule about “sexualizing”:
*
Sexualizing posters and their arguments - Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress due to recent news reports, political iconography, contemplation of ideological positions, etc.*

You don’t have to sexualize people in order to break that rule.