Since board policy now specifies that I lack the right to remain unoffended, would you please clarify the circumstances under which you intend to mandate that posters become offended?
Also, did you really intend to end that sentence with “…posters’ statements and opinions.”, “posters, statements and opinions.”, or “posters, statements, and opinions.”?
I think you’re a bit confused here. You have the right to be offended by absolutely anything, but you don’t have the right, or the expectation, to not be offended. It’s not just this board where that rule applies, but in every day life. There are lots of offensive things being said and done, but as long as it’s legal, you can not tell people not to do or say things just because they offend you. That’s what not having the right not to be offended means.
I guess I am confused, this requirement still appears to be word salad to me, I was assuming there was a major typo somewhere in there.
Offense is a subjective thing, and declaring that posters lack rights with respect to their subjective reactions seems both ridiculous and offensive. You didn’t respond with an example of a scenario where this word salad restriction could possibly be violated, where a posters lack of a ‘right to remain unoffended’ would be relevant. Why does the board care whether or not posters remain unoffended?
Is this a strangely worded way of saying you don’t have the right to require other posters not to post anything that offends you?
Anyone and everyone can be offended by anything they see here on the Dope; that’s just fair game. But you can’t expect the mods/admins to ban someone else’s opinion just because it offends you (without more substance or purpose for banning.) Otherwise, that opens up a vicious can of worms: It turns into a ban-fight where both sides are invoking the mods/admins as their weapons to win a speech battle.
I think you should take a moment to read, and think, more carefully. The sentence makes perfect sense. If you want to be pedantic it’s just missing the possessive apostphophe after the s in “posters”.
This is a complete non sequitur to the stated rule. Of course that’s not what it means. The entire point is that offense is a subjective thing. Of course the rule is not trying to dictate when and if you should take offense. It’s saying that you can’t expect to invoke moderation of another poster based solely on the fact that your subjective worldview means that you are offended. In other words, that moderation is based on more objective criteria.
Which would imply that, if you’re arguing that everyone is meant to be rational and debate matters in a level-headed manner, impermeable to any offense, then you’re being unrealistic.
But I am not confident in that interpretation and would agree with the word salad designation. I’d suggest a rewrite for clarity.
But in this construction, you can’t do that and retain the same meaning. The meaning of the original sentence with the negatives intact is that you have no right to stop other people saying things that offend you.
It means that just because something offends you doesn’t mean it’s against the rules. It’s not a double negative as “not” is modifying two different words.
I think you should take a moment to read, and think, more carefully. Nowhere in the actual sentence as written does it refer to acting to stop other people from doing anything: the sentence only speaks to the internal emotional reactions permitted to a poster. Your interpretation may well be what you wish it would have said, but that isn’t what the literal words mean.
I agree, I’m a little astonished that people are making such a hash of understanding what the rule is getting at. It’s a sentiment that has been expressed frequently in the modern debate about classic liberal values of freedom of speech vs more radical notions of “safe spaces”.
It doesn’t imply that anyone can say anything, however offensive. Rather, that the mods will attempt to moderate based on some consistent boardwide standard of balancing freedom of speech vs speech that creates a hostile/toxic environment. The standard for limiting speech will not be the lowest common denominator of whether any one individual claims they are offended by something.
Well, that’s the part where the thinking more carefully comes in. No, it’s not stated explicitly, but that’s quite obviously what it means in the context of laying out the rules for how the boards will be moderated. It’s preposterous to take some literal interpretation that it means the SDMB are seeking to dictate or control your emotional reactions.
So, you’re saying that you prefer that rules to be vague and indirect, requiring interpretation and interpolation of context to get at what was actually meant, rather than explicitly stating the actual behavior they are attempting to forbid?
You’re loading that with an assumption that the rule was was vague and indirect. I disagree with that assumption - I thought it was perfectly clear as written.
I have - literally - millions of published words in dozens of publications. But I’ve always said I need a good editor. Where were YOU two weeks ago?
I phrased that very carefully. It comes about through observation of post reports we receive where the poster reporting it relies solely on their being offended to try to get us to sanction another poster.