The only time I’ve ever heard of that term was when people were getting noted for it. It’s definitely not ignored here.
My opinion, I am not mod.
Implying that members of the board enjoy the thought of a public figure being raped, in a P&E topic very far removed from sexual assault, is or should be a warnable offense. I believe it violates this rule,
on the basis that accusing someone of enjoying the thought of someone being raped is tantamount to accusing him or her of achieving sexual gratification. If you read “achieving sexual gratification” narrowly I also believe UltraVires violated the general prohibition of sexualizing posters and arguments by associating his ideological opponents with enjoyment of rape. At the very least his post violates the spirit of the rule.
If action is not warranted a rule change is in order, as this kind of side remark is wholly inappropriate for P&E.
~Max
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is very unfortunate, but there is a subset of folks in society who think prison rape or prison brutality are somehow merited for certain undesirables who are imprisoned. Acknowledging that is not sexualizing an argument.
Is pointing that out in an argument about indictment offensive? Perhaps. But it’s not false. Furthermore, offensive or hurtful shouldn’t be the metric by which a post is deemed unacceptable. Many perfectly normal and widely held stances are subjectively offensive or hurtful and they shouldn’t be silenced merely by the assertion of offense.
That doesn’t fly here. Lots of people are jerks. Rule #1 of the SDMB is “don’t be a jerk”. If you’re a jerk, see ya.
And to a jerk, being a jerk is of course “perfectly normal”. Tough. They can take it to some unmoderated cesspool if they want the freedom to be awful.
One can be offended by the idea that single payer for health care should never be adopted. If one is uninsured and suffering from an ailment it does seem jerkish to advocate a stance that would deny one care. However, the offense one feels or the viewpoint that one who is so stingy with the public purse is a jerk isn’t sufficient to shut down legitimate debate.
That’s the problem with using a label on one’s ideological opponent and expecting that to lead to expulsion of the opponent instead of arguing the merits of a position. It leads to these silly situations and in-group biases where the position becomes de-facto a disruption and the poster advocating it must necessarily be a jerk.
So, I disagree vehemently that arguing a position even with a bit of returned snark is intrinsically disruptive or jerkish… unless the goal isn’t to have actual debate in GD or PE. Which more and more seems to be the case.
Gosh, I am very glad that’s the opposite of the way things are handled here and also in society.
You are seeing things through a biased lens. If 4 left-leaning folks get banned and 1 person on the right is banned, then the person on the right was persecuted for their political opinions. It’s nonsense. You’re making an argument divorced from reality. It’s really tired.
Accusing others of holding that “unfortunate”–and that’s a shit word, let’s call it “hideous and contemptible”–belief is a serious accusation. It’s one that should be made when there is specific evidence in a specific case.
There was nobody in the thread declaring their desire for Trump to be the victim of prison rape, fercryinoutloud. It was a nasty accusation thrown in without any evidence. He suggested that “some of you” might enjoy it. He was accusing the folks in the thread. “Might” was a weasel word wholly insufficient to insulate him from consequences.
By way of analogy, I believe Der_Trihs used to post about how anti-abortion activists want to see women die in back alleys. If a poster made that accusation today, saying, “Some of you might enjoy seeing women die in back alleys,” I’d wholly support consequences for that poster.
Are you so sure it’s my lens that is biased? I’m not the one asserting “enjoy” is sexualizing a post and using that as pretext to ban someone.
I mean, yes, there are few things I’m surer of.
Just as a general comment, fighting ignorance does not imply that the board should welcome people who contribute nothing but ignorance to be fought.
In hindsight, moderation should have been a lot tighter a lot longer ago, and we would have a genuinely more diverse and vibrant community than we have today. There’s no way I’d trade those members who have been chased off for the nasty pieces of work who did the chasing.
UltraVires was not merely acknowledging that some people somewhere think people deserve to be beaten and raped. He made an irrelevant, hostile, and underhanded accusation against the people he was conversing with (“some of you”). He characterized fellow board members as enjoying the thought of a certain person being raped. That’s a sexual element that UltraVires injected into the thread, contrary to the rules.
~Max
The rules aren’t that hard to follow. In fact, the one overreaching rule here is, “Don’t be a jerk.” UltraVires violated that rule, hence he was sent packing. He wasn’t banned for what he said, but how he said it.
I wonder… Do you think that given there are Republicans on this board, calling Republicans evil or racist or misogynist might be offensive to them? Because a hell of a lot of that kind of commentary is allowed here.
I’m not worried about it. Pointing out racism and bigotry - wherever it may be - is a moral imperative. And while it exists across the political spectrum, it mostly pools on one end. Sorry, but not really. I’m not going to avoid pointing out that neo-nazis seem really enthusiastic about the GOP because it might upset members of the GOP who want to pretend they’re not laying down with nazis.
That said - if a poster is personally called evil or racist or misogynistic outside the pit, they should be reported and sanctioned. That’s an easy rule to follow for nominally functioning human beings.
What if - speculatively - the fighting ignorance we hear so much of requires calling Republicans evil or racist or misogynist because that’s factually true? Not doing so would put the board into a bind that would sink its entire raison d’etre.
I’ll just say this:
I’ve been here for over 20 years (jesus, I’m getting old). And I feel this place is both less diverse and less interesting than it used to be.
Can you show us an example outside of the BBQ Pit, where this is done without explanation to Republicans in general, instead of to just a particular Republican for something she/he/they did or said?