# Why is this "perilously close to an infraction" as opposed to being an infraction? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 3, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965 "2013-11-03T05:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/41 "2013-11-04T00:05:43Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Whoa, I might have to rethink this. > > Mace, I find that I entirely missed the ‘this racist’ thing. No kidding. I focused on the ‘you are ignorant’ in the note. I thought hard about that but missed the other. My ‘perilously close’ bit was in response to the word ‘ignorant’. I decided to provide direction as opposed to an infraction because bita malt was in the habit of referring to his lack of knowledge. > > Still, thanks for the pointing out. All I can say is that I miss things, especially in threads like our current spate of racially-tinged ones where the same thing appears to be said over and over. > > Still, ibn brings up an interesting point that I wish to think about. Be patient. Reasonable. Thoughtful. No air of infallibility. How the heck did _you_ become a mod? Seriously, you handled this simply, reasonably, and with aplomb. Well done. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/42 "2013-11-04T00:14:11Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Well, for starters, just because you take a comment as an insult doesn’t mean that other people have to feel you’ve been insulted. > > But you’re not attacking the poster, you’re describing his or her beliefs. > > We have people on this site who probably don’t like being called Holocaust deniers, creationists, or climate change deniers, but the mods aren’t going to sanction me if I use those terms to describe them unless I’m doing so for the purpose of being insulting. > > Do you disagree? > > Is your position that I should be sanctioned if I use the term “Holocaust Denier” to refer to a David Irving type who whines “He just insulted me and besides I don’t think the Holocaust was a hoax! I just think the Zionists have grossly exaggerated the number of Jews killed to justify the creation of Israel and punish the Germans and that it was only about 100,000 Jews who died in the camp!” > > Or, “Mods! He just insulted me! I was just asking questions! I’m not a Holocaust Denier! I’m an agnostic in whether or not it happened!” > > In fact, virtually all “Holocaust deniers” insist they aren’t. > > Once again if it’s okay to say to a poster “you’re being sexist” for saying politicians drag their wives around the campaign trail, it should definitely be okay to say "you’re being racist for insisting that black people are mentally inferior to whites. I’ve never heard of the term “Holocaust denier” as being an insult. If it is, perhaps we can criticize the post and not the poster. It keeps the debate from getting sidetracked. The second point you make is the distinction made on this board. “You are acting like a racist” versus “You are a racist” contains an important distinction that allows the thread from descending into a pissing contest. In the first statement, there is the implicit assumption that the poster is not the “racist” that his posts imply, but that he has made an error in judgment or a misstatement that may be corrected or rebutted in a subsequent post. The second statement contains an in your face, direct confrontation which will only descend into a “no I’m not; yes you are” three page hijack. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/43 "2013-11-04T00:15:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Reasonable. Thoughtful. No air of infallibility. How the heck did _you_ become a mod? > > Seriously, you handled this simply, reasonably, and with aplomb. Well done. Agreed. His coffee mug privileges are under review. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/44 "2013-11-04T00:25:14Z")
In my mind, there’s a clear distinction between the following categories: 1. Appellations that have no bearing on a person’s debatable beliefs. Racial epithets and gender/sexual epithets fall into this category, and when the words are derogatory, I have no problem with banning them. 2. Appellations that have a bearing on debatable beliefs, but that are deliberately derogatory when there are other synonyms that work just as well that are not. Religious epithets and political epithets (“Fundy,” “Commie”) fall into this category. Given my druthers, they’d be moderated in moderation: the occasional one wouldn’t be a problem, but there’d better be some substance to the poster otherwise. 3. Appellations that have a bearing on debatable beliefs, and regardless of any derogatory nature are the only widely-acceptable words for those beliefs. “Christian,” “paleoconservative,” “anarchist,” and “racist” would all fall into those categories. I wouldn’t moderate these words at all, although if a person’s post consisted of nothing more than namecalling I’d moderate them for jerkitude. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/45 "2013-11-04T00:41:25Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > Where does it end, though? If you’re clearly an asshole, is it not still an insult if I call you an asshole? > > (generic “you”, I have no reason to think Flyer is an asshole) Because the term “asshole” is indisputably an insult. The term “racist” or “sexist” isn’t. Beyond that, the term “racist” doesn’t necessarily say anything about the person’s intelligence, morality, or even if that person is a good person or not. There are many different levels and degrees of racism. People who think that black people make better running backs due to genetics are not necessarily in the same boat as people who want them exterminated. In fact it’s very possible to find people who are in many ways progressive and good yet we’d still regard as racists. Bob Gibson mentioned how he had white friends on the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1960s whom he liked very much, who he knew fought against segregation and spoke up when hotels would try and keep him out even if it meant some personal sacrifice on their part and whom he wouldn’t hesitate to invite to his wedding and who wouldn’t hesitate to invite him to theirs or go out to dinner with him and if they were told by the manager “we can let you in but not your friend” would say “ok, let’s go somewhere else” but who would still object strongly to the idea of a white woman marrying a black man. For that matter I knew several black people in college whom I liked and thought were good people who made it clear they really, really didn’t like the idea of white women and black men hooking up. Also, when I was in the West Bank I met plenty of Palestinians, almost all of whom would happily make statements that all fair-minded people would have to view as anti-Semitic, whom I liked and viewed positively. Some racists are assholes and like I said, they come in many different varieties. New Yorkers who nearly wet themselves when a black man steps into the same subway car as them are racists, but that doesn’t put them in the same category as people who want them all lynched. Hopefully, the mods won’t think my next comments don’t overstep, but frankly while I think bita malt is a racist and thought referring to him or her as such was appropriate, I don’t necessarily think that bita is an asshole. I’ll take bita at his word and assume that he’s a bit naive, not as well-read as he could be, but somewhat intellectually curious and he’s intrigued by this intellectual fight he’s just found out about. Kind of like the way people who are young, somewhat intellectually curious, but haven’t really read anything heavy can have a bit of a conversion experience when they read Noam Chomsky or Ayn Rand. I’m sure we all remember those people from college. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/46 "2013-11-04T00:43:11Z")
I agree that calling someone racist is attacking the post instead of the poster, and should be sanctioned. (the same would go for other descriptions of the poster instead of their posts) But Marley has been on record as saying that calling people racist is not an insult necessarily. And, as long as he says that, I don’t think you can expect not to use it. Plus the mods are always more lenient when people get momentarily too upset when responding to someone who is deliberately provoking them. I think it’s a trade off for letting these types of threads exist at all, despite the fact that they know they always get tempers flaring and cause problems. And despite the sketchy intentions of the people who post them–whether newbies with an axe to grind or older posters who’ve already been through this enough times to know how the thread will go. No poster here is ever going to agree that we have to listen to clearly racist ideas without getting angry, no matter who thinks that be able to listen to opposite views. For a lot of people, it’s like listening to a pedophile talk about how the age of consent should be lowered–when you are a parent and thus constantly thinking about your kids’ safety. There’s just no way these types of things are going to be on this board without some comments that get really close or even slightly cross the line. So, since the mods think such threads are so important to preserve, they have to be a bit lenient, or they’d wind up constantly having to shut down the threads entirely. In fact, I’m pretty sure this is the entire point of GD. If we could not get so upset, these things could be put in IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/47 "2013-11-04T00:49:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > “You are acting like a racist” versus “You are a racist” contains an important distinction that allows the thread from descending into a pissing contest. In the first statement, there is the implicit assumption that the poster is not the “racist” that his posts imply, but that he has made an error in judgment or a misstatement that may be corrected or rebutted in a subsequent post. The second statement contains an in your face, direct confrontation which will only descend into a “no I’m not; yes you are” three page hijack. Except the mods have specifically stated they really don’t see a difference between “you’re being an X” and “you’re an X”. This for a good reason. Were we to use your above reasoning, then the mods shouldn’t step in if I say “you’re being an asshole” because based on the above reasoning saying “you’re being an asshole” is directed at the posters arguments not the poster. No, according to the mods saying “you’re being racist” is not much different than saying “you’re a racist”. If you think I’m wrong, say to a poster, “stop being an asshole” or “stop being stupid” and see just how quickly you get nailed. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/48 "2013-11-04T00:51:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In my mind, there’s a clear distinction between the following categories: > > 1. Appellations that have no bearing on a person’s debatable beliefs. Racial epithets and gender/sexual epithets fall into this category, and when the words are derogatory, I have no problem with banning them. > 2. Appellations that have a bearing on debatable beliefs, but that are deliberately derogatory when there are other synonyms that work just as well that are not. Religious epithets and political epithets (“Fundy,” “Commie”) fall into this category. Given my druthers, they’d be moderated in moderation: the occasional one wouldn’t be a problem, but there’d better be some substance to the poster otherwise. > 3. Appellations that have a bearing on debatable beliefs, and regardless of any derogatory nature are the only widely-acceptable words for those beliefs. “Christian,” “paleoconservative,” “anarchist,” and “racist” would all fall into those categories. I wouldn’t moderate these words at all, although if a person’s post consisted of nothing more than namecalling I’d moderate them for jerkitude. This is a great post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/49 "2013-11-04T02:20:59Z")
Not really seeing how “Christian” and “racist” can be lumped together like that. I suppose if you taylor them specifically to make it work, maybe, but in general usage… no. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/50 "2013-11-04T03:24:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really seeing how “Christian” and “racist” can be lumped together like that. I suppose if you taylor them specifically to make it work, maybe, but in general usage… no. Actually, I deliberately put them at opposite ends of the spectrum of terms that refer to a belief but that are generally the best term for that belief, neither euphemistic nor pejorative. What do you call someone who believes Jesus is the messiah? A Christian. What do you call someone who subscribes to a Pat-Buchananlike set of beliefs? A paleoconservative. What do you call someone who believes in the abolishment of all state power? An anarchist. What do you call someone who ascribes certain genetic traits to a sociologically-constructed race? A racist. For each of these terms, you may be able to think of a euphemism or pejorative that means the same thing, but these are the “just the facts” terms. And yes, there’s plenty of disagreement over what exactly a Christian is: are Mormons Christian? Are Jews for Jesus Christian? Is someone Christian if they’re agnostic about Jesus’s divinity but think he was the greatest moral teacher of all time? Nonetheless we can use the word to describe someone without too much angst. Same thing goes with “racist.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/51 "2013-11-04T03:52:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Actually, I deliberately put them at opposite ends of the spectrum of terms that refer to a belief but that are generally the best term for that belief, neither euphemistic nor pejorative. > > What do you call someone who believes Jesus is the messiah? A Christian. > What do you call someone who subscribes to a Pat-Buchananlike set of beliefs? A paleoconservative. > What do you call someone who believes in the abolishment of all state power? An anarchist. > What do you call someone who ascribes certain genetic traits to a sociologically-constructed race? A racist. That’s not what a “racist” is. A racist is someone who believes that certain racists are inherently inferior to others. A Christian doesn’t need to consider a Muslim to be inferior. Thinking “the other” is inferior is the _sine qua non_ of racism. Not true of Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/52 "2013-11-04T03:59:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 1. Appellations that have a bearing on debatable beliefs, and regardless of any derogatory nature are the only widely-acceptable words for those beliefs. “Christian,” “paleoconservative,” “anarchist,” and “racist” would all fall into those categories. I wouldn’t moderate these words at all, although if a person’s post consisted of nothing more than namecalling I’d moderate them for jerkitude. I disagree with these sentiments and advocate a carve-out for the word racist, as in US society it is a 20 megaton insult. More so than sexist. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Beyond that, the term “racist” doesn’t necessarily say anything about the person’s intelligence, morality, or even if that person is a good person or not. Um, no. In popular US usage it says quite a bit about whether they are a good person and their morality. It even casts aspirations on their intelligence. That said, I understand the mod’s POV. For example, given its detail and careful use of language, I think post 45 was acceptable, assuming it’s not repeated ad nausum. > [@LHoD](#): > > What do you call someone who ascribes certain genetic traits to a sociologically-constructed race? You call them, “Someone who ascribes certain genetic traits to a sociologically-constructed race” or a “Racist in early 20th century terms but not late 20th or early 21st century terms”. To be a modern racist denotes bigotry and sympathy to discriminatory practice. You can use the term, “Scientific racist”, but I frankly think that gives that group too much credit. Unfortunately “Pseudo-scientific racist”, while accurate, is also insulting. [1] Look, I understand there’s a balancing issue here. When the stormfronters rain down on this message board, they have to be dealt with. So when I say “Carve out for the word racist”, I’m only saying that we should acknowledge the word’s connotations and not pretend this conversation is taking place during the 1920s. [1] Damn, I’m putting **Ibn** in a bit of box here. Hm. Possible adjectives. Academic? Scholarly? (No). Semi-literate? Book-Larnin? Conjectural? (That might work for JaQers). Notional? Autodidactic? ## I’m going to propose scholastic. Not ideal, but maybe an improvement. Because this stuff sure isn’t science. ETA: Incidentally, there’s also a euphemism for racist which is, “I don’t think they are racist, but they may be racial”. I guess that doesn’t appear too well in print. At any rate, I think that would be inappropriate for GD anyway: I’m just adding this because we are discussing vocabulary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/53 "2013-11-04T04:30:59Z")
I think the term you are looking for is “racialist”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/54 "2013-11-04T12:57:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > ETA: Incidentally, there’s also a euphemism for racist which is, “I don’t think they are racist, but they may be racial”. I guess that doesn’t appear too well in print. At any rate, I think that would be inappropriate for GD anyway: I’m just adding this because we are discussing vocabulary. A term I’ve seen used, even here on these boards is “racial realist”. I submit that that would be accurate for many of the discussions without being flatly insulting. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/55 "2013-11-04T14:24:09Z")
I think you’ll likely find a high proportion of cases where people are saying that _with the quotes included_ ‘He’s a “race realist”’ - which tells you what high regard the term is held in. It’s code for ‘…if you know what I mean - and I mean “he’s a racist”’ ETA: blushing at the “beloved”, **Ibn** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/56 "2013-11-04T14:43:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I think you’ll likely find a high proportion of cases where people are saying that _with the quotes included_ ‘He’s a “race realist”’ - which tells you what high regard the term is held in. It’s code for ‘…if you know what I mean - and I mean “he’s a racist”’[/size] Not necessarily. I think a lot of “race realists” would self-identify as such, but how many of them would self-identify as racists? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/57 "2013-11-04T15:12:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not necessarily. I think a lot of “race realists” would self-identify as such, but how many of them would self-identify as racists? Holocaust Deniers don’t self-identify as such and most object to that term as well. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/58 "2013-11-04T15:21:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Holocaust Deniers don’t self-identify as such and most object to that term as well. > > Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? The question is why not use “race realist” instead of “racist”? It seem you object to the former NOT having the insult component. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/59 "2013-11-04T15:28:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Holocaust Deniers don’t self-identify as such and most object to that term as well. > > Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? No, you can use it. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/60 "2013-11-04T15:34:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The question is why not use “race realist” instead of “racist”? It seem you object to the former NOT having the insult component. As long as we are adopting the laughable euphemisms of idiotic racialists I propose we also adopt the corollary term for non-racialists: “[race denialist](https://www.google.ca/search?q=race+denialist&rlz=1C1ASUT_enCA555CA555&oq=race+denialist&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.6929j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).” So, now we got the “realists” and the “denialists.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965.md?page=4)