Hi folks,
So there’s been a lot of trouble recently regarding topics where terrorism, war crimes, rapes, child murders etc are concerned, and I think it would be useful to hash out exactly what the forum rules and expectations are regarding it.
Every day I get called pro-rape, pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas or some variation. This is not something I take lightly and consider it to be one of the worst personal insults one can make, but it is often not acted on and even used by moderators of this site.
When I make a comment responding to someone’s support of thousands of children being murdered or innocent people being raped and killed, it is deleted and I am warned not to personally insult them.
I do not see the logic in this. The comments to me attack my character, and accuse me of supporting things I have never stated any support for, tacitly or directly. The comments I make attack the stated positions of the CM, often pointing out their unequivocable support of ongoing war crimes and child deaths.
In my view, the rules were that attacking comments was ok, as well as noting the support CMs have for certain causes, even if those causes themselves are objectively vile. I would understand if my comments would be deleted for saying someone is something or support something they have NOT demonstrated, but I do not understand why comments are deleted for pointing out their own comments.
And I definitely do not see why you allow direct personal attacks accusing me of loving terrorists to stand, let alone why you let a moderator continue in such vile behavior.
Here are a few examples for you to see what I mean, and my opinion. Let me know what you think.
This is a comment that I think is borderline but probably ok
http://disq.us/p/2y2b5w2
It attacks liberals as a group, which is fine, and it directly accuses someone of being a tool of terrorists, which I think is quite insulting, but still probably on the line.
Then there is this one:
http://disq.us/p/2y2bx8x
Aside from the repeated spam insults (seriously, he posts this comment verbatim 6 times on the article), I still think this is fine, because Obey is addressing his imagination of what the CM will say in the future to defend atrocities.
This one I think goes overboard, but only barely:
http://disq.us/p/2y2hwag
Here Fred says the CM is supporting and defending the honor of terrorists, which is not happening, and is a grave personal insult and accusation.
This one is a difficult item, because it directly attacks multiple CMs on BNR, but it is something I see often on the right and left. Not sure how that’s judged:
http://disq.us/p/2y29f9k
Same with this:
http://disq.us/p/2y2g1wt
These however are direct personal attacks, and I don’t think you’ll disagree:
http://disq.us/p/2y2h70i
http://disq.us/p/2y2hjoo
http://disq.us/p/2y2i71x
http://disq.us/p/2y2h7j6
http://disq.us/p/2y2985f
This is a minor insult, but is a personal insult none-the-less
http://disq.us/p/2y2970a
This comment is exactly like the comments I made noting celebration of children’s deaths, except of course Obey is not telling the truth about what the CM actually said. Yet it’s still up.
http://disq.us/p/2y2b2yl
And lastly here I told Hamas are my heroes and I am implicitly included in the “pro-rape crowd.”
http://disq.us/p/2y2n7k9
http://disq.us/p/2y2nf20
Please clarify. It seems so arbitrary and inconsistent now. I try to err on the side of “attack the comment, not the person,” but I am neither perfect nor fully grasping where that goes too far. And while I do not mind you exercising your right to delete what you want from the board, I would like to at least feel that it is being applied equally, and perhaps even more so to the moderators of this board as they set the example.