I'm not attacking a poster. I'm attacking a poster's position. Saying that it has to be in response to a particular post is simplistic and silly and we've never enforced it that way before. Nor should we.
Then quote the posts you see him taking that position in. I enforce it that way all the time. It's not simplistic or silly. Without reference you are just going after a poster for a position you perceive him as having. Again he may or may not hold that position.
I'm basing it on his posts over the past few years. I'm not going to compile them and I don't need to. The rule is not to attack posters personally, but to attack their positions, which is precisely what I did. None of this is against the rules. Yes, I'm criticizing the position I perceive him as holding. Even if I quoted the posts that led to the perception, that would still be true. How posts are perceived is subjective--it doesn't become objective just because you quote the posts. The posts ABM has written has led me to view his position as what I said--if ABM disagrees that that's how he feels, that's fine. It doesn't make what I said a personal insult or against the rules.
But, it does become objective. Without reference it is a generalization aimed at the poster and not his posts and can be perceived as an insult or attack on a poster. Which it was. I get that you think I am being silly and perhaps too literal in my interpretation of the rule. I'm in fact being consistent.
It never becomes objective. I don't think you understand what "objective" means. You think if I simply quoted all of ABM's race-related posts, he'd suddenly say "Oh, you're right, that is my position?" I perceived his posts a certain way, a way he's unlikely ever to agree with. That would be true if I quoted the posts or not. If it makes you feel better, pretend I quoted this: There, it's "objective" now, apparently.
It manner it does become objective because you are referring to a post...you are referring to the posters words or in the case of the video you quoted what is being said in the video or the meaning behind the video. Even though there is still subjectivity involved it is more concrete and is focused on the post than the poster.
It's a personal attack. If someone posts something racist, and you reply to said post to say that it was a racist post, then that is attacking the post (and posts that are racist or likewise sexist, homophobic or otherwise hateful should be called out).
"ABM likes black people who think black people are the problem and should deal with the effects of prejudice and bigotry themselves." I've never known @Minstrel hurl personal insults at people before so I believe him when he says that was never his intention. I can also see where some are reading that as a personal insult. So let's see if we can fix this so everyone is happy or if not happy then everyone can be pissed at me. I'm going to edit @Minstrel's post so it says... "Many of ABM's posts read like he prefers black people who think black people are the problem and should deal with the effects of prejudice and bigotry themselves."
I don't know that anyone is unhappy so to speak. @Minstrel and I hold different interpretations of the rules. We agreed to disagree.
@ABM here is why some, including myself, are confused about your views on CRT. Here are some quotes from you in another thread. Now oddly enough Oklahoma has passed legislation outlawing the teaching of CRT. And this seems something that you support. Incidents like the Tulsa Race Massacre are going to be removed from school curriculum. The essay you support and posted about the Tulsa Race Massacre says it has been forgotten to history up until recently. So here you are with you supporting the "remembering/mourning" of this but against the teaching of it in schools. Can you see how some are confused by your positions?
I will say my rule of thumb is...and maybe I'm wrong...but it's... if a post aimed towards a certain poster can in anyway be perceived as an insult...then it should be treated as such. Maybe I'm just too by the book. But as Mods in the past we have been accused of being biased in how we interpret the rules. So, I have taken a black and white approach to the rules. I take them quite literally. 7. Everyone is here to offer their opinions, so be prepared to have people disagree with your opinions. There is a difference between attacking someone's post (their opinion) and attacking the poster with the latter not allowed. The staff is here to monitor for such occurrences. If you are aiming a statement at a poster and not his post is that attacking them or their post? I get that the parenthesized portion of the rule leaves a loophole or perhaps a subjective lens. Yes, I know what the word means.
I would think this would be similar to saying someone is a CJ hater, or a Stotts hater. Without quoting specific posts about it, it still doesn't seem like a personal attack in the way it has generally been enforced, but a general observation about a body of work from those posters.
