That standard has been around for a while
Enmos said:
Have we established a standard for insults now ?
Now? Actually, the standard was declared a
long time ago. Possibly even before your registration.
Doesn't mean anyone pays that much attention. More and more these days I refer to people who "can't tell the difference". This is one of the differences they don't understand.
Think of it this way:
Member 1 posts religious (e.g. Christian) argument.
Member 2 calls that argument balbutive (baby-talk) because it has no proper theological (e.g. Biblical) root, and reflects the fairy tales told children in order to groom them for faith.
Member 1 responds that M2 is just another stupid, bigoted, godless asshole.
Moderator intervenes, reminding M1 that such insults violate the forum's rules.
Member 1 complains that Moderator is showing bias toward atheists. After all, "M2 can insult me."
Moderator notes that, while "balbutive" and "fairy tale" might be perceived as insulting, M1 established the basis of that characterization on two points, the lack of Biblical foundation and the argument's role in grooming children for faith.
Member 1 complains that Moderator is showing atheist bias.
Chorus of Idiots rallies around M1 insofar as they perceive a chance to criticize the moderators.
There are often people around here who feel insulted because their position is shown to be untrue, fraudulent, exploitative, &c. They feel insulted because, in their minds, since their argument is childish or fraudulent or stupid, their opponents have called them childish, fraudulent, and stupid. And, over the years people have dispensed with the niceties of separating the person from the argument. The reality is that
anyone who posts a bogus argument has an opportunity to learn and correct that argument, but many simply don't want to. These, then, are committed at the outset to their arguments as some sort of sacred and inviolate truth, and cannot distinguish between the idea of a logical argument that discredits their own assertions—which they perceive as insulting—and simply spitting on someone or slapping them in the face.
And after countless cycles of this process, many people just don't give a damn anymore. Over time, the moderation and administration of this site have bent over
backwards to accommodate certain perspectives in order to meet a growing clamor for "fairness". And, yet, people like
Member 1 above are no more obliged today to provide a rational argument than they were back then.
This applies to various subjects of discussion, including religion, politics, and (pseudo-) science. In some cases, we maintain a harder line, such as in the case of pseudoscience. But in religion and politics, while rational argument is possible, the demand for such is routinely denounced as political or atheistic bias.
Quite frankly, the whole cycle is a load of shit.
While
Malakas and
2inquisitive, taken together, establish a certain point about how we might be moderating the board "into mediocrity", history suggests quite clearly that failing to harbor and even shepherd the irrational will simply result in persistent accusations of bias that will replace the current trend in complaints.