Lexicus vs Arakhor

[ori]

Lexicus appeals this warning. Permission for publication of messages was given.

Here is the PM chain:

Lexicus,

Your actions in this message (Punching Nazis) are not appropriate:


CFC's rules for behaviour include addressing a user's posts and not his character. Moreover, this was Civver's very first post in the thread and does not appear to reference hating Jews at all. This is a one-point warning for two weeks.

Uh, it is quite clear in that post that I am referring to "the things civver says about Israel" and not civver himself.

So, please tell me where in Civver's post at the top of page 58 he references "pure Jew-hatred".

That post is absolutely dripping with Jew-hatred, as the whole point of the first third or so is to claim that Zionism poses an equal or greater threat to the US than Nazism, which is obviously a reflection of "pure Jew-hatred" and nothing else.

I believe the phrase "the things civver says about Israel" is sufficient to make it obvious that my post is not a character attack on civver but rather an attack on his arguments on the subject of Israel.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his attacks on Zionism count as Jew hatred. I would recommend requesting a review of this infraction from the administrators.

First I would like an explanation of how the content of civver's post is relevant to this infraction. I was under the impression that I was infracted for making a character attack on another poster, not characterizing the content of their post incorrectly.

I infracted you mostly for the comment about his hating Jews, so if opposing Zionism does not automatically equal hating Jews, then you accused him (rather strongly!) of something he didn't espouse in the thread. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I am the one at fault here, but seeing as it seems that this point is at the centre of the infraction, I would recommend a review if you wish to pursue it further.

All right...I will do that.

Basically, Arakhor infracted a post as a personal attack and I feel it is clear that the post is an attack on a poster's argument(s). I tried to suss out exactly what the issue was (still unsure of the relevance of civver's post mentioned here is to this infraction), but failed, so now following Arakhor's advice and appealing the infraction.

 

[Camikaze]

The distinction Lexicus tries to draw between "things civver says" and civver himself is meaningless hair-splitting in this case, because the post by no means attempts to distinguish between an analysis of civver's posts and their potential meaning, and a reflection on civver's character.

Moreover, the post's literal meaning is that civver's post is 'based on' 'Jew-hatred', not that it merely 'contains' 'Jew-hatred', which could conceivably be an argument made which does not impugn a poster's character.

I vote to uphold.

 

[leif erikson]

Agree with the argument above. Vote to uphold.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I do understand Camikaze's point, though it seems to me that the comment was about the opinion not the poster. I'm voting to overturn the infraction.

 

[ori]

I won't vote on this one and am now closing it out - this took longer than usual mostly due to unforseeable absences by me. It is 2-1 to uphold the infraction.

Moderator Action: published without edits.