Question about latest forum rule

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why/how that thread is not provocative, and you're not really explaing why. Every theist here felt provoked by it. As I carefully described on the OP, it seems to fit all 3 criteria that would make a thread be against the rules. If I made a thread titled "atheism is childish" and went on to make rash, unflattering generalizations about all atheist people without asking for clarification, or specifying that this is merely my personal observation, you better believe it would be plenty provocative.  

When the rule was first made, I specifically pointed out that whether or not a thread is provocative depends on who it's targeting, because a thread here against liberals is going to be much more provocative than one against conservatives, for example. I was assured that this would not change anything.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, but the thing is you're not really answering the question I'm asking on this thread. You're merely saying "I don't think it's provocative" but not explaining why or addressing my points.

Well, I have answered your question precisely before, if you do not grasp the concept, its your handicap. Pretending to be blind is not something I personally like anyone. If someone posted "atheism is childish", with a post supporting this, I would do the same, nothing. I would and watch what would happen in hope no rule is broken.

Are you trying to be obtuse here? The rule is not about sweeping generalizations and even you and I do them from time to time.

Too bad it offends you. The Prime directed is not there to avoid people getting offended, it is to prevent blatant provocative posts that shut down any discussion. You don't agree with the OP? Good, grab your wits and show her how its wrong, Not pretending you haven't been clarified.

But perhaps if I let other staff member explain it to you, because I seem to be not clear to you.

So if its not about generalizations, what is this supposed to mean then?:

"Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

---

As for provocation, it is described here:


"Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

My bold.

The OP post itself does nothing of what was bolded. So by this definition, it was "provocative from the get go."

What am I misunderstanding here?

---

.
Well, I'm done arguing. It was never my intention with this thread to get into a fight with a staff member. I'll wait for someone to be more clear as to why this doesn't violate the new rule, and if not, I'll just have to accept not understanding and not bring this up again.