ita ! To answer that would require repeating stuff I have already said. I think you are ignoring part of my argument, but I don't think repeating it would be productive. Amy I was answering a specific example, because discussing it general terms seems like something that is even harder to keep civil. At this point I think I've made my point and won't keep repeating it in hopes that I change somebody's mind. Which has been a hard won lesson for me.

Typo, we are indeed at an impasse. I think you're ignoring the core of what I'm saying, which is that people were hurt, and that should trump most everything in a group of people that should respect each others' feelings.

That's my sole point. I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or soldiers or pacifists. I just care about being respectful to other members of the group.

I just care about being respectful to other members of the group.

THIS is the important bit, to me. If I post something that hurts someone's feelings, I want that someone to TELL me I hurt their feelings. So I can say "I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent."

I'm all for snark. But I'm also for people being able to say "Hey, that stung."

I'm all for snark. But I'm also for people being able to say "Hey, that stung."

This. I'm snarky, a lot. But I don't want to place that above the feelings of people I care about.

All right that stung enough to draw me back in. Let's see if I can be succinct.

1) Institutions are shaped by people at the top - which means if I criticize the Republican party I'm not necessarily criticizing most Republicans. If I criticize the the military I'm not necessarily criticizing most soldiers and sailors. If we don't accept that then we can't snark at most institutions because there is something from almost any big institution on this board who might be hurt. I guess we could still snark at Carrot Top.

2) The specific wording: OK here you have a partial point. We should be a bit more careful. But at the same time, the term "military" in U.S. vernacular mostly refers the institution not the majority of soldiers and sailors. Referring to "Republicans" and "Democrats" generally refers to the parties as institutions and not the majority of people in either party.

And I hope I will be able to exercise self-control and post only on other topics forward. Because right now, it looks nobody else on the board shares my point of view and there is zero point in me arguing with a position held by every single other person on the board.

THIS is the important bit, to me. If I post something that hurts someone's feelings, I want that someone to TELL me I hurt their feelings.

May I ask, were anyone's feelings hurt by the "military intelligence" comment? If I've read things correctly, the original response did not say anyone was offended, but there was a category of people that might be offended.

(For myself, I've always understood "military intelligence" to be a hoary chestnut referring to the decision-making process in the military, not to individuals. But my closest ties to the military are that my younger brother used to handle compo claims for the Australian Defence Force - in which role he appears mostly have been concerned to see that anyone losing a testicle received justice, or at least cash. So I am unlikely to be a gold standard for reactions to the term "military intelligence".)

Who was hurt? Who are you defending? Four people (I counted) leaped to the defense of military personnel and Republicans who, if they are in fact reading the conversation and are hurt, haven't spoken up. The only person whose feelings we know seem to have been hurt was erica.

"Republican intellectual is an oxymoron" is an example of three things this board has historically embraced: snark, opinion, and hyperbole. I can't speak for her, but I doubt erica would even agree with the statement "All Republicans are dummies."

If someone had responded with "hey, I'm a Republican over here!" I imagine erica would've apologized and then maybe we could have the "but I didn't mean you!" discussion.

But lately it seems like the board is going to police itself so that nothing that might offend anyone anywhere can be said without a scolding, and I thought the whole point of a community of people who know each other and mostly like each other is to be able to speak freely, and to give each other some benefit of the doubt. Reasonable politeness isn't the same thing as having to censor every sentence.

The only person whose feelings we know seem to have been hurt was erica.

My feelings weren't hurt, but my brother is in Naval intelligence as a linguist and a cryptologist, and has spent months in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East, as well as Africa. It does hurt sometimes to hear the military derided when I know how much he's risked to do his job.

That said, he's also the first person to admit that the military can be a huge, ridiculous machine of stupidity and backward thinking, so.

Reasonable politeness isn't the same thing as having to censor every sentence.

I pointed out that Maria originally, and very politely, mentioned that some people might be hurt by the remark. If I recall correctly, erika was the one to take offense to that, and the discussion grew from there.

I just think it's a little ridiculous that someone simply mentioned how words can potentially hurt, and it started a daylong discussion arguing the right to be snarky.

If someone had responded with "hey, I'm a Republican over here!

Historically, Republican Buffistas have said they feel cowed about speaking out. Sue me, I spoke out for people who may not even exist anymore because we may already have driven them away. BUT THAT SHOULDN'T MATTER. It shouldn't take the existence of a Republican Buffista to be respectful. We've hurt people in the past with statements very like that one, and it stings me to see it potentially happening again.

I don't apologise for that.

If someone had said that "Democratic intellectual" was an oxymoron, either the response would have been a) very different or b) pretty much nothing, because of the position of privilege Buffista Democrats post from.

I pointed out that Maria originally, and very politely, mentioned that some people might be hurt by the remark. If I recall correctly, erika was the one to take offense to that, and the discussion grew from there.

and

But lately it seems like the board is going to police itself so that nothing that might offend anyone anywhere can be said without a scolding,

Which is the core of the discussion. And the crux of the problem. Because debating against having to speak on egg shells to avoid the potential of hurting potential someones puts you in the position of having others say "So you're arguing you have the right to hurt people just because you don't want to watch what you say." And then adding the disclaimer that you're engaging in hyperbole so you don't have to fight against literal interpretations of every thing you say.

I'm also leaning towards Typo's position--I love this place. The debate may not be worth the angst. I shall not argue further on this point.