If someone asks a question, and you answer that question honestly, even though the answer might upset the OP, should you refrain from answering honestly?

I agree, sometimes calling a spade a spade is the only way to go. If the Jerk fits, and all that.
“Jerk” is pretty mild when it comes to name calling. I think it has to do with A. Who the mod of the moment is and B. phrasing something minus the actual use or a forbidden word.

My post in the same question you’re referring to was pretty sharp and no nonsense too, but I guess referring to someone as a being a persecuted and self oppressed Eeyore, spreader of doom and gloom and all things negative, paranoid, cynical and a walking grievance just looking for a cause is okay as long as the word ” you” is not used as an intro. haha

If they’re not being sweet and saintly, then we shouldn’t say they are. I would imagine, though, there are several ways to get at the apparent truth of the situation… maybe to one person, calling out “you’re being a jerk, and here’s why” will help jump them into seeing the situation from an outside perspective; but to another, maybe the same application of the same term will seem less like an observation/response and more like name-calling… that even if was intended as a “I’m using this word to get at a precise point” and/or a “here’s how you look from the outside,” not everyone will take it that same way. While some might very well see it less as “I’m letting you and everyone know, you’re being a jerk, you should change what you’re doing”—which is what it seems like you intended—others might see it more as “I’m letting you and everyone else know, you are a jerk”—which you didn’t intend, but that interpretation of the statement would probably feel like a personal attack. At least that would be my probably-overly-simplistic interpretation.

But there can be other ways at getting at the same idea. Maybe simply describing the behavior. Or maybe (I’ll use your example of being mean to friends) going back to the old strategy of something like “wow, if I was your friend, that would hurt,” or “I think you might want to consider how you are treating your friends” or “I think you might want to consider this other point of view,” etc. Or else just describe their behavior from the other direction, of what they’re “not” being? For example: “I don’t agree with how you’ve handled this situation; it doesn’t seem like you’re being particularly kind/considerate/etc. [and here’s why]”—then you’re not bringing out the negative-connotation of “jerk,” but you’re still denying them the positive connotations of whatever is opposite their behavior?

Admittedly, I think I missed the question you guys are specifically referring to, so this might not really apply.

Considering how many people said all sorts of not-nice stuff to the OP on that question, maybe the removal was a simple mistake. What did the mods say when you asked them?

@Coloma. Haha. I saw what you did there.:-) And I can’t remember exactly what @Kardamom said but I know it was relatively mild in comparison to some. Ahem. And the little guy asked. Actually asked; does this make my butt look big? And everyone very honestly said “yes, and here’s why.” You can’t complain about something like that, just like you can’ t complain if Steven Segal kicks your ass. He never kicks anyone’s ass who doesn’t have it coming, and he always explains while he’s doing it exactly why you have it coming. And anyone watching from the sidelines should know better than to try to save the hapless schmuck because he CLEARLY needs to be pounded into the ground like a tent peg. So yeah. Maybe it was a mistake, or maybe we’re all about to be modded en masse and put in a time-out.

@Jak Yes, do these pants make me look fat? No, your fat makes you look fat. lol

Just tell them they’re being a cunt.

As I said on the thread that was modded, I suspect your post was removed because you may have actually said “you are a jerk/cunt” rather than “if you behave that way you are a jerk/cunt”. So rather than suggesting if he behaves in a particular way he would be a jerk/cunt, you may have actually called him a name.

I’m totally guessing, because I can’t remember your actual wording and I’m not the person who modded the question. I don’t know what their rationale was. I note earlier responses to that question have now also been modded.

Fuck that shite, if you’re a bellend who is easily upset then tough, put up or shut up

I saw that modding and I also commented, after you did, @Kardamom, that another member said that the OP was being a cunt, but yet that got left up.

After having that pointed out, the whole thread was modded (over-modded, IMO, because it was in Social). I could only think and hope that the cunt comment was an oversight.

@Kardamom: I have never found you to be rude or nasty to people. To answer this question directly, I think we should call a spade a spade when the OP is asking.

Well, to be honest, my comments were made in the context of the original post, so I could see why they were left *un*modded until we actually pointed out the apparent hypocrisy. IMO – the best thing for the mods to do would have been to restore @Kardamom‘s post, not to obliterate the thread’s continuity.

It was literally a post about finding personal insults funny. I insulted the OP in order to demonstrate why I disagreed with his point of view. Of course, with the current modding, that point is entirely lost, but since the conversation is long over it’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have run, and I’m not going to worry about it overmuch.

@Seek: I didn’t mean what I wrote to be against your post, I meant it to show why I felt the modding was inconsistent. I definitely feel what they mods then did to the whole thread was showing more inconsistency, and overbearing and unnecessary.

All I know is that the OP on that question was acting like a cunt and a jerk. I don’t usually use that kind of language, but what he did (and then later pretended was a hypothetical situation) was very damaging, rude, and hurtful to the friend he was with, even though he thought it was hilarious.

[Mod says] To clarify: Even in Social, all responses must be respectful. This is the way it has always been. Personal attacks, including calling people by pejorative terms, is not respectful. There is not much of a grey zone here, which is why the responses in question were removed.

There IS a difference in stating fact that upset the OP because it debunks their sacred cow, and another thing to inject your believe on how they act, which is not factual but personal opinion. If I did that I guess I would be modded into extinction.

One of my first experiences on Fluther was having a question censored not because it violated any rules, but because it made a lot of people very angry. In fact, the question was up for days and attracted a large number of responses until Fluther’s MinTruth decided that butthurt had reached unacceptable levels and the whole thing had to be sent down the memory hole.

Recently, someone asked a question in General where they essentially gamed the system by phrasing the question in such a way that people who gave answers with which the OP disagreed would be censored for being off-topic. Fluther’s MinLove enforcers gleefully collaborated with this. As proof that they were doing this, I crafted EXACTLY THE SAME question, using EXACTLY THE SAME language – but replaced the name of a single person. It was literally the exact same question. Fluther left it up for a couple of days while I suppose they argued about it behind closed doors, then quietly sent the question down the memory hole. In the end they didn’t care that it proved absolutely and beyond all shadow of doubt that their censorship enforcement is actually based on subjective feelings of butthurt.

The problem with the question you’ve asked is that the actual rules of Fluther are considerably different than those written on the page, and always have been. As I’m sure you suspect already, the real answer to your question is also going to be different than the answers given on the basis of Fluther’s public rules.

@SmashTheState So why are you still here?

@SmashTheState seems to misunderstand the word “censored”. He thinks that if he can’t say anything he wants anywhere he wants any time he wants it’s censorship. It’s not.
He is free to say whatever he wants so many places, on the Internet and in person, without interference.
When I joined Fluther, I agreed to abide by the site’s Terms and Conditions, I assume that @SmashTheState did also.

Really, @SmashTheState, if you are, indeed, as influential as you claim to be, you really should be aware of correct word usage. Your credibility is severely eroded when you misspeak.

Two weeks this time.

@canidmajor You people are no better than the RWAs you say you hate. You practice the same dog-whistle politics where you pull a bait-and-switch with the words, rules, and definitions in order to maintain your echo chamber.

What’s an RWA and when did I say I hate them?
And yes, once again, you state that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are doing the “echo chamber” thing.

And since you mention definitions, this may be appropriate. The saying generally goes: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.” For six years, @SmashTheState, you’ve been spouting the same outraged rhetoric at us and still we don’t agree with you. Six years.
Now it’s your turn to say it all again.
Or leave in a huff. Again.
And return in a couple of weeks to say it all.
Again.

Take a Xanax, bro.

It’s a private internet forum, and no one is forcing anyone to be here. You (or I, or anyone) don’t have an inalienable right to say whatever you want. If it is an echo chamber (and I don’t agree that it is), it has the right to be an echo chamber.

I’m sure they have much more thrilling conversations on unmoderated fora like 4Chan. Oh, wait, that’s mostly cartoon dicks and thinly veiled pedophilia.

@Seek remember an Anarchist is a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power. Also they don’t have many friends and people don’t trust them!

If he’s spending his time rebelling against a tiny internet forum, all of the other authoritarian issues in the world must be solved, and we can all breathe easy.

…I guess.

As I said here, “Long time, no see and then he wants to use the toilet to take a sh**.”

http://www.fluther.com/189096/knowledge-of-surveillance-creates-self-censorship-is-this-why-fluther-has-become/

@jca Yes, I thought of your apt metaphor again today.

In addition to what others have said, @SmashTheState‘s “test”-question wasn’t actually the same question with the same parameters. When he decided to post ”EXACTLY THE SAME question, using EXACTLY THE SAME language” in which he ”replaced the name of a single person, ” but otherwise had created ”literally the exact same question,” it seems to me that he stepped into a different aspect of the guidelines…

Question Guidelines (an excerpt)—
The following types of questions may be removed:
•Jokes
•Duplicates
•Flame-bait
•Trolling (hate speech, people bashing, etc.)
•Tragically misspelled and/or contains txtspk (“u” for “you”, “ppl” for “people”, etc.)

The removal of his duplicate question, which did break the rules, while the one he thought the “MinTruth” would have removed without grounds in fact remains up—that seems to prove the opposite: the Fluther guidelines are being followed, and it’s not anything arbitrary or conspiratorial.

Also, ironically enough, it seems that this “no duplicates” rule is integral in preventing an “echo chamber”—what is more echoey than the same questions repeated over and over?

I don’t have 1984 with me, but isn’t the reference “minitrue”?

No, really, guys, I am woefully ignorant. What’s RWA?

@canidmajor This is purely a guess but I would imagine it’s “Right Wing Assholes” from the context.

I just googled it and there are a lot of things that came up. Right wing authoritarians is another. I’m guessing part of the “taking a sh**” would be the more foul word.

Thanks, guys! I am now enlightened. ;-)