[wavewrangler]

But that is not name-calling. In your words, that is snark. Are all snarky comments also name calling now, and vice-versa? One could argue that the comment stands factually with just the first sentence, too. It’s strong, yes, but very different from name calling. I think it’s a valuable tool in learning in that it [snark] reminds us to choose our words very carefully, and we all need reminders of that sometimes. Also…

[strogonoff]

There are plenty of various oblique ways of expressing similar sentiment that can hurt an educated person much more than name-calling (which, conversely, can be more amusing than anything). Digs like “the wrongness of your statement” are definitely far on relevant spectrum.

Therefore, I believe the rules against name-calling are not literal. As you noticed, attempting to restrict discussion more strictly would make it bland, but on the other hand when it comes to literal name-calling in a civilized discussion it’s way past all limits.

Tangentially, I was surprised to learn recently that merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary and perceived as somewhat confrontational. Haven’t confirmed it from multiple sources (not sure how to search for), but in hindsight it makes sense: the mood changes, and the argument can quickly devolve thereafter. I suspect it might be something from psychotherapy practice.

[JumpCrisscross]

> merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary

Not necessarily unnecessary, but necessarily personal.

If I changed the “your” in the top comment to “this,” I think it would better communicate both my issue and reasonable irritation with the comment I was responding to. At the same time there is another commenter in this thread who refused to back down, and at that point a “you’re bordering on trolling” seems appropriate. It is confrontational, but not unnecessarily so.