Reply #191: You raise good points; I wonder about "casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light"

[muriel_volestrangler]

I'd say "you may not realize it, but those are standard right-wing arguments" should be acceptable - condescension is a fairly difficult thing to judge over the internet, like sarcasm. Perhaps the mods would need a pattern of replies in a thread, or between the 2 posters, to decide it's really a veiled insult.

I'd agree 'parroting', especially saying it's deliberate, would probably be over the line. But I expect a lot of people (including me? I'm quite likely to accuse someone of 'repeating climate-change denier talking points' at some stage) will be pushing this aspect of the rules to the limit.

I'm sure "those are right-wing talking points" will be allowed under the new rules.

I find the idea of "casting DUers in a negative light" rather subjective. In the Environment/Energy forum, is calling someone a nuclear power advocate casting them in a negative light? Some would feel it is, while others would gladly take the label. If I say someone's suggestion is hopeless, impractical, ill-informed, and silly, am I casting them in a negative light?