How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

Trump established the vulgar crass playing field, he brought the baseness, the depravity into political discourse (see upthread his retweets and PAs on Clinton as well as endless other depraved sexual remarks) - to turn baseness around and to use it on him is a reclamation. A re-appropriation.

Rather than, say, rising above it? Just because a public figure drags things down to the gutter level, how are we any better when we climb right down into the gutter with him?

And it still places public figures in the position of either being "worthy" of respect or "unworthy." Is MNHQ going to make the judgement of who they feel is worthy and who is not? That'll go over well.

Presumably if this were 1938 we'd have people telling us we shouldn't take the piss out of Hitler's moustache or mussolinis silly walks.

And as for stifling 'political criticism', I've never known a situation where flaccid cock and gobshite furthered a political argument

Satire only mocks what already exists.

Trump established the vulgar crass playing field, he brought the baseness, the depravity into political discourse (see upthread his retweets and PAs on Clinton as well as endless other depraved sexual remarks) - to turn baseness around and to use it on him is a reclamation. A re-appropriation. Not infrequently seen in political discourse.

I didn't have trouble grasping your point at all Lougle. Pontypines just doesn't seem to get it.

Doesn't really matter if he "needs" protecting. It's about applying the same rules across the board.

It really really does matter if the person "needs protecting"! He is not weak, he is not vulnerable, he is not marginalised - those are the folks who need protecting - the weak, the vulnerable, the marginalised, the dehumanised.

Not predators. Don't fucking protect predators. Even if one is the president of the so called fucking Free World - Respect is not conferred de facto - Respect is earned and he has earned fuck all respect. He is fodder for the fires, he doesn't need protecting and it definitely matters who does and who doesn't need protecting.

Is it because, although it's obvious who the poem is about, it doesn't actually mention his name?

I think the point is that some people through their conduct and speech put themselves beyond the pale and sacrifice the protections that generally apply. If MNHQ has concluded Donald trump is one such Im just glad their decision making has improved.

I don't necessarily disagree - but perhaps the inconsistency is just part of civil discourse - black and white rules applied unilaterally will shut down a lot of the robust conversation that happens here.

I've been unhappy with the mods many times but I've backed off as I see that they tow a very difficult line.

I don't have any answers but I know that I can't watch MNHQ be shamed for the Trump poem FFS.

Justanother, are there a lot of posts on that tgread referring to DT as "she"?

Bibbity - No, I don't think I have.

And if making public statements was a defence for being able to publicly deride him, that takes us full circle to Paris Lee, so I don't think MNHQ will be keen to use CaesiumTime's argument!

There you go.

This thread is basically saying "why can't we say what we want about Paris Lees, when people are allowed to insult Donald Trump?"

To which Caesium's post upthread would seem to answer well enough, but that won't be enough for some people.

Caesium

It's about HQ's lack of consistency around their own rules. What they do really depends on how much the staff on duty like the poster rather than how the guidlines are broken.

OP, MNHQ have been pretty consistent about their policy of misgendering. I read the PL thread as posts appeared and then again after moderation. Most of the deleted posts were due to deliberate misgendering and therefore fell foul of a well known, much discussed MN rule.

Doesn't really matter if he "needs" protecting. It's about applying the same rules across the board.

And it certainly isn't on to be attacking his family.

As Mamushka said - Trump doesn't need protecting.

Laughing at how badly IPityThePontypines has missed the point!

OP is questioning why Mumsnet have put the poem thread into Classics! I think her answer to your question

You are aware that threads critical of Victoria Beckham, Lily Allen, Madeleine McCann's parents and David Cameron's parenting have also been previously deleted, aren't you?

I also remember posters getting a bollocking from MNHQ for filling a Gok Wan webchat with snide questions and MNHQ saying that such posting wouldn't be tolerated

would be yes indeed, and so why is this thread about Trump being treated any differently?

The only time I've noticed threads on David Cameron being deleted is when cheap and nasty shots were posted about his deceased son.

And I'm pretty sure for the Beckham's it's only icw their DC too.

(and I'm sick of transphobia being dragged into absolutely everything)

Ah, yes, but lougleMNHQ haven't invited Trump to speak on their panel, have they? That was their point on that thread re Paris Lee.

However misguided the invitation was, they weren't comfortable with PL being labelled a "vile mysoginst" prior to appearing on their panel. I don't necessarily defend their stance but it isn't totally irrational/random.

To sum up my thoughts - the rules are surely there to protect people who need protecting. Donald Trump does not need protecting against a few lines of poetry on a parenting forum.

Oh x post with mamushka and hers is more articulate