My MSP has blocked me on Twitter.

The Supreme Court in the US ruled that Trump couldn't block people on Twitter as it violated the First Amendment and people had the right to read what he said about government business which is the right call imo.

I don't think your comment is abusive.

It was clearly wrong to use the inflammatory expression "hang your head in shame". Obviously you should have sent a meme of an anime character pointing a gun at her, that's legitimate discourse.

</sarcasm>

Words are literal violence now though!

Words mean nothing at the same time.

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean.

Or something.

do you know what this phrase means? It’s not related to hanging.

Well, if you think that women have penises... If you think that rapists called "Sharon" must be in women's prisons... If you think that a woman who posted a picture of a Suffragette ribbon was a hate filled witch, who was telling a man called "Sharon" (or whatever) and calling for their execution...

Well of course you'd legitimately assume that "hang your head in shame" means: I'm coming round with a mob in the morning, to lynch you.

I mean, you wouldn't block them because you're a cowardly, thin skinned dimwit, who hasn't got an argument. Oh no, not a bit of it.

Seems par for the course with SNP msps. They don't like criticism of the cult and Dear Leader. You must think as you are told.

Ah, but Maggie Chapman is the arbiter of all that is True and Righteous. She can't possibly have used a sexist slur. If she used it it was justified.

Oh, not on Twitter. In the actual Parliament.

The MSP's code of conduct isn't particularly clear on their use of social media in how they conduct themselves. There was at least 1 MSP who used a derogatory term about women on social media during the final few days of the GRR with seemingly no consequences whatsoever.

In fact, if they are using it as a legitimate platform to spread their political messages - then they are actively restricting democracy by blocking criticism and constituents concerns.

Unless tweets are genuinely abusive, MPs, MSPs should not be blocking constituents. If they use/or think of Twitter as a legitimate platform to spread their message, policies and thoughts then they have no business blocking opposing ideas and criticism. There are many MPs, MSPs that do not see Twitter as a legitimate platform and don’t use it - fair enough. But I think it is highly hypocritical to use it to spread their message and then block any dissenting voices.

Posters can't possibly be correlating the phrase 'hang in their head in shame' with actual hanging surely? That would be simply idiotic.

Here's a Scottish politics example of the phrase being used - www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/ewing-should-hang-his-head-in-shame-over-failure-to-deliv-231804/

They can't possibly be accusing the MSP in question of suggesting that the person should actually be hanged, surely?

I'm becoming less and less surprised though.

I did have to laugh at the 'I'm writing to inform you of my concerns, which many of your constituents share...' comment given the amount of anecdotal evidence that MSP's staffers were screening correspondence saying exactly that, leading to MSP's claiming they were unaware of the issues surrounding the GRR because no one had contacted them about it. That's why the letter writing by Scottish feminists ramped up - so there was more and more evidence that there had been concerns raised.

At least one woman I know of asked for a meeting with their MSP at their regular surgery and was told a straight no.

It's laughably naive, given the dismissal of survivors evidence, denial of the existence (or active suppression) of correspondence and use of block lists, to think that the SG want to hear opinions which differ from their own.

Hm. I wonder if there are ways to work out what these blocklists' rules consist of?

Maybe tell that to the MPs and other politicians who have said that to and about other politicians.

It's absurd to suggest that anyone would think that the phrase hang your head in shame has any connection to actual hanging.

Even if it wasn't meant literally, "hang your head" isn't really a good choice of words.

I can understand why she would read that and instantly block you in response.

The government had already stated that it’s up to individual MPs how they manage their social media accounts.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599783

She isn’t preventing you from contacting her, she’s preventing you from using Twitter to contact her, and that’s a very different thing. Given the number of death/rape threats received by female MPs (apparently 30 before breakfast is not unusual) I have some sympathy with her action, your use of the words ‘you should hang…’ was probably triggering for her after all the death threats and she may not even have read past that.

Telling someone that they should ‘hang their head in shame’ has never changed anyone’s mind ever. If you really want to change her mind as opposed to exacerbating a tribalistic conflict, I’d suggest you write to her, on paper, using much less inflammatory/accusatory language. More ‘I’m writing to explain to you why so many of your constituents, including myself, are very concerned about X…”

The SNP has a very particular take on democracy

Who was the politician who said something about their job being to govern people/the electorate and it was pointed out to them that they are meant to, in fact, serve the people/electorate?

It's not abuse and you do know presumably, that they're answerable to US, not the other way round

An ad hominem "attack" is a failure to argue effectively. Not an abusive comment. Are people really suggesting that saying to a politician that they should hang their head in shame is abusive?? I would say that to a doorstepping politician to their face and expect them to be able to state why they felt what they did was reasonable and not shameful. It's probably even been said by one politician to another in the HoC at some point in time.

You did not make a constructive comment as to why she was wrong. MPs, MSPs etc get a lot of abuse and the only answer is often to block the abuser. Explain your point rather than making what amounts to an ad hominem attack.

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/4024453/snp-joanna-cherry-dundee-joe-fitzpatrick/

Where’s the abuse from what the OP said?

I am disappointed that you voted for xxx because [explanation]" would have been better and probably not got you blocked.

If you need to gently explain why voting for a bill which permits convicted sex offenders to easily change their name, which effectively bypasses safeguarding procedures, then the MSP in question should hang their head in shame for taking tax payers money for a job they are clearly not suited to doing.

I'm so over good manners. I do not feel the need to be polite to the fuck nuggets who voted to permit convicted male sex offenders to be housed in the female prison estate. Exactly how fucking stupid do you need to be to think this is a good idea?