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

[lougle]

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

IPityThePontipines this thread is not asking why 'we' can't say what we want about Paris Lee when we can about Donald Trump. It is a thread saying that given MNHQ are saying posters can't say what they want about well known figures, why have they then given classic status to a rather long poem which says pretty awful things about a public figure?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Trump has repeatedly derogated women using sexually disparaging remarks. Turning that on him and using it against him is a powerful tool - many oppressed groups do this very thing when fighting oppression. It isn't about bowing to their level - it's about using the very power that they wield against them.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I can't believe that thread ended up in Classics Come on MNHQ seriously? That's what passes for a classic thread now?

Its always been my understanding that the ban on 'personal attacks' is specifically in relation to MN posters. In the case of PL, MNHQ chose to extend this protection because of being a guest - which although it seemed a bit unfair to do without notice, is their perogative. In the case of other posts relating to people in the public eye, I'm inclined to think its ok for them to use their discretion- certainly if its about a celebs kids.

In the case of the poem mentioned, satire directed at the most public of public figures has been around for a lot longer than internet forums. If anyone thinks its transgressed talk guidelines, presumably you've reported it and asked MNHQ to reconsider - what one of them thinks may not necessarily be the 'party line'.

There have been a number of threads about public figures that have been deleted in the past as they were "not in the spirit of the site" because of the negative posts about the public figure.

.

Is MNHQ going to make the judgement of who they feel is worthy and who is not? That'll go over well.

Why wouldn't it? It's their site.

it was just a bit of female locker room banter

Seriously though, I did not intend to cause a problem for MNHQ. It was a poem I wrote for myself, to make myself feel better, and I posted it because I thought that others may find it amusing.
If MNHQ are forced to remove it, I suppose that I have to reluctantly accept that.
In it's defence though:

1. The subject matter is not actually named in the poem. Yes, it's pretty obvious who it's about but if you take out the "commander in chief" reference, than I've basically just listed a load of insults directed at a sexist, racist nasty person. If you don't think those insults are fair, then maybe it's not about who you think it is?
2. I tried really hard (and I think I succeeded) to not include any racist, homophobic, or disablist insults. If you can spot any, I will ask MNHQ to edit the post and remove them.
3. I did not take any cheap shots at his wife, daughter, or other family members. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.
4. There are swear words. There is no hate speech, or incitement to violence. Nor did I mock or criticise any religion. Encouraging derision is not in any way analogous to encouraging violence. It just isn't.
5. I punched up, not down. Maybe this doesn't make any difference, maybe it does. Personally I do not think that insulting the soon to be most powerful man on earth is the same as insulting a minor celebrity.
6. Beyond calling him a cunt etc (which is my subjective opinion) I have not said anything which I cannot provide evidence for. His attitudes to women, immigrants, the disabled, Islam and other minorities are well documented.

Oh don't be so fucking joyless.

The poem is quite brilliant. If you don't like it then click the backwards arrow in the top left of your screen, rather than trying to sanitise everything.

MNHQ must want to scream into a pillow most days at the moment.

Please don't feel bad squishy, there's nothing wrong with your poem, we're all adults here who have heard swearing before.

Voyage I don't believe the OP stated they were angry. And yes, Justine made her feelings about their moderation clear, hence I doubt we need an interpreter, thanks.

The OP is asking for clarification regarding something. I also pointed out something I felt was a problem that was somewhat related to the problem the OP pointed out. If that makes you angry, then perhaps MN isn't for you.

No one is angry, many posters are just starting to get confused about what is acceptable and what isn't and would like some clarification other than "We take each person on a case by case bases and use the talk guidlines loosely"

At the moment one user is able to do something one day, and it be deemed acceptable, but another does the same the next and they get banned without warning seemingly depending on who is moderating.