What constitues a "political jab" in GQ?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Is the truth a defense?

If it's in any way debateable is it then verboten?

[samclem]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Is the truth a defense?

No.

[Irishman]

My non-moderator's opinion ...

A political jab is any reference to a political issue that is made for the purposes of displaying one's own annoyance and/or provoking someone else's annoyance that is not in furtherance of the topic.

Yeah, I know, it's got plenty of weasel room. The point is, like "don't be a jerk", you should know it when you see it. If the topic is "Why were the Republicans so concerned about Clinton getting a bj in office?", then mentioning "vast right-wing conspiracies" may be on topic. If the topic is "Why does Hillary Clinton wear so many ugly pant-suits?", then mentioning "vast right-wing conspiracies" is a political jab. It may be humerous from a certain perspective, but it's still something of a poke.

Just because Hillary said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against them does not make it a legitimate comment in any thread. Just because Clinton got a bj in office does not make it legitimate to drop into any thread on Clinton.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

A lot of it is context.

If there's a GQ question like "How many cancer screenings did Planned Parenthood do last year," the answer, "A lot more than next year if Romney gets his way" would be a political jab, because it doesn't help to answer the question, whether it's true or not.

If the question had been, "What are Planned Parenthood's forecast budgets for 2014," then a comment about Romney's opinions would be relevant.

And the specific comment that prompted this thread was about the opinions of a United States presidential candidate in a thread about healthcare in the UK. That's completely irrelevant.

[XT]

Is the truth a defense?

The Truth(tm) varies depending on viewpoint and political orientation in many cases. So, what YOU might think is The Truth(aar) someone else might not accept as such...and vice versa.

A political jab would be a political pot shot or hand job that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. That's my take anyway.

-XT

[What the .... ?!?!]

What if you refer to "politicians" in general but its pretty obvious that one side does it more often than the other?

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What if you refer to "politicians" in general but its pretty obvious that one side does it more often than the other?

Gary's first rule of politics: any nonpartisan statement that you make in a political debate will be taken as partisan, with each side thinking you're supporting the other side.

[Irishman]

Why are you trying to find ways to weasel around the rules?

[Trinopus]

Innat what rules are for?

[splatterpunk]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Why are you trying to find ways to weasel around the rules?

He's not. He's just asking questions.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Is the truth a defense?

As samclem already said, no.

If it's in any way debateable is it then verboten?

It's verboten if it's not both unequivocally factual - e.g. a quote from the party's platform for example - and specifically relevant to the subject of the thread. If in doubt, then refrain from making the remark.

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What if you refer to "politicians" in general but its pretty obvious that one side does it more often than the other?

That's generally "obvious" mainly to partisans.

Originally Posted by Gary "Wombat" Robson

And the specific comment that prompted this thread was about the opinions of a United States presidential candidate in a thread about healthcare in the UK. That's completely irrelevant.

Actually, I think it may be an oblique reference to the warning I gave the OP for this post:

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Don't forget that third moment when Democrats realize that they can intimidate/marginalize their opponents or rally their allies.

It appeared to me that the OP had opened that thread not for the purpose of informing himself about the history of the term "wetback," but instead to take issue with the fact that it is generally considered offensive. If he had wished to do that, he should have opened a thread in GD. The gratuitous swipe at Democrats was irrelevant to the subject of the thread, and the OP was the first to introduce politics into the thread. He's been around long enough to know that such remarks are not acceptable in GQ, which is why he received a warning.

[Cicero]

The Mods in their response have covered everything.

One thing I would add, and I expect it to go no where, is that a people outside of the USA get tired of the American political comments. I can't talk for everyone of course.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by Cicero

One thing I would add, and I expect it to go no where, is that a people outside of the USA get tired of the American political comments. I can't talk for everyone of course.

Actually, Cicero, you've nailed it. Many of the American Dopers are sick and tired of it too, and that's one of the reasons we're working to compartmentalize the commentary on the U.S. presidential election, keeping it in the Elections forum unless it's specifically germane to a discussion elsewhere.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Colibri

As samclem already said, no.



It's verboten if it's not both unequivocally factual - e.g. a quote from the party's platform for example - and specifically relevant to the subject of the thread. If in doubt, then refrain from making the remark.



That's generally "obvious" mainly to partisans.



Actually, I think it may be an oblique reference to the warning I gave the OP for this post:



It appeared to me that the OP had opened that thread not for the purpose of informing himself about the history of the term "wetback," but instead to take issue with the fact that it is generally considered offensive. If he had wished to do that, he should have opened a thread in GD. The gratuitous swipe at Democrats was irrelevant to the subject of the thread, and the OP was the first to introduce politics into the thread. He's been around long enough to know that such remarks are not acceptable in GQ, which is why he received a warning.

Another poster in a GQ thread on Social Security was reprimanded a couple of days ago for a political comment. It applied to every politician in Washington. Is the rule "no political jabs" or "no politics" ?

BTW....I'm still interested in the history of the term "wetback" ..... I sure wish I hadn't given you the opening to shut it down. Another poster linked to that thread a few days ago. I trust he is too.

[Irishman]

So open a GQ thread asking for the history of the term "wetback". It should be possible to get that without political jabs.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Irishman

So open a GQ thread asking for the history of the term "wetback". It should be possible to get that without political jabs.

He did, although the discussion was originally focused on when the term became a slur. The discussion could probably be elaborated upon but it seems to have been answered in a general way.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Marley23

He did, although the discussion was originally focused on when the term became a slur. The discussion could probably be elaborated upon but it seems to have been answered in a general way.

Ler's be clear...... that is the original thread. There is still plenty of ignorance to be fought for anyone who wants to fight the good fight. Operation Weback anyone?

As far as "political jabs" I'm still unclear on the concept. I think I know what a jab is..... and it isn't a general criticism of politicians. Now that may be some "shit" where it doesn't belong but I see alot of threads that withstand alot of shit before a mod decides to reprimand anyone or close it down.

[Irishman]

Since you didn't post a link to your example, I have nothing to evaluate to try to clarify.

A general remark about politicians as a whole may be out of place in a discussion in GQ, depending upon the topic and the question. That's not something a generic statement is going to do well at explaining. But I will try.

GQ is about asking questions to get factual answers. Slamming politicians is not satisfying that tone or agenda. If you want to slam politicians, you have Elections, Great Debates, MPSIMS, and The BBQ Pit, depeding upon your tone and the content. It doesn't belong in GQ.

My $3.75 (inflation).

[Baal Houtham]

This is the thread Whatthe is talking about..

This is the post -complete- that drew the warning:

social security still takes in more money than it pays out, it is just that congress takes the surplus to use on their pork barrel earmarks. If they weren't whores selling out to special interests, SS would have no problems.

Is that a political jab? Not toward a specific political party, but it uses imprecise and inflammatory language that is apt to hinder getting the General Question resolved. It's bad soapboxing that is going to offend a lot of people through its lack of nuance or specifics.

It's as unhelpful as GQ joke posts, but without the entertainment value.

[What the .... ?!?!]

That's the one. I do understand that political "shit" is especially stinky but if "jab" is as precise as it gets then the mods have way too much leeway to warn posters they don't like or close threads they don't like. And if the mod population is close to the overall population of the board we all know what they don't like.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

That's the one. I do understand that political "shit" is especially stinky but if "jab" is as precise as it gets then the mods have way too much leeway to warn posters they don't like or close threads they don't like. And if the mod population is close to the overall population of the board we all know what they don't like.

And if they allow a political jab from the left, they'll have to then deal with someone else making one from the right. They have no reason to play favorites.

At least, that's what I assume you are insinuating, as you are being rather coy about it.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

That's the one. I do understand that political "shit" is especially stinky but if "jab" is as precise as it gets then the mods have way too much leeway to warn posters they don't like or close threads they don't like. And if the mod population is close to the overall population of the board we all know what they don't like.

Regarding that particular post, I fail to see why you are using it to imply political bias on the part of the moderators in making decisions. The post criticized politicians in general, not any party in particular. It was inappropriate because it used inflammatory language - "whores selling out to special interests" - to express an opinion that did not serve to address the original question. As such, it was the kind of remark that might spark a hijack of the thread. I would have probably ordinarily made that a note instead of a warning, but the poster in question had received a note on the same issue just the day before so I chose to make the reminder more memorable.

For the record, what I "don't like" is posters dragging political bullshit into GQ. I don't care if it's from the left or the right. Either way, it's likely to cause a hijack, which is what the "no political jabs" rule is intended to prevent.

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

BTW....I'm still interested in the history of the term "wetback" ..... I sure wish I hadn't given you the opening to shut it down. Another poster linked to that thread a few days ago. I trust he is too.

The factual aspects of the question were pretty much answered before I closed the thread. Since you seem to be interested in political aspects of the term, if you want to discuss it further probably the best thing would be to open a thread in Great Debates. Then you can make all the political commentary you like.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Colibri

For the record, what I "don't like" is posters dragging political bullshit into GQ. I don't care if it's from the left or the right. Either way, it's likely to cause a hijack, which is what the "no political jabs" rule is intended to prevent.

You can "don't like" anything you want to ........ what I'd like to see are rules that are spelled out beyond "political jab".

If no politics of any kind ..... directly or indirectly.... is the rule then fine. Spell it out and stick to it.

Yestersday I asked some GQ's in another thread....someone else made it more political than it needed to be, and it got moved.

[SDMBKL]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Is the truth a defense?

If it's in any way debateable is it then verboten?

An inappropriate political remark. It's one of those I-know-it-when-I-see-it type of things. It's hard to define, easy to recognize.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

You can "don't like" anything you want to ........ what I'd like to see are rules that are spelled out beyond "political jab".

We're not going to do that.

If no politics of any kind ..... directly or indirectly.... is the rule then fine. Spell it out and stick to it.

If you can't figure out how to abide by the rule, then it's probably best for you not to make any political commentary in GQ. The vast majority of posters don't have any problems.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Colibri

We're not going to do that.

Why not?

On the other hand, why don't you simply adopt that as the Straight Dope's motto?:

"We're not going to do that" since 1973-- has a certain ring to it. Even "Being completely unresponsive to reasonable requests from our customers since 1973," while wordy, states your position loud and clear.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

You can "don't like" anything you want to ........ what I'd like to see are rules that are spelled out beyond "political jab".

If no politics of any kind ..... directly or indirectly.... is the rule then fine. Spell it out and stick to it.

This board has long stated that they are not going to try to define 20 million specific rules, and draw those hard and fast lines. There are cases where mentioning politics in a GQ thread are on target. There are comments that can be made in that thread that wouldn't draw a mod action. Hell, the point he made was on topic, it was just stated in too inflammatory a manner. Instead, this board chooses to rely on the human* judgement of the board mods to make these calls. The calls are subject to peer review and to board member commentary and criticism, but the leeway and gray area is for the mods to sort out, not to point to rule 356a, paragraph 12, line 27.

Yestersday I asked some GQ's in another thread....someone else made it more political than it needed to be, and it got moved.

So is your complaint that the person didn't draw a warning in that case, or that someone else got your thread moved?

-----
* And one wombat.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Irishman

So is your complaint that the person didn't draw a warning in that case, or that someone else got your thread moved?

Primarily that it got moved before my questions got answered..... but I can't help to think that the other poster might have had his hand slapped if the circumstances were a little different.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Colibri

We're not going to do that. [expand the rules to elaborate on "political jab"]



If you can't figure out how to abide by the rule, then it's probably best for you not to make any political commentary in GQ. The vast majority of posters don't have any problems.

OK..... I'll do my very best not to "jab" any more

Let's be clear..... this is a very liberal board, the mods clearly reflect that and they like their leeway.