I [del] want to[/del] wanted to ask some questions about the recent Supreme Court case and the powers of the President to recognize foreign states. I did this and used a female gender-specific pronoun when referring to the President. Far from this being seen as up-to-date and politically correct, this got the thread closed, in my view because one poster indicated it was a disrespectful reference to Hillary Clinton, and a moderator agreed.
I have no idea what you’re talking about in either the original thread, or here. You didn’t refer to the president with a female pronoun - the antecedent there was clearly Hillary. The thread was closed not because of pronoun usage, but because the content of the thread, minus the title, seemed to be some sort of weird swipe at Hillary.
I’m the poster the OP’s talking about (although I didn’t say there was any disrespect involved). For what it’s worth, I agree with the OP. Hooleehootoo started a new thread on the general topic. There was no reason to close the new thread because of some previous thread on a related topic.
That at least makes some sense. I’m not sure why the thread specifically about Zivotofsky v. Kerry was closed, even given then weird pronoun usage in the OP. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus thread, OTOH, was just a mess, and it was best to put a bullet in that one early.
As I explained in our e-mail conversation, the problem with the second post was that you used the pronoun “she” to refer to the President. Given the content of your first post, that made it seem like you were talking about Hillary in the second post. If the person reading that post hadn’t read your first post, then they might have been a bit confused by your use of the female pronoun, but no biggie. But, if they had read your first post, it would only be natural for them to assume that you were still talking about Hillary.
Under that context, you can see that the thread started to veer off course in exactly that direction (Hillary) and received post reports for that as well, all in less than half a dozen replies to the OP. That’s why I shut it down.
I really don’t see how anyone would interpret your use of the “she” pronoun under these circumstances as up to date and/or politically correct. Without the context of your first post, it just seems a little odd, not politically correct. But with the context of your first post, it really seems like you are still trying to talk about Hillary.
You should also be careful with sarcasm online. Sarcastic comments often don’t come through correctly with the same sarcastic intent when in written form. That said, we really don’t mind sarcasm or humor in GQ, as long as folks can still figure out what the GQ part of the question is all about and the comments don’t otherwise derail the thread.
You didn’t come across as sarcastic in that thread, but virtually incomprehensible. I really couldn’t tell what you were on about. It included comments about Obama, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, and Hillary Clinton, with an apparent accusation that she might take bribes in order to grant people citizenship (which is particularly odd since at present she has no power to do anything of the kind).
Of course it necessarily comes into the discussion of the second thread, since in that you mentioned a case with implications for the Middle East, and for no apparent reason used female pronouns to refer to the President, which suggested a link to the previous thread.
If you want good answers to your questions, you need to be much clearer about what you are asking. In both cases you served to just to muddy the waters.
Given that what you really appear to be interested in is the political aspects of the question, why not open a new thread in Great Debates? Then you can be clearer about your questions.
I think if we reopen it in GQ before pretty long it will have turned into a political discussion and we’ll need to move it anyway.
I repeat: Saying she is not a “slag” at Hillary. You guys do realize she’s not President yet, right?
A future President could be female.
I originally had “he” instead of “she” and changed it after reading some blog that is very concerned with those sort of pronoun issues, without thinking of Her at all, though it seems I will have tough luck persuading anyone of that.
I don’t want a Pit thread. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for an apology that I was over-moderated, but I WANT MY GQ THREAD. I want to ask factual questions about the President and Zivotofsky v. Kerry. Point out to me what is offensive about my second thread and I will change it.
Whether recognition is “controversial” or not is basically a political question. The question itself not offensive, but I think that the thread will become politicized in short order, if not by you then by others.
Why don’t you want to open a thread in Great Debates? You can get answers to your factual question there without restricting the scope of further discussion.
I thought it was appropriate to close the first thread, once I figured out what it was about. I thought it was overkill to close the second, just because the OP said “she” (even assuming it was intended as a swipe at Hillary.)
I think that second thread is doomed to fail in GQ for a variety of reasons. First, the well is already…not really poisoned, but at least tainted, by the responses questioning the choice of pronoun. It would be tough to recover from that hijack. Second, you might have intended the first paragraph to explain why you were asking a GQ question (“Who was the last Pres. to controversially recognize a State?”), but it already is interjecting a political viewpoint: you are not-so-subtly saying that you disagree with Zivotofsky v. Kerry. Finally, the word “controversially” adds some level of opinion in the response.
Maybe you can come up with a rephrasing of the question that will work in GQ, but your second thread isn’t it.