Why stoop to this theoretical person (Trump’s :p) level? Adding a bunch of body shaming insults doesn’t make the analysis of their habits any more apparent. I think it’s all about how you address the subject that is what the OP is getting at. Assuming that’s the case, I’m all for getting rid of that sort of thing outside of the Pit.
It is not a matter of “stooping to a level”, it is a matter of pointing out constant blatant hypocrisy.
I think we need a definition of what is “body shaming” and what isn’t when it comes to talking about people, because if a politician can lie about himself and openly insult the looks of others, then that politician’s moral and ethical integrity should be open for discussion.
Depends on how you do it. If you do it by calling the person in question a bunch of colorful names detailing their own copious flaws that’s different than a clinical analysis of the hypocrisy.
I brought up pointing out why a politician’s lying and/or hypocritical statements/actions should be open for discussion. I said nothing about making a bunch of body shaming insults.
Would a ban on shaming public figures for things they have little control over include judgments of their intelligence and mental acuity?
So, what you are saying is that it’s ok, as long as they started it. That is, IMHO, stooping to their level. YMMV obviously.
This is why the definition of “body-shaming” needs some clarity.
What I am saying are the words I posted, and I will not be defending words that you put in my mouth. Care to respond to what I actually said?
I haven’t seen it said bluntly, so I’ll say it: the OP is a stupid idea and should be rejected and discarded.
This is sort of my thinking so far, but I’m still not comfortable with it enough to say “let’s make a new rule”.
Is being fat a choice? Lots of times it is. Other times it’s not.
What I’m concerned with is setting up a rule that is going to cause a lot of new work for the mods and which is going to cause endless debate about what is and what is not “body shaming”.
Agreed. I would want to see this, at a minimum, and then see if we think it’s workable as a ban.
I don’t understand this endless need to focus on hypocrisy as if it is some mitigating factor. If we had a ban on body shaming, it would not stop anyone from dis’ing Trump (or another public figure) from engaging in body shaming. You just wouldn’t be able to say: “Who is that fat fuck to be criticizing someone else about their weight”. You could still say “Shame on Trump for body shaming Mr. X for his weight problem”.
Why?
I’ve quoted this, but I’m actually replying to Czarcasm, but these are the comments under discussion.
I’m perfectly fine with the first, and not ok with the second. I like to think the second would be moderated even under current rules, to be honest.
It’s a discussion board, and we discuss lots of things. I’m not suggested we don’t discuss the fact that a politician is a hypocritical toe-rag, but that we don’t take a side-swipe at the way they wear shorts.
It’s not actually to protect the politicians - I couldn’t give a fuck what Trump thinks of what I write on this message board, to be honest - but by insulting how people look, you’re insulting everyone who looks like that. Trump is probably a bad example (and I am not suggesting this change to protect Trump at all) but for everyone who makes a choice to look like something, there are people who are forced to look like that through no fault of their own - perhaps a spray tan to cover blotchy skin.
I would define body-shaming, in this context, as being “insults or abusive nicknames directed against a person that negatively reference the way they look, dress, or otherwise comport themselves (ie, no mocking a funny walk).” although I just wrote that out and haven’t put a huge amount of thought into it, that’s why I wanted this discussion.
If you look at the examples in the above quote, there’s no actual insults in the first example - there’s a frank discussion of the politician’s apparent weight problem, but nothing insulting. The second one is blatantly insulting, but I also wouldn’t want the following to be allowed:
(not an actual quote)
I don’t agree. Why should anyone’s choices open them up to insult, when those choices have no bearing on the subject under discussion? The only people regularly insulted in this way on this message board these days are politicians, and their looks are entirely incidental to their policies or how they act in government.
Teuton, would you mind writing out the rule you would have the board adapt? I would like specifics as to what is meant by “body shaming”.
I like it. I’d be in favor of banning body-shaming outside the pit.
Or people would find something else to say.
Yup.
The big winners would be women and trans people, who are the most common victims of body shaming. And if that means liberals have to find something to say about trump other than that he’s fat, orange, has an embarrassing haircut, and is in poor physical condition, well, it’s those other things that liberals actually object to. And conservatives wouldn’t have to wade through a lot of childish insults directed at the president. So maybe that would be a win all around.
I’m not in favor of this type of new rule. I think social norms are better suited to curb this type of behavior more than hard and fast rules.
If it is hijacking a thread, or otherwise jerkish behavior we can step in. Even things that aren’t violative of any particular rule, but are too far on the acerbic side we’ve told people to cool it and that’s the approach I’d prefer to take. I’m much less interested in creating a sanitized environment policing language or intent for things that may or may not be directed at a person’s body and whether they really do deserve it.
In between numbers 7 and 8 in the current Rules For All Forums list, I would put something like:
The intended insult or abuse is important, I think, so that we can still discuss an actor’s new hairstyle even if we don’t like it, for instance.
Note that this rule would also cover random strangers or other people in your life - the ugly sod who came to repair your washing machine, or the girl on this bus this morning who had so much metal in her face she looked like a shrapnel victim.
I’m, er, not very good at insults.
You seemed to be saying that if a politician says mean things that you should be allowed to respond in kind. As a good example of how you could do this without relegating to insults has been given yet you persist in asking the question I think my response was EXACTLY what you were implying.
I do agree that a definition of exactly what constitutes ‘body shaming’ would be in order, and I’m not yet convinced we need a hard, fast rule on it (or how such a rule would even be worded, as it’s going to either have to be pretty vague and open to interpretation by the Mods anyway or it’s going to be very specific and thus things will fall through the cracks). I do agree that people don’t need to use graphic body shaming insults to respond to a politician, such as Trump using them. You can give a clinical description and rebuttal to the man without stooping to his level of kindergarten insults about the shape of his body, color or thinness of his hair or orangeness of his skin.
You will, however, take my comments about his intelligence or lack thereof out of my cold, dead hand! 
The only thing I am saying are the words I wrote, no implicating or “seems to” necessary.
Just read what I wrote, please.