I thought the ruling was that the “joke” was made solely to get a rise out of people, not to get a laugh: it was trolling.
Dude, you’ve taken the goalposts down, stuffed them in your pocket and are now trying to dance your way to a touchdown.
What part of being hateful do you think is not also being a jerk?
We are allowed to be hateful to non-posters!!
Not the kind of hateful that brought on this discussion.
Move them? I can’t even find them now unless you draw me a map.
I give you enough credit to doubt that you really need me to chase those particular goal posts down for you. It’s either that, or else there’s literally no point in trying.
(Seriously, though, have you just been doing a Trump bit the whole time?)
An insult towards Trump as having an incestuous relationship with his daughter is an insult to Trump himself. It’s origin is derived from his comments about the attractiveness of his daughter. It’s specific to him. This type of criticism hasn’t been leveled at anyone else because they haven’t made the same type of comments toward members of their own family.
Comments about M. Obama having a penis is based on her being black and tall, and possibly because she is fit. I interpret it as a similar type insult as other race based insult - disparaging towards a race of people.
If the comment is that Ray Moore is probably a pedophile, that is likely based on his past history of trying to date young girls. If the comment is that a gay person is probably a pedophile because of the gayness, then that is entirely different and not acceptable.
If someone says Kavanaugh is a drunk because of his past drinking history, that is directed to him. If they say he is a drunk because he is Irish, that is not acceptable.
And yes, people called Bush 43 a chimp. A childish insult, but fair game. The same would not be allowed towards Obama because that shit is racist. It also wouldn’t be allowed towards Colin Powell either and has nothing to do with their political affiliation. Is that a double standard? Not even close. The standard is that dehumanizing black people has a long racist history and doing so is shitty in a different way than calling Bush 43 a chimp is.
Context is important and if that is unacceptable to you, well, tough. That’s reality in the world and reality on this board. Context tells me that the dig that M. Obama has a penis I consider trolling. The context of the origin of that insult is hateful and racist.
And to be claer, the warning under discussion was for being a jerk, not hate speech.
Trolling? Okay, that’s about the fifth different thing I have heard about what the reason for modding it was. If that is the case, then Cheeto should be modded as well as it serves no purpose other than to get a rise out of Trump supporters.
Is it too much to ask to get a definitive answer to why this was modded and then ask that whatever the answer that it be modded equally to posts about Trump and his supporters?Octopus has asked that above. Many conservatives have asks this. Why can the mods not give a specific answer about this double standard?
Like Bone, I wish we had a more civil discourse on this board. But we don’t get there by having rules that say that these posts that are mean to these groups of people over here are not allowed, but these posts that are mean to those groups of people over there are a-okay, just part of fighting ignorance.
Again, which would you consider more insulting if directed at you personally: 1) That you are having sex with your child, or 2) that you have a penis (or vagina) opposite to your gender? I pick #2 as least insulting, yet #1 is allowed and #2 is prohibited.
ETA: I was typing my post as Bone’s above came through. I will review.
Response to Bone above: If M. Obama was white, tall, and fit, then the post would have been okay?
If (years ago when it was relevant) someone said that Janet Reno had a penis, it’s all good?
Do it. Do it, do it. Do the deed, do the deed.
To be clear, when I responded, this read that the warning was under discussion for trolling, not hate speech.
So now it is being a jerk? To blacks, to M. Obama? To whom?
No, because implying that tall and fit women have penes is transphobic.
With Michelle Obama, it includes the context of hundreds of years of denigrating black women as being less ladylike, animalistic and savage.
In fact Janet Reno was regularly subjected to transphobic and sexist jokes, as this article from Vox discusses:
The article goes on to discuss the sexism in SNL’s portrayal of her, where the basic joke was basically, “Janet Reno looks like a dude”. Will Farrell, who portrayed Reno, tries to excuse it all by saying,
Bottom line: jokes about women implying that they aren’t feminine enough to be real women are sexist and transphobic. Such jokes about a black women also carry the baggage of racist stereotypes that define black women as manly and unfeminine. Whether the woman identifies as a Liberal or a conservative is irrelevant for this discussion.
Is hatred really that important to you?
Yes, I misrembered and when I went to verify I realized and corrected my mistake with the edit. Being a jerk doesn’t have to be directed at anyone.
I don’t know about your Reno hypo. Context would control. Let me ask you, do you think it should be allowed to call Obama a chimp in the same way it is allowed to call Bush 43 a chimp?
To humanity.
Jerks troll. Trolling is jerkish. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept? I mean, several thousand other posters here get it; why are you the outlier?
I, for one, think people should be treated equally. I don’t think explicit double standards as you just stated are healthy for the long term.
I mean if an insult is directed at a left wing figure not only will the insulter potentially run afoul of some ever expanding list of bigoted or “hate” speech they will very likely get dinged with “trolling” or the so-called “jerk” rule.
Whereas this leftist’s perception is that the mods will go out of their way to *not *warn or ban rightist jerks if they can possibly help it. This thread’s OP is my cite.
What are you talking about? The person got warned. The thread where the person got warned was triggered by a warning. Seems like those two warnings contradict your “cite.”
What you don’t get but is obvious is that right of center posters engage in vastly more self censorship than left of center posters. The double standards are chilling.
There’s a conservative arguing that being against hate speech is an inherently liberal perspective. Is hate an inherently conservative position?
That is not addressing the question. Don’t go to the general when the question is specific.