Politics moderation re Trump and Ivanka


Trump’s inappropriate comments about Ivanka and his general predilection for women much younger than he is is well known. Maybe a nudge to keep on subject was warranted, maybe not, it was a mild off topic jibe, but off limits due to incest?

It was gross and inappropriate. I don’t care if it’s a well known joke.

It was a fine comment. For the Pit. That post contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion re the Walker/Warnock runoff discussion and I agree with @hajario. It was just gross for the sake of being gross.

And it was just a note.

Again justifiable perhaps to pull back to topic, but any “gross” factor is inherent to Trump’s own past public comments about his daughter and his past behaviors otherwise. That’s no “joke.” And the gross factor (I could have sworn it first read as calling it pediophilia) was the stated reason for the note, not the off topic nature.

No big deal. It just seemed like an odd note to label referencing Trump’s past gross inappropriate sexualizing comments of his daughter as off limits due to the nature of the comments.

One off snarky off topic asides don’t usually get notes.

Yes, I changed it. I originally went with pedophilia because @Yookeroo made reference to whether Ivanka was still “young” enough for Trump. Then someone sent me a PM complaining that they didn’t like that, they preferred the incest angle. As far as I’m concerned, I can make an argument for either or both being inappropriate. @Yookeroo didn’t specify how young Trump may like her, and as I recall, the photo you’re referring to was taken when she was around 13. So which casual exploitation of his daughter do you prefer?

The point is, this sort of misogyny is exactly what we’re trying to reduce on the board. It’s not a subject for lighthearted joking, or snarking, as you put it. Neither insinuation is appropriate in a P&E thread.

I’m not one to defend Trump or his daughter as you’re surely aware. But this was about more than that. If you feel otherwise, then we must agree to disagree.

That’s where I am dumbfoundingly confused. Referencing Trump’s past objectification and sexualization of his daughter is misogyny??

References of the ways that Trump is a gross disgusting entity are generally accepted as asides in Politics threads, as are aside jokes about Biden’s failings, so long as they do not pull the thread off subject. Yes? Those references are not endorsements of the behaviors. They are the exact opposite of such.

I understand what you’re saying, but yes, I think in some instances, it can. I wasn’t the only person, mod or otherwise, the comment hit sideways.

I’m always open to persuasion by other mods and particularly female mods as well as posters. Maybe it will go your way by morning. For now, I don’t see a basis to change the note.

In the same way that calling Hooters a breastaurant is of course!

As a female poster, I’m not seeing the problem. I agree with DSeid here. The insult was to Trump. It was unpleasant, but only because Trump made it so.

Who knows, maybe by morning I’ll see the problem. Right now I don’t.

In P&E? I thought that was run like GD, and that would probably get modded in GD nowadays.

I’m another female poster and I had no problem with the snark. It was aimed at the slimy orange one, and I have no problem with that.

I saw him and Ivanka on some talk show, don’t remember which one. The host asked him what he and his daughter had in common, and his reply was, “Sex”. :nauseated_face:
Even she looked shocked. Ugh, what an utter pig.

I think the comment walks the line but doesn’t cross it. If the stories were wholly made up, that would be different, but it’s been talked about in mainstream media for years.

Yes, it’s gross, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate for P&E, even if it was off-topic. Trump as a human being is gross, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to talk about him.

Ok. I’ve slept on it and read the comments of others. I’ll reverse the note.

I guess what troubles me is how Ivanka is objectified in the scenario. As if she has no agency, no ability to influence the situation, she’s just the butt of the joke for her father to perve on. It’s subtle, but it demeans her in my view.

I also dislike seeing anyone take gratuitous, off-topic cheap shots in P&E.

I will nonetheless defer to the understanding of others and reverse the note. Thanks to those who chimed in with their thoughts.

So is it now the policy that any jab at Trump for anything is fair game in P&E even if not germane o the thread?

I didn’t say anything like that. Even a cursory review of any P&E thread will show the reality that this is not the case.

I simply stated I have a personal dislike of it. No need to bootstrap that comment into anything more than that.

Howard Stern once called her “a piece of ass” on air while interviewing Trump. And he quite proudly agreed. Trump (on the same broadcast, I think) speculated on what Tiffany’s breast would look like when she was grown. Tiffany was an infant at the time. He has stated that if Ivanka wasn’t his daughter, he’d be “dating” her. He borderline mauled her on live TV.
She has never stood up for herself and has only defended him.
She has no demeaning left.

For the record, I agree 100% with this sentiment, and when I read the post in question, felt it was absolutely borderline but maybe didn’t quite cross it although only by […] much. So I didn’t feel the note was overdoing it, but I am reminded of (I think @What_Exit’s) a mod comment in a different thread talking about toning it down, and was labeled by said mod as “Not even a mod note, more of a nudge.”

I would still have supported the note itself, because while supported in part by past actions of TFG, it did lower the tone of the thread and squick me out more than I was expecting in P&E. And it did verge on a hijack - again, not crossing any sort of line, but also not particularly helpful to the discussion.

I’ll repeat my impression, which is admittedly not based on huge hours in P&E, that aside jabs at political figures, be they Biden or Trump or Beto or Abbott or …, have been tolerated if they do not result in significant hijacks of the discussion and are not based on clear misinformation or otherwise disallowed by the rules (forbidden words, etc.)

I’ll also admit that my op was triggered when the comment was described as a pedophilia joke … which it was not at all, and which is what set off my bell that the moderator perhaps did not know of the allusions being made.

@Aspenglow thank you for helping clarify. Of course a note is no big deal in any case and of course any further discussion in the thread would cross the hijack line in any case. That said, D J Trump’s objectification of Ivanka (and of women in general) is the point of the comment. As a serious on subject of discussion in thread, the relevance was the claim that Trump would not get involved in the run off as he does not care about anyone else but himself … except maybe Ivanka … and her possibly based more on her value to him as an object, than anything else, her putative being such a “piece of ass” reflecting to his mind as well upon him, just as a younger attractive wife does (in his way of thinking). So yes she is objectified in the scenario: his having done that, to her and to other women as a class.

For what it is worth, that post was still worthy of mod action for being both off-topic and the objectification going on. A mod note was appropriate or just a nudge.

A warning would be too much, but none was issued anyway.

And to directly answer your question, no, we are not allowing attacks on Trump as fair game in P&E when they are off-topic. This will be stopped when seen or flagged.

Good moderation.