I’d like to propose that disparaging nicknames for political figures (Cheeto, Obummer, Shrub) be disallowed in the debate forums (GD and Elections). I believe they already are in GQ.
I propose this because those forums are meant for serious, cited discussions, not sarcastic, cite-free assertions. Using those disparaging names does zero to forward the conversation and only serves to piss people off. It invites the kinds of snarky, information-free responses that help derail conversations.
Obviously, these are OK in the Pit. I’m fine with them in IMHO and MPSIMS because those aren’t really for serious discussions. It may be your opinion that Obama was a bummer and want to express it that way, fine. And, MPSIMS is already mundane and pointless, so snarky banter seems fine there.
I’m really getting tired of the anger and the non-responsive responses in the debate forums and I’m hoping that stopping this childish practice may help.
I’m not saying using Shrub or Cheeto-in-Chief should result in a warning, just a moderator note that it’s not helping the conversation and is probably harming it. Warnings would come for failure to follow moderator directions, of course.
What do you all think?
(I’d love to see “Democrat Party” also stopped, since it’s only a few posters that do it and they obviously do it to piss people off. Reading it is like hearing a record screeching to a halt in my head. I’d also like a pony.)
I think I like this proposal because it would force posters to use their own words instead of cut-and-pasting glurge filled with such disparaging name-calling.
I’d love this, and wish it could be enforced in the Pit as well. It’s just such a cheap shot. Kind of a “Hur, hur, I called you a name!” playground insult.
It makes the poster look like they’re unable to “win” with a reasoned argument, so they have to resort to ad hominem insults.
I’d support that because I don’t know who they’re talking about half the time. Plus, it’s kinda childish to go for the easy schoolyard insult when there are adult issues at stake. Granted, certain politicians rally their bases with such inanities, but we’re none of us here campaigning for public office on this message board.
I generally try not to use 45’s last name because I know that it would piss him off if he knew about it. So would calling him “45” be considered disparaging? What about “Donald,” which I understand he also doesn’t like?
These are both legitimate ways to refer to him, they are not nicknames and they are not disparaging, but they are still disrespectful to some degree.
I guess the point I’m making is that there might be an issue (as with so many of our rules) about where to draw the line. That said, I have no problem with a rule like this, if the mods think they have the bandwidth to support and enforce it.
I’m not a mod, but I would not consider 45, Donald, or The Donald to be disparaging. I suppose The Donald may be, but it has been used for decades in NY media, so I don’t even notice it. Maybe one of his supporters could chime in.
What about “so-called President”? Where would that fit in? After all, that’s how Trump refers to actual judges. Would Trump himself be unable to participate in GD?
If I were king, “so-called President” would be disallowed. Trump would definitely have a hard time in GD based on his tweets (he attacks people, not the content of their statements, calls people names, dissembles, doesn’t provide cites for his claims, etc.). Not sure why that’s relevant here, though.
If he joined this board, I doubt he would last long enough for this to be a problem. If he is incapable of following the rules, you treat him like anyone else.
Umm, I don’t know how to break this to you, but I don’t think he’s going to read your posts, even if you mail them to the White House.
That’s the other thing about these stupid nicknames that grates. It’s SO pointless. “I called Trump a name he’d hate. THAT’ll show him! Har, har! He’ll step down any day now, fer sure!”