On a side note: the Maxine Waters “45” business had always struck me as WAY more affirmation than just calling him “Trump”. It always sounded to me like a little needle aimed at the hearts of the people who didn’t want him to be president. Sort of like “Hey, remember that guy you laughed at and were soooOOOOoooo certain he couldn’t win? Yeah, that guy is now the 45th President of the United States. And don’t forget it.” YMMV, obviously.
Having sometimes referred to both the Demoncrats and Ripped-ublicans – well, at least I don’t do it very often about individuals except sometimes His Pope-ness. But I could well accept and live with such a rule. I do see it being the start of many an ATMB thread (“I didn’t know Liarump and Asshobama were disparaging”) but it is a good point that such games and attempts at humor can derail the discussion sometimes.
I know that we are from opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I wholeheartedly agree. In addition, I think the rhetoric needs dialed back on many topics.
I can be as guilty as the next poster when getting emotionally charged by talking about big government or the dangers of socialism, but it seems like the anti-Trump hatred on this board has reached insanity levels.
If we are talking about immigration and detention at the border and a poster wants to talk about “children in cages” that’s fine, but if we are talking about, say, gun control, and a poster implies that Trump supporters want guns to kill Mexican or Muslim adults and put their children in concentration camps, then that poster should dial it back a bit.
Or these extreme strawman arguments like in the workplace touching thread where touching a woman on her wrist to get her attention that the meeting was running late is compared to male domination and sexual assault which is why we supported Kavanaugh and Trump the “pussy grabber.”
I mean, we can have debate, get a little bit snippy with each other, but damn these things go into looneyland.
I’m opposed, for three reasons:
First, it invites endless nitpicking over what counts as a “disparaging nickname”. Is “Raphael Cruz” disparaging? How about “Edward Kennedy”? Or “Beto O’Rourke”?
Second, as Bone already pointed out, we’re allowed to disparage off-board figures in other ways, and making nicknames specifically off-limits seems inconsistent.
Third, the natural consequence for doing this is that your audience will take you less seriously. Which already happens, even without a rule.
I like the proposal.
I also have been avoiding typing the president’s name. And while I’m sure he won’t read this board, me might well have someone show him Google Analytics about how often his name was mentioned. But I don’t call him nasty names, because I agree that lowers the level of discourse.
When people were throwing around “Hilary” I called him “The Donald” because it bothered me that women get first-named and men don’t. Yeah, I know, her husband “owns” that name in American politics. But I wanted some level of consistency between the two. I didn’t think “the Donald” was disparaging, but if other’s object, I’d be happy to drop it.
Yeah, I am fine with someone who hates Obama saying “Obama is an asshole”, but I found the “Obummer” thing really grating. And I don’t like “Cheeto”, either, despite thinking that the current president is an asshole.
I don’t see how any of those are disparaging. And all moderation is fussy and particular and requires judgment.
Anyway, I understand if the mods don’t want to take this on, but I would be happy if they did.
Since the mods aren’t interested in wading into this mess, I’m pretty sure it’s not going to happen. So, I’ll ask those of us who play in GD and Elections to refrain from using silly disparaging names (“thump” is really getting on my nerves) and to request the same from people who use those names in threads you’re involved with (assuming that’s OK, junior-mod-wise).
I think there’s a lot of “being a jerk” going on in Elections and GD lately. Maybe this thread will encourage people to stop it or report it when they see it.
Thanks for listening to my whining!
RS
I’d like to suggest the possibility of using Ms. Marital status is irrelevant to 99.9% of discussions.
I have a better idea. Why don’t we use whatever honorific the person in question prefers?
I’d bet that Sec. Clinton goes by Mrs. Clinton, not Ms. Clinton, in her personal life.
I’m fine with that. My main issue is with Miss, not Mrs, when it’s not known to be that person’s preferred honorific, thanks muchly.
Personally, I generally use just the last name, unless that’s ambiguous. So I wouldn’t say “Hillary said…”, or “Mrs. Clinton said…”; I’d just use “Clinton said…” (it might have been ambiguous a decade ago, but nowadays, anyone referring to “Clinton” in a political context almost certainly means Hillary, not Bill). And I also do this for politicians who have self-branded using their first name, such as O’Rourke or Buttigieg. I just find it easier to use the same consistent style for everyone.
Why do you think that?
I bet she goes by “Hillary” or “Senator Clinton”, depending on the circumstances.
But many politically inclined women of her generation used “Ms”, I’d be a little surprised if her preference is “Mrs”. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets called that, of course, but i doubt that’s what her friends use.
Why would she go by Senator Clinton? Secretary of State is much higher in protocol than a Senator.
I also doubt that a 71 year old married lady of her stature goes by Ms. Do you have a cite she has ever done so?
Dumb question, perhaps: WTF does this have to do with Maxine Waters? Referring to a President by number seems to have become a thing with Bush Sr (41) and Bush Jr (43) as an unambiguous way to refer to one or the other. (Pic of them wearing ‘41’ and ‘43’ caps.)
Why? She would have been 24 when Ms. magazine published its first issue, and she was certainly enough of a feminist at that point to buy into the notion that whether a woman was single or married shouldn’t be treated as the most essential fact that others needed to know about her.
Technically, at least, the title of Senator stays with the person. The title of Secretary doesn’t.
She went by Hillary Rodham for some years after she got married. I’ll be pretty surprised if she’s never used Ms.; which started coming into use around when she was in her early 20’s.
Most of the references I can find call her either just Hillary or just Clinton or just Hillary Clinton; at least, when they’re not calling her Senator or (during the appropriate time) Secretary.
A prescribed honorific signifies no honor. I do not feel more respect from an insult delivered with Mister than I would without it. People who cling to formulaic expressions of respect do so out of a very strong personal feeling that their worth is imperceptible without them. They are often quite accurate in that assumption.
A parallel, although dissimilar condition is revealed by the use of “clever” disparagement delivered in the grammatical position of the general prescribed honorific. When insult is a preface to identification, it position is sufficient to indicate that it is not inherent to the total meaning of the discourse, and it must be propped up with any substance of the message.
Clear logical presentation of the ethical content of the persons conduct, or statements is not enhanced by either, and is shown to be lacking in significance in the opinion of the writer by its presence alone.
Tris
If they didn’t notice he was a son of a bitch, calling him one won’t inform them.
You’re right, thanks for the clarification.
Now, does anyone have a cite that the lady in question prefers to be addressed as Ms.?
Because she’s the one I hear most often referring to President Trump as ‘45’.
Does it matter???
Apparently, it matters to the poster who proclaimed that Ms. should be the preferred form of address.