Shouldn't a warning for political jabs actually involve politics?

[DWMarch]

(disclaimer: I’m only seeking clarification here. I have no dog in the fight, other than feeling as though the warning to this particular poster was uncalled for. I do not know the poster or his/her political views.)

There is a thread in MPSIMS about escaping from sinking cars. A poster, smee goan took the opportunity to make a joke about Ted Kennedy and got smacked by a mod for it for making “political comments”. I don’t think this was deserved.

The joke made was “Captain Ted Kennedy saved half the crew of the submarine Chappaquiddick.” I chuckled. I think it has all the elements of a good joke.

There is no political aspect to the comment. Smee didn’t say that Ted Kennedy’s car sank because he’s a liberal or democrat or running dog lackey of the etc. Ted Kennedy is a politician but that does not make all talk about him political in nature.

Indeed, while the joke might be on the tasteless side (which I think makes it even funnier), nothing untrue is being said about Ted Kennedy. He did have a car that sank and he did escape while his passenger didn’t.

Is the comment considered trolling somehow?

Link to the thread in question:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16524914#post16524914

[Southern_Yankee]

Just a clarification: it was a Mod note, not a warning.

[BigT]

My take? Why is the person criticizing Ted Kennedy? Do you think it’s really because he was in a car and drowned and another person didn’t? Is it not more likely it’s because they disagree with his political views and thus are using a common refrain amongst others who also disagree?

I mean, calling Bush or Palin stupid could not be political. It could just be your interpretation of them when you’ve heard them speak. Or make a joke about Cheney shooting someone. Or talking about Obama’s religion could be just you thinking he’s not a very good Christian. But, again, it’s much more likely that you are saying it for political reasons.

[samclem]

If I had responded to the post first I might have warned him/her for being a jerk or derailing a discussion.

The post was extraneous to the discussion. He’s lucky it was a note.

[Oakminster]

@samclem

If I had responded to the post first I might have warned him/her for being a jerk or derailing a discussion.

The post was extraneous to the discussion. He’s lucky it was a note.

Would you do the same if it was a shot at Reagan instead?

I doubt it.

[Inner_Stickler]

Apropos of nothing but it took me a little bit of thought to figure out what it even was. Ted Kennedy and his various scandals is not a topic my age cohort and younger are very familiar with.

[samclem]

@Oakminster

Would you do the same if it was a shot at Reagan instead?

I doubt it.

I would have, but you can doubt it all you wish.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Oakminster

Would you do the same if it was a shot at Reagan instead?

I doubt it.

IMHO, he would have. Political jabs in non-political threads can have the effect of derailing the discussion.

Posted one minute too late.

[Marley23]

It’s an off-topic comment about a politician and it’s the kind of thing that causes a hijack.

[Senegoid]

@Inner_Stickler

Apropos of nothing but it took me a little bit of thought to figure out what it even was. Ted Kennedy and his various scandals is not a topic my age cohort and younger are very familiar with.

Might as well throw in a bit of history lesson, as long as this came up. (Hey, we can fight ignorance in ATMB too, no?) There was a lot of sleazy opinionating about what happened there, and then there was that seriously tasteless parody published on the back cover of (IIRC) the Harvard Lampoon – so much so, that the issue was very quickly pulled from the shelves nationwide.

Spoilered for utter crass bad taste. Take with a goodly dose of brain bleach.

[spoiler]http://formaementis.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/july-ted.jpg[/spoiler](I guess an additional tidbit of historical context is in order: About that time, Volkswagen had been running ad campaigns claiming that Volkswagens are so well-built that they are nearly air-tight and will float.)

ETA: This might also be apropos of those several current threads about people driving into lakes and drowning, that have been in the news just recently.

[Merneith]

@Marley23

It’s an off-topic comment about a politician and it’s the kind of thing that causes a hijack.

This is how I saw it and it’s why I reported it in the first place. Don’t we have an actual rule about not taking random, off-topic, political jabs? Of course, now that I say that, I can’t actually find it. I thought there was a rule about threadshitting?

[samclem]

@Merneith

This is how I saw it and it’s why I reported it in the first place. Don’t we have an actual rule about not taking random, off-topic, political jabs? Of course, now that I say that, I can’t actually find it. I thought there was a rule about threadshitting?

From our General Questions Rules and FAQs.

2. Political, religious, or professional jabs, hijacks, and trolling prohibited. The purpose of General Questions is to get factual questions answered. In order to accomplish this we need the threads to stay on topic. We tolerate some joking, but that is generally acceptable only after the question has been answered. Please do not race to a thread to post that hilarious one-liner in response to the thread title, and don’t drive by just to drop in an anecdote that doesn’t answer the question. If you want to be funny while contributing to the thread, go for it. We tolerate some discussion of tangentially related factual information. We don’t tolerate political, religious, professional or personal jabs or insults. In case it’s somehow not clear: Trolling isn’t permitted at all.

[Marley23]

@Merneith

This is how I saw it and it’s why I reported it in the first place. Don’t we have an actual rule about not taking random, off-topic, political jabs? Of course, now that I say that, I can’t actually find it. I thought there was a rule about threadshitting?

As samclem says, the “no political jabs” rule is specific to GQ. But mods always have discretion to moderate hijack-type posts.

[Merneith]

Oh, I see. That must have been what I was thinking.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Inner_Stickler

Apropos of nothing but it took me a little bit of thought to figure out what it even was. Ted Kennedy and his various scandals is not a topic my age cohort and younger are very familiar with.

Just because you are ignorant of history doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

[Inner_Stickler]

Yeah, I really shouldn’t have slept through History of Massachusetts Politicians. It was such a relevant class.

[Trinopus]

National Lampoon, not Harvard Lampoon. (Back when they used to be funny tm.)

[kayT]

I am sad to see that tasteless humor is apparently no longer welcome on the Dope. It used to be our trademark, back in prehistory, when Ted Kennedy was young.

[Crazyhorse]

@kayT

I am sad to see that tasteless humor is apparently no longer welcome on the Dope. It used to be our trademark, back in prehistory, when Ted Kennedy was young.

Agreed. This was nothing more than a one-liner joke. Unless the poster has some history of posting with an anti Kennedy agenda it doesn’t seem like an attempt to derail a thread or make a political statement. It’s MPSIMS, fer Pete’s sake, not GQ or GD.

[Siam_Sam]

Did someone say tasteless Kennedy humor?

Q: What does JFK Jr. miss most about Martha’s Vineyard?

A. The runway.