If you’ll read my comments about the moderation both in that thread and here, I think you’ll find that I don’t object to it if the moderating decision is that it’s off-topic, which was my initial impression. It seems, given the comments by mods in this thread, that my initial impression was mistaken.
If the moderation is due to commentary about the physical appearance of non-posters, then I’d like to know where that line gets drawn. So far, we have this for “guidance”:
Those seem conflicted. Is it OK to call Sarah Palin or Melania Trump a “hot chick” because they’re public figures, but not ok to say the same about the junior-undersecretary-of-something-or-other? Or is it never ok to describe a woman as a “hot chick”? Or is it broader than that and we’re to cease all unnecessary references to a person’s physical appearance? Or just if the person is female? or not Trump?
It’s not about politics. I’ve defended conservative women on Twitter because of comments about their appearance, and I’m extremely liberal. It’s about not describing people, a woman in this case, by her physical attributes. Why are some of you so desperate to cling to this??? Is the “right” to demean others like this even when they object really how you hold onto your power, as suggested above?
Ultra Vires, one more time: “The woman in the blue dress…” You’re a lawyer so you’re not stupid. The only conclusion I can draw is not demeaning women is somehow threatening to you.
If I knew that some of you guys objected to it, I’d be supportive as well as report it. I haven’t seen any such objections. Unlike some people here, I’m not about to tell you what to think. Like I’ve said before, appearance hasn’t been used to objectify and discriminate against men nearly to the extent that it has women, so my guess is it doesn’t bother men as much as it does us.
She didn’t object. AFAIK, she wouldn’t object to being called a “hot chick” either, given that she allowed herself to be profiled for The Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful” list.
And it’s certainly not about “the right to demean others”, at least not for me. I’d be fine if the mods came out and said, “no more demeaning people based on their physical appearance” or “no more comments about the physical appearance of anyone at all”, but if posters are allowed to refer to Trump as “Cheeto” or McConnell as a turtle or GWB as “chimp”, I’d like to see some consistency. Either allow it, or don’t, but make up your minds, mods.
The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “degrading” is incredibly stupid. The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “creepy” is incredibly stupid.
I freely admit it is theoretically possible that both of you are reasonable, rational creatures on other topics. It’s highly unlikely, but I cannot completely discount the possibility. But if you would refrain from saying anything more on this topic, the world would be much better off.
Good thinking. Call a guy hot and it’s probably a complement. Say he’s a nice guy, and not so much, or at least not always. But call a woman nice… and it’s probably a complement.
While this is extremely unfair, it shouldn’t distract us from the main victims in this thread: American male conservatives.
Newsflash: The Hill probably didn’t ask for permission. Also, Marie Claire did a profile of her: [INDENT] Zina Bash: White House Domestic Policy Councilmember
She worked on the presidential campaign of Trump’s rival Senator Ted Cruz, but that seems to be water under the bridge. Now, the Harvard Law School and Wharton Business School grad focuses on regulatory reform for legal and immigration policy. Bash has thus far made headlines for things unrelated to her work, like her spot on the The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful list and for her high net-worth (in the millions). Soon after taking the White House job, she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, Mabel. [/INDENT] Top Female White House Aides - Women Who Work for President Trump | Marie Claire Top 50 Most Beautiful isn’t her only claim to fame. She presumably also worked [del]to put children in cages[/del] on Trump’s immigration policy.
What if we were talking about something…anything…and then your wife/girlfriend/mom/grandma/daughter walked by and I eyeballed her lustfully and turned to you and said “yeah, she’s really hot. I’d do her”?
One thing no-one has yet noted about Bash, and the thing that is probably the most relevant to her presence at the hearing, is that she clerked for Brett Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Her husband also clerked for Kavanaugh, before going on to clerk for Alito on the Supreme Court.
More generally, the whataboutism from the Oppressed White Men’s Club in this thread is hilarious.
Trump, Barack Obama, George Bush, etc, were (by the very nature of their job) public figures. It didn’t take much for people to be able to place them by either seeing a picture of them or by hearing their name.
And I remember hearing several people refer to Hillary Clinton’s “cankles” during Bill’s time in the White House. There were also a lot of jokes about Chelsea as an awkward teenager(in the first that comes to mind, Mike Myers- as Wayne Campbell- commented on Chelsea’s appearance by saying “while it’s true that adolescence has been thusfar unkind…”).
If comments about a public figure’s looks aren’t germane to the conversation, howzabout we save it for the Pit?
But I didn’t recognize this woman. And I doubt more than 35% of people could have named her just by looking at her. Public exposure(fairly or unfairly) plays a role in the way people are identified.
All that said, I first thought this thread was going to be about the Rachel McAdams/Anna Faris/Rob Schneider movie of the same name.
These two statement are in conflict. Such comments about appearance are, as I already noted, very common. Especially about men, but maybe because men are more numerous in government and even more numerous in conservative circles. It would be helpful to have a more definitive ruling going forward. Thanks in advance.
No. As previously stated - ad nauseum - bright lines are anathema to good moderation. Flexibility and context are, instead, the hallmarks of good moderation that is compatible with message board inclusivity.
I note with some bemusement that you quote three mods, including all of the other GD and Elections mods, without actually quoting the mod who A) originated the mod note and B) already responded to earlier issues. Perhaps you have no proper response and would prefer to fire for effect.
Nonetheless, as I stated earlier, I will not get drawn into a long discussion defining bright lines of what you can and can’t do. Such adds nothing to the boards and instead promotes a ‘rules lawyer’ culture of trying to define where lines are so one can walk right up to them.
If you absolutely feel you must push limits? Well, feel free to try your luck.
I wasn’t asking for a bright line. I was asking for a more definitive ruling. But I think that is especially relevant because tom’s statement was framed as a bright line:
" I would consider appearance questions or observations about Biden, Pence, Lynch, Sessions, Pelosi, Ryan, Schumer, McConnell, etc. to be out of bounds."