If not for the culture of fear the mods have created with their arbitrary anti-perv rules, no doubt this board would be teeming with “Paul Ryan is a hot dude” comments. The complete absence of them is just proof of the chilling effect on speech.
I don’t think what I asked was too bright line. I asked for a clarification about what the rules are.
Supposedly we can remark about the appearance of a public figure (or maybe it is only Trump depending on which mod sees it) but can we remark about the appearance of a non-public figure? Was it the comment about her appearance that deserved moderation or the colloquial language “hot chick” which drew it?
I further do not understand the rule. Even if “hot chick” is insulting (which to most women it is not) are we not allowed to insult non-posters? I thought that was always allowed.
I also do not understand the accusation that the post was off topic. It was an observation that Condi Rice was placed front and center for Kavanaugh’s opening remarks when he had this attractive woman behind him the entire day. That is very on topic for the thread.
As I said, I will abide by the rules, but I have to know what they are first.
First, yep, “hot chick” is no longer appropriate. It’d be inappropriate to call a man, politician or not, “a hunka-hunka burnin’ stud,” and I assume that’d be moderated as well. You want to tell your wife she’s a “hot chick,” knowing she takes it as a compliment? Fine. You and your buddies talk about “hot chicks” on poker night? Nobody’s stopping you. In a public venue, not OK, and you’ll be called on it.
If your intent was to question the intent of those who placed the woman there, you could have said, “I noticed they replaced a woman in a blue dress with Condi Rice. I don’t recognize the woman and can’t help wondering if she was placed there solely because she’s attractive. It wouldn’t be the first time politicians did something like that.” It might have been modded as off-topic, but the focus would clearly have been on the politics, not the woman, and the phrasing would have been fine.
But we can say that Trump is a Cheeto or that Bush II is a chimp, right?
Can we only insult someone’s looks? What if I said that he had the fat ugly chick moved out of the way for Condi Rice? Somehow I don’t think that would be better.
I’m having trouble believing it’s really this difficult for folks to understand. Lemme ask you something: is there a difference between “attractive” and “hot,” and if so, what is it? We’ll go from there.
Let’s assume I agree with you. Since when are posters required to do what is “appropriate”? That would require half of GD to be moderated.
Not much. I think the first is more proper in formal discourse and the second is more of a slang word. But, they have the same meaning for the most part.
So, no, they don’t. “Attractive” is not necessarily sexual. “That’s an attractive hairdo!” and “That’s a hot hairdo!” are not the same thing.
On a side note, I just checked in on the hearing and it looks like our favorite “accomplished woman” is back in her seat behind Kavanaugh. She looks more cautious about her hand placement today too.
I said for the most part. If you are trying to buy my car, make an offer, and I say “That is a very attractive offer, however, I still must decline.”
Clearly, I am not saying that your monetary offer was sexually invigorating. However, when talking about a person’s appearance, it is almost exclusively in reference to sexual attraction. Saying that someone has an attractive hairdo generally means that a person of the opposite sex would find it sexually appealing. I can’t believe we have to even discuss this.
That’s two of us, I suppose.
I also have trouble that we are doing this again, but let’s try it this way: are you allowed to call a female co-worker a “hot chick”, yes or no?
Also, for the record, no, most women do not like being called a “hot chick” and they are not okay with it.
I feel that Jonathan Chance deserves some sort of award for the most fuss caused by the fewest words. “Kerfuffle King” perhaps?
Wasn’t it you that introduced the discussion of alleged white power signs? You linked to an article where various writers made that accusation, but no actual poster here made the accusation IIRC. Even still, the two fact patterns aren’t analogous. One is about the person’s appearance, largely immutable. The other is about alleged actions taken.
This isn’t really a rule clarification per se. And I don’t see it as one of political affiliation. If you recall, I tend to lean your way in most matters political. I appreciate the female form like many other folks and in appropriate threads I think it’s no problem to engage in that type of discussion if that’s people’s thing. But in the context of that particular thread, it drew the smallest of rebukes because it seemed demeaning, objectifying, and likely to go nowhere productive.
I can’t believe that someone supposedly as educated as you willfully refuses to understand. It’s been explained to you a couple times, yet you keep asking ridiculous questions about “the rules”. How about we just invoke the “don’t be a jerk” rule?
Really, stop saying you understand (“most”) women. Men who feel the need to say this over and over absolutely DO NOT. Like you’re not understanding the women here.
Lest I be misunderstood, I didn’t think I was advocating a conspiracy theory (and don’t conspiracies generally involve more than one perpetrator?). I didn’t even think I was JAQing off. I thought I was reporting something that had involved the bulk of the coverage of Bash.
And JM is correct: debunking legends is what we do here. Also evaluating them. Overall it’s easy to weigh the evidence and conclude that Bash has white nationalist sympathies, though the evidence for Stephen Miller is far stronger. But the accusation of trolling has plausible deniability. It may even be utterly false.
Snopes treatment, which does not mention the text message: Lawyer Accused of Flashing 'White Power' Hand Gesture During Kavanaugh Hearing | Snopes.com
Missed that. Apologies.
I’m having problems keeping up with this thread, but from a scan I reiterate everything I said before. “Hot chick” is not appropriate on this board. Deal with it.
That’s it. That’s your response to my honest request for instructions?
Are we in an employment environment? Could you call a co-worker a chimp or a cheeto? Of course not. That is not the standard for posting here. It never has been. If it is now, then I would like a new rule demanding that. I would disagree with it, but it would give some better guidance.
“Don’t be a jerk.” As Bricker has said, if you accuse someone of wanting to have sex with his daughter (Trump) is that not being a jerk? I give a compliment, but I am being a jerk?
Maybe I am. I just ask for a rule about how we can describe a person’s sexual attractiveness that I can understand so I don’t violate the rule in the future. The “I’ll know it when I see it” is really not acceptable in this area where it is a brand new thing and you all are making it up as you go along.
“Hot chick” is not a compliment. Several of us have tried to explain by using examples, by drawing parallels with comparable names for men, and I am not the first to just say it outright. Calling a woman a hot chick anywhere other than inside the privacy of your skull or to a partner with permission is not acceptable. I hope this level of bluntness is sufficient.
How about: Don’t describe a person’s sexual attractiveness in a thread that has nothing to do with that person, with sex, or with attractiveness.
I would again ask the mods if this is the rule. Does it also apply to cheeto or chimp?
I also notice that you craft a broad rule so that as long as the thread is about those three things, then no limits? If someone started a thread about “Who is the nice lady sitting behind Kavanaugh?” a person could say that she is a “tasty little bitch who needs a good hard fuck”?
I just ask for a cognizable rule for future threads.