Poking Fun at Politicians

[MMMordabito]

Please explain why a post with a satirical poem about President Trump called Trumpty Dumpty is allowed to exist in the Sports Bar, but referring to Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as Occasional Cortex results in a deleted post and warning points.

 

Both posts are poking fun at politicians, but only one is allowed.

[ashbury]

Can you point me to the Trumpty post? The site's search tool turns up only your references to it. I tried a few additional ways of searching, without any results either.

[MMMordabito]

 

Can you point me to the Trumpty post? The site's search tool turns up only your references to it. I tried a few additional ways of searching, without any results either.

 

"POTUS Donald Trump" thread page 11, #210.  There are several posts on that page that I would probably label disrespectful in a vacuum.  

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the post itself.  It's actually good satire.  Comedians have been doing this stuff for a long time, and people in that camp are going to reuse it.  I just don't think there should be any protected class of politicians.  If you can make fun of one them, you can make fun of them all.

[TheLeviathan]

I sincerely hope a post was not deleted and a warning point handed out for that example above.  I thought there has been a stated position of less ardent moderation in that part of the forum and I've seen many of us, myself included, say worse about politicians we disagree with.

 

I hope that situation is corrected if it's true as presented.

[ashbury]

"POTUS Donald Trump" thread page 11, #210.  There are several posts on that page that I would probably label disrespectful in a vacuum.  

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the post itself.  It's actually good satire.  Comedians have been doing this stuff for a long time, and people in that camp are going to reuse it.  I just don't think there should be any protected class of politicians.  If you can make fun of one them, you can make fun of them all.

Thanks for locating the post you had in mind. It's from more than two years ago, and is an image rather than text, so my attempts to search for it didn't come up with it.

 

I'm glad you note that it's satire. While "Trumpty Dumpty" in a vacuum would be very questionable, the item was actually topical, clearly starting with the controversial Wall (not much changes in two years, eh?), linking to "who else had issues with a wall?" and then tying together the similarity to the name of the modified nursery rhyme. Not exactly Swiftian, perhaps, but not brainless either. The use of Trumpty as a name was not an epithet hurled, and that's probably why it didn't receive moderator action. It's two years ago, so I don't remember if there was any discussion at all, but there probably wasn't.

 

But in general we take a dim view of derisive names like Byron "Buston", so substituting two similar words in the representative's name didn't pass muster, in your recent post.

 

Now, if you want to allow a discussion of your verbatim post, rather than the distillation you provided of it here, I can send you a copy and you can post it here, to satisfy the curiosity that TheLeviathan and perhaps others have.

[MMMordabito]

Here is verbatim what I posted in response to Speaker Pelosi being supported/congratulated for her toughness against Trump during the shutdown and after Trump eventually caved:

 

"Now she just needs to give Occasional Cortex a daily spanking and put her in the basement on the sand granule sorting committee with Milton Wadams for the next two years."

[ashbury]

Here is verbatim what I posted in response to Speaker Pelosi being supported/congratulated for her toughness against Trump during the shutdown and after Trump eventually caved:

 

"Now she just needs to give Occasional Cortex a daily spanking and put her in the basement on the sand granule sorting committee with Milton Wadams for the next two years."

For context, the "she" is in reference to this post being replied to:

 

 

Me too. I initially wanted new blood.  But I clearly underestimated [Pelosi's] political resolve.

 

So, in a thread about the President, a tangent about the House Speaker's interaction with the President was used as a launching point for a threadjack about a different member of the House - start a new thread if a discussion about an unrelated but explosive topic is desired. Second, the derisive name was well out of bounds. Third, the introduction of "spanking" was extremely problematic. While for simplicity I chose to highlight only one of these items when the warning point was issued, taken together it was an easy decision to remove the post, and either of the last two reasons was point-worthy., even in an area of the site where extra latitude is allowed.

 

Warning points, at least until 3 are accumulated, are intended to get a member's attention toward needed change. It apparently achieved that minimal aim. Hopefully you come to appreciate and embrace the shared values stated in the site's Comment Policy.

 

We also take long-term posting history into account when assigning warning points versus just a PM to discuss.

[PseudoSABR]

Just to point out. I've had posts deleted, and did accrue a few warning points years ago, and few PMs since then.  (The only bias is towards pretty much zero tolerance for pejoratives directed towards other persons; indeed, I've tangoed with ashbury over his moderation technique, but it's a damn thankless job; so I try not to get too butthurt.) In general, I think we cross the line when we ourselves degrade public figures as opposed to sharing a meme or whatever doing so.  Though both are in bad taste, the former takes a more active role on our part. 

 

That said, Nasu, I hope you stick around, because we need some more diverse voices around here. 

[MMMordabito]

Fair explanation ... I'm not totally sold that their isn't more leeway given on the left side, but I guess there are three violations there.

[ashbury]

I think we cross the line when we ourselves degrade public figures as opposed to sharing a meme or whatever doing so.  Though both are in bad taste, the former takes a more active role on our part.

I don't think that's a very safe interpretation. The Trumpty post would be the same topical satire if the person who posted it had claimed authorship.

 

Conversely, re-posting a meme that merely repeats somebody's insulting nickname wouldn't fly, any moreso than typing the text directly as one's own words.

 

I feel like adding that satire is especially tricky to pull off. Done right, it's so deadpan that some readers will completely misunderstand the author's point. I've fallen into that trap enough times that by now I usually include some kind of extra spoiler just to be safe. Imagine Jonathan Swift writing "impoverished Irish children are delicious whether baked, boiled or fricasied. Just kidding." That's me now.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't think that's a very safe interpretation. The Trumpty post would be the same topical satire if the person who posted it had claimed authorship.

 

Conversely, re-posting a meme that merely repeats somebody's insulting nickname wouldn't fly, any moreso than typing the text directly as one's own words.

 

I feel like adding that satire is especially tricky to pull off. Done right, it's so deadpan that some readers will completely misunderstand the author's point. I've fallen into that trap enough times that by now I usually include some kind of extra spoiler just to be safe. Imagine Jonathan Swift writing "impoverished Irish children are delicious whether baked, boiled or fricasied. Just kidding." That's me now.

I wasn't trying to offer an interpretation of the TOS, but rather guidance for how I learned to go about my business around here.  But now that I know I'll try not to embed my own pejoratives with the voices of others (i.e. in memes). 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Fair explanation ... I'm not totally sold that their isn't more leeway given on the left side, but I guess there are three violations there.

Thank you for your understanding. Truly, it's pretty rare for a poster - especially a relatively new one - to say "Ah, yeah, okay... I get it now."

 

Basically, we at Twins Daily *really* dislike cutesy pejorative nicknames. A good rule of thumb is to just stay away from them. As Ashbury pointed out, the Trumpty meme was left up but it's questionable. The moderators have to make isolated decisions and no, they're not going to be 100% consistent. We all try our best but we have to weigh a multitude of things: in this case, the fact it was a meme and obviously satire just pushed it far enough to one side of the scale that it was left standing as-is.

 

But just because a post is left standing, don't assume that there isn't (or wasn't) individual moderator consideration about it because the post was pretty borderline. It's a hard call to make because the final decision is binary; the post stands or is deleted. There isn't really a middle ground to take and that will lead to some wiggling around with posts that exist in that murky grey territory.

[Craig Arko]

In the interests of promoting world peace, I have removed the offending post myself.

 

Carry on.