Purgatorial Namecalling
Given the current crackdown on referring to public figures by derogatory names currently being enforced in Purgatory, I'd like to ask the limits of this policy. Are we only allowed to refer to public figures by their given names or commonly-acknowledged nicknames? Is there no leeway for snark?
More specifically, is there any difference between using an insulting nickname to make a point and simply using an insulting nickname as a matter of course? For example, referring to Donald Trump as "President Pussygrabber" on every occasion seems different than calling him "President Pussygrabber" in a post about why Trump polls so poorly with women. Are both of these forbidden? And if the latter is permissible, what's the standard that should be followed?
More specifically, is there any difference between using an insulting nickname to make a point and simply using an insulting nickname as a matter of course? For example, referring to Donald Trump as "President Pussygrabber" on every occasion seems different than calling him "President Pussygrabber" in a post about why Trump polls so poorly with women. Are both of these forbidden? And if the latter is permissible, what's the standard that should be followed?
Comments
We encourage robust debate, and at times that could include appropriate name-calling or creative invective. The extent to which the hosts will appreciate that reflects how much it adds to the discussion - a post that contributes to the discussion is less likely to attract the unwanted attention of hosts, even if it contains some name calling. A post that adds very little to the discussion on the other hand ...
What you need to hear from the Purgatory Hosts is that the current shade of description being used is too tinted with offense for their liking. The instruction is to tend towards being less offensive. Occasional excursions into expressing derision have a place, but they stain the conversation with dismissive bias if they cease being merely occasional. The place for that kind of discussion is Hell.
There is no general intention to extend the Commandment 3 restriction on name -calling of Shipmates. It just so happens that derogatory name-calling had become a very common feature of Trump Purg posting. So we decided to draw the line that Alan Cresswell referred to, to keep that distinction between ranting and serious criticism re Trump discussions. It doesn't reflect any general change in policy.
I'm sorry if we haven't always applied that consistently. We have been rather busy over the past few days. But I still think the specific guideline for Trump threads is worth keeping.
We've specifically opened a Hell thread to try and keep a Purgatory thread on-topic. This is pretty much the first time we've done this, and like many of our decisions, is done on an experimental and ad-hoc basis.
If it works, we'll consider doing it again, as the need arises. If it doesn't, we'll bin it.
There was also a flareup on the thread on the legacy board which in my estimation escalated because the tone of too many posts at that time was Hellish rather than Purgatorial, leading another poster into a false sense of security in posting inflammatory stuff with a slightly different target - a post that was instantly shot down in flames.
Also in my view, persistent name-calling adds nothing to the debate and sours its tone. This is true on any thread but is obviously going to be a problem when the subject of the thread is the target of so much opprobrium, even if most of us feel it's justly deserved.
There are no shortage of Trump discussion threads out there which quickly descend into little more than trench warfare using invective as ammunition. I'd like to think we can all do better than that here.
Rossweisse's post from the Purg Trump thread.
Which includes this
In my book, that's perfectly legitimate critical comment in Purg. But I can understand why people say "well if that's alright why is calling Donald Trump President Pussygrabber wrong?"
It's a fine line, but sometimes you get them in this job. I'd say Rossweisse's comment is a legitimate recalling of something Trump actually said; whereas using the name-call isn't. YMMV!
There's an element of judgment call always when you are looking at these fine distinctions. I guess that's why the Ship has Hosts and Hosts get their time in the Styx.
(Sorry for the partial duplicate post - can't delete!)
Interesting quirk. More edit time, but no delete.
I was concerned about that, so I'm relieved to read this. He is certainly a polarizing figure.
Yes, making text invisible is hilarious. Please don't abuse it in serious discussions.
But the incessant parade of names is just a little bit school playground, don't you think?
If you can't bring yourself to use his name, perhaps "current president" would work?
No. This is still name-calling.
Hell does indeed provide the opportunity of more creative name-calling. Which is not only fun, but also cathartic.
IJ
You are welcome to not refer to him at all.
Unless that is the point you are more subtly making.
* A sub-class of this was the practice of calling older women with whom one was friends “Miss Given-Name.” That has pretty much died out. “Miss,” incidently, bore no relation to marital status.
I find it hard to be polite about trump in any way.
There is middle ground between polite (which you don't have to feel to post in Purg) and pissed off (when you should post in Hell.) That's fine. I suppose we are trying to moderate the pissed off border. Something we've always had to do.
And when the issue is the person?
I've just got back from a nice cup of coffee and delicious chocolate served me by a guy who brutally killed three people. That doesn't stop me from calling him by his name. He is more than what he did.
I think this is worthy of a thread of its own.
I would also drink coffee and listen to your prisoner. But trump is in another league entirely - he is the issue for the US. When such a person is in a position of power I see no reason whatever to be polite about their name.
As far as the Purg guideline goes, though, it seems to me to be a required minimum for serious discussion that one is capable of referring dispassionately to the subject. If you (generic you) can't, then I think it's going to be difficult to engage in serious discussion. There are other ways of engaging, but serious discussion isn't one of them.
There are subjects I probably wouldn't engage with because I'd be incapable of doing so without foaming at the mouth; indeed, I think it's public knowledge that hosts can recuse themselves from hosting threads they'd find too difficult for any reason. That's not a value judgement, it's just applied common sense.
I think calling him ‘the current US president’ would fit the bill.
US meaning Uncouth Sort, of course.
You've been offered a range of options to refer to Trump which are neither derogatory nor flattering, they're simply statements of fact. It's been clarified that you are free to refer to his behaviour, defend your analysis of it, and report his statements freely (within the usual limits of the 10Cs, eg libel, etc).
Instead of trying to work with that, you keep coming on this thread and... well, I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Either you're yanking our chains by seeing if you can get away with repeat offending on another board, or you're trying to negotiate. Either way you're doing it wrong. This isn't a euphemism contest.
Do you really think it would help matters if everyone else decided to repeatedly refer to Hillary Clinton as The Loser, or Killary, or Illary, or Crooked Hillary, or Madam Libtard, or whatever? Would that incite you to calling into question your position? Would you see that as nurturing serious discussion?
Chill appears to be in short supply at the moment. Perhaps it has not yet been ported over to the new ship.