A plea for some restraint

AW Admin said:

I am, however, going to ask members to refrain from using language regarding #45 that has me dealing with the Feds, or even potentially dealing with the Feds.

That means no gratuitous insults, obscenities or threats of violence.

Click to expand...

Objection to threats of violence I can understand and agree with, completely. However, "gratuitous insults" and "obscenities" will invite the attention of the Feds?

If we've reached that point, we've already lost the protections of the Constitution.

caw

blacbird said:

Objection to threats of violence I can understand and agree with, completely. However, "gratuitous insults" and "obscenities" will invite the attention of the Feds?

If we've reached that point, we've already lost the protections of the Constitution.

caw

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the line is being drawn.

I've previously referred to Trump as a narcisistic sociopath. Is this now longer allowable?

How about links that involve obscenity -- for example, this one from Patty Lupone via HuffPost:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59426cb9e4b09ad4fbe57f23

(Those offended by vulgar language should not click on the link.)

I'm not being snarky -- the post by Admin seems to suggest that insults of the current president are not acceptable, nor is language that could be considered obscene -- use of the f word, for example. I would appreciate some clarification as to what is acceptable and what is not.

To my mind, Donald Trump is not a normal politician, nor is our current political landscape remotely normal. Being courteous and measured in our speech tends to normalize what's happening, and I personally don't think that's paticularly appropriate.

Suggestions of violence, even in jest, are of course absolutely unacceptable.

I would like some clarification, too. If obscenities are a problem, we could always go back to ****ing out the four letter words from the days of Jenna Glatzer.

blacbird said:

Objection to threats of violence I can understand and agree with, completely. However, "gratuitous insults" and "obscenities" will invite the attention of the Feds?

If we've reached that point, we've already lost the protections of the Constitution.

caw

Click to expand...

This is what I worried about, that they would use the shooting as a mini Reichstag Fire.

If any unhinged asshole with a vaguely leftist manifesto were to cause a mass fatality event murder a bunch of people, Game Over.

ETA: I'm starting to wonder if Special Agents Bailey, Griner and Cabrera not only saved two dozen Congresspeople, but American democracy as we know it.

I also find it deeply concerning if non-violent insults or general lack of respect become conflated with violent threats/support or violence. Though obviously a private forum doesn't have to abide by the first amendment, I think the distinction is very important to recognize, especially when unsanctioned acts like these often result in increased hostility towards peaceful activists and marginalized groups. I'm reminded of how Black Lives Matter has been maligned because of things that BLM organizers never supported, encouraged, or condoned. And considering there are people, including journalists, who are currently facing 75 years in prison on dubious rioting charges because they were in the proximity of inauguration day protests, I think now is a time when we really need to be concerned about preserving civil liberties.

I do think that people need to act and speak responsibly, and that things like fear-mongering can help inflame anger and paranoia in an unproductive way. But most people don't become terrorists, especially in the absence of organized support.

Talk about respecting Trump and other politicians reminds me a little of the religious argument that atheists can't be moral people without God. Just as I don't need to believe in a higher power to have ethics, I don't need to see Trump or these GOP politicians as worthy of respect in order to believe that trying to assassinate them was wrong. They're still human beings, and we still live in a country that's supposed to be built on certain ethics. One of the issues dearest to me is criminal justice/prison reform, and believing in the importance of fair trials and sentencing for people accused of crimes but being okay with people trying to assassinate crooked politicians would be hypocritical.

We should be encouraging empathy and ethics, not respect. Respect isn't always possible, or deserved.

People don't tip the scale and become violent just because someone calls a politician by disrespectful names. They become violent because they're predisposed to it or because they're in a setting where escalating behavior is encouraged. If people start increasingly advocating violence, that's a problem because it normalizes the idea and implies that it's justified. But I haven't seen that happening.

I'm also a little perplexed by the AW Admin's caution. If it's not acceptable to call Trump an "inflamed asshole" is "bloviating buffoon" good to go? Is it the level of crudeness, vulgarity, and explicitness that is going to get this board in trouble or is it simply the sheer volume of sustained disdain, loathing and contempt for the 45th President which is pushing the needle into the red?

Is calling him President Pussygrabber verboten?

I can tone down the vociferousness of my rancor for Trump to ensure the continued existence and smooth functioning (a relative term) of Absolute Write if necessary. However, before I give Trump a piece of my mind here, it would be helpful to know how raw and real I can get when I tell him to go to h-e-double hockey sticks.

Inquiring minds want to know...rulez

AW Admin said:

Basically just try to act with a modicum of sense and please be understanding if I ask you to edit a post. I've already asked three people to refrain from cocksucker wrt to #45, (or in general, anyone) if that helps.

Click to expand...

That seems reasonable.

AW Admin said:

I think so. And I'll ask folks to edit if there's a problem, but I'd rather not have to.

With regard to "pussy grabber" it seems to me that that's a statement of fact, not opinion.

Click to expand...

Braggadocio, too! Don't forget braggadocio!

Something about Trump has a way of bringing out the absolute worst in others. His coarseness, crudeness and generally sleazeball behavior demands a severe response and repudiation. Perhaps if someone had done so when Trump was 17, he wouldn't act the way he does at 71.

Maybe it's how he seems bound and determined to lock down the title of Worst POTUS Ever?

AW Admin said:

Basically just try to act with a modicum of sense and please be understanding if I ask you to edit a post. I've already asked three people to refrain from cocksucker wrt to #45, (or in general, anyone) if that helps.

Click to expand...

That makes more sense to me. Thank you for clarifying. I think the issue with something like "cocksucker" isn't that it's disrespectful of Trump but that it's a word some people find homophobic or degrading in general, which I think is a good distinction for people to keep in mind.

How about pathetic? --s6

No. It is a species of carnivorous houseplant, native to the bogs of Upper Slobovia , although it has naturalized aggressively in Lower Slobovia, which, is, of course one giant bog. It was the cartoonist Al Capp who first ...oh, wait. This isn't the define that weird word thread. --s6

Being the computer age ignoramus that I am, I was surprised, for example, that linking to a Nazi site works two-ways and the eyes of Sauron turn to here if I do that. Of course I'll never do that again, because AW shouldn't have to deal with any hint of crap like that.

Likewise with referring to the prez in ways that may invite the wrong sort of attention. If one wants to lead an insurrection of some sort, or have a space for therapeutic obscenity festivals, I can see how it's best to do so in online places designed especially for this, not in a writer's community.

In theory it may all be about freedom and standing up to this and that, but in practice I support anything that makes it at least slightly easier to keep this site running.

shakeysix said:

No. It is a species of carnivorous houseplant, native to the bogs of Upper Slobovia , although it has naturalized aggressively in Lower Slobovia, which, is, of course one giant bog. It was the cartoonist Al Capp who first ...oh, wait. This isn't the define that weird word thread. --s6

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but I had to look up all those words and your definition beats Dictionary.com by a mile. (Although it took me a minute to get the humor.)

There really is a define this weird word thread. Lots of fun. There are threads and threads of fun in this place. There is a keyboard smash thread; last word first; fortunately, unfortunately thread. Snarkless humor and jollity rule the place. AW is not all politics and it's not all "why I am a genius despite my jealous beta readers spiteful and meaningless crits" oh, and active passive voice debates that turn onerous. --s6