Hillary will likely run in 2020 according to her advisor

Post Reply New Topic

There is an exception made for public officials so there could be an exception made for Nazis or Trump supporters(not equating them myself but many here and elsewhere do) I suppose.

There is an exception made for public officials so there could be an exception made for Nazis or Trump supporters(not equating them myself but many here and elsewhere do) I suppose.

Trump supporters are not "public officials".

I'm not a full-fledge Trump supporter. I regularly make negative posts about Trump.

However, my mom is a Trump supporter, and several WP users are too.

It can't be right to insult these people, and diminish them to "deplorables".

It's stating what has generally been known about Trump supporters since Hillary raised it over two years ago, and it's certainly right to "insult" them for the same reason that it's right to "insult" nazis as deplorables. If this discussion were in 1934 (two years after Hitler took power, but before the book burnings, before Kristallnacht and before the Holocaust) I suppose you'd be whining about me "insulting" the nazis as deplorables as well. And for anyone who supports Trump after his numerous acts of intimidation against other religions and races, after his legitimization of nazis and other fascists at Charlottesville and after his imprisonment of children in concentration camp cages and throwing paper towels at Puerto Ricans, being labeled "deplorable" is the very least of the labels for which they should be concerned. There is a very wide variety of profane terminology that is applicable to such as them.

And it's not against the rules.

It's stating what has generally been known about Trump supporters since Hillary raised it over two years ago, and it's certainly right to "insult" them for the same reason that it's right to "insult" nazis as deplorables. If this discussion were in 1934 (two years after Hitler took power, but before the book burnings, before Kristallnacht and before the Holocaust) I suppose you'd be whining about me "insulting" the nazis as deplorables as well. And for anyone who supports Trump after his numerous acts of intimidation against other religions and races, after his legitimization of nazis and other fascists at Charlottesville and after his imprisonment of children in concentration camp cages and throwing paper towels at Puerto Ricans, being labeled "deplorable" is the very least of the labels for which they should be concerned. There is a very wide variety of profane terminology that is applicable to such as them.

And it's not against the rules.

The rule is for PP&R, but even if it included News & Current Events (very much a reach) it still wouldn't apply. The rule says: "It is acceptable to say that Republicanism, Liberalism, Christianity, Islam are stupid but not acceptable to make generalised attacks saying that Republicans, Liberals, Christians or Muslims are morons." You'll notice that the example are all of legitimate, mainstream groups - not extremists like Nazis, white power supremacists, Trumpkins and the like. Question: would you report a post that labeled Nazis as deplorables? If not, then you have no argument. And you didn't have one in the first place.

Trump supporters are not "public officials".

I'm not a full-fledge Trump supporter. I regularly make negative posts about Trump.

However, my mom is a Trump supporter, and several WP users are too.

It can't be right to insult these people, and diminish them to "deplorables".

As the rules are currently written it is against them to say Nazi supporters are deplorable. An argument can and probably should be made that an exception should be made because their core political beliefs involve killing people that WP has listed as protected.

At the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump entered the stage through a cloud of fog to Queen's "We Are the Champions." On Friday night in Miami, he may have out-done that dramatic entrance when his campaign projected an image behind his podium of the "Les Deplorables" meme, which originated on The_Donald subreddit. This time, the entrance music was "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from the musical Les Misérables. Many of Trump's most fervent fans have embraced the "basket of deplorables" label placed on them by Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser last weekend. Now, it appears the candidate has done the same. “Welcome to all of you deplorables,” he said at the top of his remarks.

Trump walks out to Les Miserables song with "Les Deplorables" sign behind him pic.twitter.com/8FGLKL3TU5
— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) September 16, 2016

How is it personal when it's not directed at any particular person?

Further, it's simply proper use of an accurate adjective.

Did you not see the definition of "deplorable," posted a couple pages ago?

For reference:

While in ppr it’s not limited to ppr it even mentions haven
Also news and current events has basically become ppr2
You and others have no issue reporting anyone who says liberals are ____ or democrats are ____
Well the rules go both ways.
PPR Forum Guidelines. Updated July 2012. August 2016 update follows below.

These guidelines are based on the site rules and terms of service and also on previous moderator precedence. The site is first and foremost a support site. Regarding moderation of members’ posts the site is treated as though it has three categories and each category is treated slightly differently:

1. PPR
This is a special forum. It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines. It is more or less freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else. People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc. Just because some members may belong to a particular religion (or atheism) or political party, does not exclude it from debate. If people want to criticize atheism that is fine. Criticise Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, Confucianism, Judaism, Satanism, Scientology etc all fine too.

Protected groups.
The site rules DO protect a few groups. So it is not acceptable to make posts that attack based on (a) gender, (b) race or (c) sexual orientation.
a) So creating sexist threads is not acceptable. It would be acceptable to discuss sexism itself however, for example regarding the glass ceiling in job promotions faced by many women or other social issues associated with sexism.
b) Creating threads attacking black people (or any other colour) is not acceptable. However, it is quite acceptable to discuss issues regarding racial tensions and racism itself. So there would be no problem debating why race riots occurred somewhere, but it would not be acceptable to say that a particular race smells bad or are stupid.
c) Creating threads referring to fa***ts or making offensive remarks about people who are gay, lesbian, queer, transgender etc is not acceptable. It is acceptable to debate sexuality itself and the reasons why some people are not heterosexual. It is also acceptable to talk about gay lifestyles and culture etc, though that is perhaps better done in the LGBT forum.

One final point on these protected groups. While threads can be made discussing "around" sexism, race and sexual orientation, if a member creates a significant number of threads about these topics it may start to look like he has an *agenda* i.e. is pushing the rules a bit too close to the edge attempting to provoke or belittle these groups; in which case moderators will intervene.

Other groups of people.
While it is acceptable to attack and debate beliefs (political, religious etc) it is not acceptable to make generalised attacks on the adherents of those beliefs. It is acceptable to say that Republicanism, Liberalism, Christianity, Islam are stupid but not acceptable to make generalised attacks saying that Republicans, Liberals, Christians or Muslims are morons. You could say that some of these people are stupid because of (reason) but not make generalised attacks on groups of people. Similarly you could not say "Christians are morons" or "Muslims are terrorists" or "People on welfare are bums". Confine your attacks to the beliefs and politics, not the people holding them. The one exception to this is public figures themselves – by the very nature of their roles they are personally open to criticism.

Personal attacks.
Posters must refrain from making personal attacks. Do not call people stupid or a***holes etc for not agreeing with you. You are allowed to think this - moderators aren't the thought police! Just don't express it in your posts! Attack the opinion not the poster. Personal attacks are a slightly fuzzy area because criticising someone's political or religious beliefs could be interpreted by some as a personal attack (but moderators do not consider it such) similarly it is easy to insinuate that someone is stupid for having various opinions but frankly the moderators don't have the time or inclination to wade through every post looking for sarcastic comments! Provided people don't get too out of hand this forum is given a wide scope for debate; which frankly is what the members themselves want here, not moderators stepping in all the time censoring their opinions.

2. The other forums (excluding PPR and The Haven)
Here the emphasis is on members sharing information, mutual support, general chit-chat and socialising. These forums are more heavily moderated than PPR and the rules applied more strictly. Moderators are the door-keepers to keep the party running smooth and any trouble makers kept in check. The same thread that can happily exist in PPR would not be allowed to exist in the Random forum for example. Hot topics of debate belong in PPR.

3. The Haven.
The Haven is protected more than any other forum on this site, so if someone is in distress and posts there it is for help and support from other members, not to debate with him/her about their religion or atheism. Trying to persuade an atheist to pray to God or Jesus for support is not appropriate in the Haven, similarly attacking a believers religious views in the Haven is not appropriate either.

The rule is for PP&R, but even if it included News & Current Events (very much a reach) it still wouldn't apply. The rule says: "It is acceptable to say that Republicanism, Liberalism, Christianity, Islam are stupid but not acceptable to make generalised attacks saying that Republicans, Liberals, Christians or Muslims are morons." You'll notice that the example are all of legitimate, mainstream groups - not extremists like Nazis, white power supremacists, Trumpkins and the like. Question: would you report a post that labeled Nazis as deplorables? If not, then you have no argument. And you didn't have one in the first place.