• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Q & A Regarding Our 'No-Politics' Policy

EnolaGaia

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,621
Location
Out of Bounds
Now that there's been a transition in the American presidency there is a question regarding the extent to which mention and / or discussion of the newly-former US President would represent 'politics' of the sort we prohibit from the forum.

To the extent he is cited in relation to a topic lacking partisan / ideological political connection or implication - e.g., the QAnon phenomenon or other conspiracy aspects of his private affairs - it may be fair game so long as the prescribed lack of political connection, implication or innuendo is maintained.

Mentions and / or discussions of partisan / ideological political topics relating to him, his presidency, his policies, the elections in which he was a candidate, his followers, causes or projects to which he gives his attentions and / or his opinions will be judged on a case-by-case basis with:

(a) essentially no chance of their being approved for submission or retention and ...
(b) increased risk of disciplinary sanctions (warnings, etc.) befalling you.
 
Can he be mentioned in terms of pending, possibly imminent, legal issues? It's possible that little or nothing will come of them but they are news worthy in as much as it's not a usual thing to happen to a former US President?
 
Ogdred Weary said:
Can he be mentioned in terms of pending, possibly imminent, legal issues? It's possible that little or nothing will come of them but they are news worthy in as much as it's not a usual thing to happen to a former US President?
Click to expand...

If it relates to conspiracy (e.g., QAnon) or his private (e.g., business) affairs with some Fortean / strangeness angle - maybe.
If it relates to his political activities or his actions while president - probably not.

Phrased another way ... Consider our default stance to be that discussion of Trump is a no-go / non-starter. For any mention of him to survive will require linking the story / situation to something we allow that's not 'political'.
 
NOTE: This and the immediately following posts were copied or moved from:
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): The Disease & Its Spread (Per Se)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...covid-19-the-disease-its-spread-per-se.66968/
-----------------------

Enough (all round).

'Chinavirus' was trawling your coat and waiting for somebody to step on it.

Believe and disbelieve what you like, but don't stir up arguments.

Name-calling will end with formal sanction, regardless of where it came from and where it was aimed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blessmycottonsocks said:
... the Chinavirus ...
Click to expand...

'Chinavirus' is a non-medical / non-technical label of purely political origin used solely for politico-rhetorical purposes. Use of this purely political term is 'political' and 'propaganda' - two things forum rules prohibit.
 
Yithian said:
Enough (all round).

'Chinavirus' was trawling your coat and waiting for somebody to step on it.

Believe and disbelieve what you like, but don't stir up arguments.

Name-calling will end with formal sanction, regardless of where it came from and where it was aimed.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear. Are you referring to ‘Chinavirus’ or ‘Dogwhistle’ as terms we shouldn’t use.... or both?
And if, in future, there is an actual ‘Chinavirus’, like a UK strain or a ‘South Africa Strain’ or a Brazil strain or on top of that a future recognised infogathering chitter chatter medium called Dogwhistling... like Twitter for example... would that also be banned?
 
'Chinavirus' is definitely a prohibited term. It was a label that was never used in a medical or epidemiological context to denote COVID-19. It was coined by an American politician and repeatedly employed as a pejorative term for rhetorical effect - i.e., scoring propaganda points by accusing China of being the source (point of origin) for COVID-19.

The label 'Wuhan coronavirus', on the other hand, was used within medical / epidemiological circles in early 2020 to refer to a new form of coronavirus first identified in Wuhan. In this sense 'Wuhan coronavirus' was the overall working title for a new category of infectious coronavirus, applied in the same way (denoting location of first identification) as would later occur with the sub-categories of (e.g.) 'South Africa variant / strain' and 'UK variant / strain'.

Note the distinction between location of first identification and point of origin. In a widespread outbreak such as this the former serves as a working title facilitating referential specificity whereas the latter may remain a mystery.

This novel coronavirus was eventually formally designated as 'SARS-CoV-2' and 'Coronavirus Disease 2019' (popularly abbreviated as COVID-19 ).
 
So who makes the decision on which historical american political pejorative terms are unsuitable for us to use and what those terms are?
 
EnolaGaia said:
Consider our default stance to be that discussion of Trump is a no-go / non-starter. For any mention of him to survive will require linking the story / situation to something we allow that's not 'political'.
Click to expand...

@Analogue Boy - generalise from the above.

There are many places to post politics. If in doubt, use one of those places.

Staff means staff. We are collegiate and in agreement.
 
Just to be clear. My upthread post was diverted to this thread from another thread where the original context may have been lost and the intended opinion may appear distorted.
 
Just to be clear ... Your upthread post and the rest of the tangent you initiated (along with copies of the prefatory posts setting the context to which you were reacting) were transplanted in their entirety to this more appropriate place for your queries.
 
So my question remains unanswered. Historically, what can we say about the historically recorded utterances of former politicians of the US? Frankly I have no dog in the political fights but I do care a shitload about free speech.
 
Analogue Boy said:
Just to be clear. Are you referring to ‘Chinavirus’ or ‘Dogwhistle’ as terms we shouldn’t use.... or both? ...
Click to expand...

It's the manner of usage as much as the terminology.

Invoking 'Chinavirus' in relation to somebody's rhetorical application of that purely political term (e.g., in discussing a particular incident) could conceivably be fair game (not all that likely, but conceivable).

Adopting the pejorative 'Chinavirus' as a label for COVID-19 is to insert a contemporary 'political' aspect to discussion of the disease.

'Dogwhistle' / 'dog whistle', on the other hand, is political jargon that dates back at least as far as the 1980s and is a widely recognized (if vaguely defined) tactic in political communications and / or campaigning. Allusions to dogwhistles in general may well be fair game, whereas (e.g.) an accusation or ascription of dogwhistles in relation to a particular contemporary political situation would not.
 
Could we, for example, quote JFK or Nixon in historic reference to those particular ‘interesting’ events?
 
Analogue Boy said:
So my question remains unanswered. Historically, what can we say about the historically recorded utterances of former politicians of the US? ...
Click to expand...

First off - there are no special rules or policies pertaining solely to utterances (or actions, etc.) of politicians in the USA versus anywhere else.

The current line in the sand for what is or is not prohibited 'politics' is drawn with primary respect to current / contemporary political events, current affairs, controversies, debates and / or political figures. Secondarily, we frown on general 'political' arguments concerning particular ideologies and entities regardless of their currency.

There's not likely to be a problem with quoting political figures of the past, so long as they're cited with relevance to whatever the topic may be *and* it's not just a back-handed way of inserting or fostering discussion of current affairs / advocacy / controversies of the sorts noted above.
 
EnolaGaia said:
First off - there are no special rules or policies pertaining solely to utterances (or actions, etc.) of politicians in the USA versus anywhere else.

The current line in the sand for what is or is not prohibited 'politics' is drawn with primary respect to current / contemporary political events, current affairs, controversies, debates and / or political figures. Secondarily, we frown on general 'political' arguments concerning particular ideologies and entities regardless of their currency.

There's not likely to be a problem with quoting political figures of the past, so long as they're cited with relevance to whatever the topic may be *and* it's not just a back-handed way of inserting or fostering discussion of current affairs / advocacy / controversies of the sorts noted above.
Click to expand...
That’s a good clarification.
 
All due respect, I don't mean to take sides here, etc, but this reminds me of what I thought was a brilliant response from a blogger I used to follow. A commenter on one of his posts used the term "Chinaman" for which the blogger called him out. An argument ensued along the lines of well what about Irishman, and so on. Instead of getting dragged into a discussion of pejorative use, the obvious fact that Irishmen often refer to themselves that way, he just said: "It's English, not math."

For my part, I think the lines are clear enough, and erring on the side of caution does no one's civil rights any harm in this context. I like the fact that we are not bombarded with opinions about politics here. There's plenty of that all over everywhere. It ain't what this place is about.
 
Analogue Boy said:
That’s a good clarification.
Click to expand...

Thanks ... It's a murky area which defies application of hard and fast boundaries and boundary conditions. To some extent we (the staff) are, and always will be, navigating with a compass akin to what a US Supreme Court justice once said about defining pornography - "I know it when I see it."
 
Thanks. There are plenty of places on the web to argue politics. Fine with me that this isn't one of them. I can't imagine the relevance of an utterance of a former president of the US to this site unless he said something intelligent about UFO's. Also, as a mercy to the American posters it would be nice to have the default not to mention Trump at all. Just on this one little place on the internet.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Thanks ... It's a murky area which defies application of hard and fast boundaries and boundary conditions. To some extent we (the staff) are, and always will be, navigating with a compass akin to what a US Supreme Court justice once said about defining pornography - "I know it when I see it."
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you and the other mods get together to watch pornography?
 
Austin Popper said:
All due respect, I don't mean to take sides here, etc, but this reminds me of what I thought was a brilliant response from a blogger I used to follow. A commenter on one of his posts used the term "Chinaman" for which the blogger called him out.
Click to expand...

Context is almost everything, almost always.

(Applicability of this doctrine applies according to context).

Slow left-arm wrist-spin doesn't cut it for me.
 
Yithian said:
Context is almost everything, almost always.

(Applicability of this doctrine applies according to context).

Slow left-arm wrist-spin doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...

In my 4 decades of playing cricket, I have never once heard any player use the term "Chinaman".
It was named after a West Indian spin bowler of Chinese descent Ellis Achong, but I think the term fell into disuse after the demise of the late great Johnners.

As for accusations of "dogwhistling", it strikes me as a rather shabby attempt to stifle or shout down any discussion that goes against the accuser's preferred narrative and, as such, should not be encouraged on a (comparatively) open forum such as this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top