President Joe Biden has defended the right to free speech but says “order must prevail” on college campuses where pro-Palestinian protests are happening.
They’re not insulting or demeaning labels, they’re facts. Donald Trump is a felon. Joe Biden is complicit in authoritarian war crimes and genocide, and is quashing public dissent with state force. You know, like a fascist.
What’s disturbing, and definitely not nice, is having staff here defend these people from criticism. Slaughtering children isn’t nice. Calling it out is.
These are public figures who directly engage in hurting others as a matter of course.
To clarify as another Beehaw user, are “fascist” and “felon” in fact being objected to here, or only the use of “fuck” as a noun/name?
I easily understand the latter as name-calling, as it’s purely an invective, but the former 2 don’t make sense to me as being violations of Bee Nice.
That seems to be veering into the realm of toxic positivity, if we can’t call a person doing fascistic things a fascist, or a person doing felonious things a felon.
You could’ve made an argument that the “fuck” part of “fascist fuck” was name calling and uncalled for… But your doubling down on the “fascist” part isn’t “be(e)-ing nice”, it is using a bully pulpit to push your own views and opinions.
I want to be clear that I am being completely sincere when I ask, does this mean that saying “Joe Biden is acting like a fascist autocrat”, is ok, but applying it as a title, as in “Joe Biden the Fascist Autocrat” is not?
If so, I will hew to that distinction, but I want to be perfectly clear about the actual expectations; if the former is also an issue, I would like to know that now.
I understand that the Spirit of the Rules is meant to avoid generally drawing these kind of hard lines, because that allows bad-actors to attack community members and at-risk groups by toeing the line of rules, but Joe Biden is neither a community member nor part of an at-risk group, and being required to Bee Nice to Joe Biden as though he were (going off of a Spirit of the Rules interpretation), feels uncomfortably close to not being allowed to criticize the arguably single most powerful and advantaged person in the world (especially since he is currently being criticized for the harm he’s doing to at-risk groups).
…does this mean that saying “Joe Biden is acting like a fascist autocrat”, is ok, but applying it as a title, as in “Joe Biden the Fascist Autocrat” is not?
In my opinion, yes. However, this is something that I would want to discuss with the other administrators/moderators in order to reach a conclusion.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
That’s what we, at Beehaw, don’t want. It is not nice.
They’re not insulting or demeaning labels, they’re facts. Donald Trump is a felon. Joe Biden is complicit in authoritarian war crimes and genocide, and is quashing public dissent with state force. You know, like a fascist.
What’s disturbing, and definitely not nice, is having staff here defend these people from criticism. Slaughtering children isn’t nice. Calling it out is.
These are public figures who directly engage in hurting others as a matter of course.
Show me where Beehaw staff have defended anyone from criticism.
The subject at hand is name-calling. It is not nice.
The subject that you keep reiterating is current events and politics.
Do you understand the difference?
I’m going to be frank. Your response to this thread is a huge red flag for me, and it makes me much less comfortable being here.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I did not intend for anyone to be uncomfortable.
To clarify as another Beehaw user, are “fascist” and “felon” in fact being objected to here, or only the use of “fuck” as a noun/name?
I easily understand the latter as name-calling, as it’s purely an invective, but the former 2 don’t make sense to me as being violations of Bee Nice.
That seems to be veering into the realm of toxic positivity, if we can’t call a person doing fascistic things a fascist, or a person doing felonious things a felon.
Labeling Joe Biden as a ‘fascist’ is name-calling. Whether or not he is, truly, a fascist is not what is being addressed here.
Beehaw is a space that strives to be(e) nice apart from the thousands of Internet spaces that could care less.
You could’ve made an argument that the “fuck” part of “fascist fuck” was name calling and uncalled for… But your doubling down on the “fascist” part isn’t “be(e)-ing nice”, it is using a bully pulpit to push your own views and opinions.
I want to be clear that I am being completely sincere when I ask, does this mean that saying “Joe Biden is acting like a fascist autocrat”, is ok, but applying it as a title, as in “Joe Biden the Fascist Autocrat” is not?
If so, I will hew to that distinction, but I want to be perfectly clear about the actual expectations; if the former is also an issue, I would like to know that now.
I understand that the Spirit of the Rules is meant to avoid generally drawing these kind of hard lines, because that allows bad-actors to attack community members and at-risk groups by toeing the line of rules, but Joe Biden is neither a community member nor part of an at-risk group, and being required to Bee Nice to Joe Biden as though he were (going off of a Spirit of the Rules interpretation), feels uncomfortably close to not being allowed to criticize the arguably single most powerful and advantaged person in the world (especially since he is currently being criticized for the harm he’s doing to at-risk groups).
In my opinion, yes. However, this is something that I would want to discuss with the other administrators/moderators in order to reach a conclusion.