[Suggestion] Should unqualified Trump-support be a bannable offense?

Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by woweed, Nov 24, 2018.

  1. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    Now, hear me out here: I don't think anyone can disagree that quite a few of Trump's public statements would, if stated on this forum, violate our rules quite egregiously. "Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists." "We should create a Muslim registry." ETC. Thus, I would argue that UNQUALIFIED support from his man or his administration, implies endorsement of said statements, much as support of Gamergate implies support of the sexism that is a vital part of it. Thus, unqualified support of this man's administration should, in my opinion, be a bannable offense. You can still support Trump's policies, of course, but support of the man himself would imply support his frankly terrifying-bigoted sentiments. I recognize this may be an unpopular opinion, but that's what I think. Your thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  2. SaveAtlacamani Napoleon the Red Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Location:
    United Humanities of Germany
    It already is an offence for which you can get kicked. And banned in cases of recidivism. I don't think we have to tighten the rules, but I do support keeping them up and penalising any unqualified support of Trump (or of any other racist, sexist etc.)
     
    King_Arthur likes this.
  3. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    I have to come in and say just how I find the very idea to be an absolute abhorrence to my moral beliefs. There are simply such an incredibly large number of problems I see with this; first, what's the difference between a Qualified and Unqualified supporter? Second, the difference of wording between I support his policies and I support him is too small to warrant a ban and a difference new members will not know. Finally, though Trump is a disgusting troll monster of a human being, the idea that a person should be actively punished for a political opinion goes against everything I believe.

    I believe there are good and bad people in every group, there are good pro-lifers and good pro-choicers, good republicans and good democrats, etc. It is how I have learned in recent years to no longer care about politics. But banning an entire group of people for the sole reason of "They support a pile of shit in Human skin" is not something I can get behind. If they are truly deserving of a ban, wait; they will eventually show their true colors and if they don't then there is no problem. I'm not American, I hated both Hillary and Trump, but my idea of what defines Freedom of Speech tells me I have to speak up now.

    However, at the end of the day, this is a private site and Ian doesn't really need our agreement or opinions to change things. This seems like the kind of rule this site would love to implement and I can only hope that if it does get put in that no one good gets banned for such a bullshit reason.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
    JRogyRogy, Philip, TheKutKu and 17 others like this.
  4. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    In order:
    By "unqualified", I mean making a blanket statement in support of Trump, which would be assumed to mean support of his polices. Supporting specific polices of his, that aren't themselves bigoted, is fine. You can like his economic or foreign policy and the like. Supporting his polices AS A WHOLE is not.
    Also, we punish people for political opinions all the time here. I mean, putting aside stuff like Neo-Nazis and other White Supremacists, we also banned people for support of misogynistic hate mobs like Gamergate. I don't see why this is any different.

    Ultimately, politics is about morality, and, when one candidate moves this far beyond the pale of basic human decency, we should stop him.
     
    Isfendil likes this.
  5. Md139115 Bring back the Inquisition!

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Location:
    Secret Catholic World Domination Conference
    Trump is obviously sexist, amoral, and bigoted, such that anyone coming in here shouting “Hail Trump!” is probably going to be kicked deservedly already.

    What worries me about what you suggest, namely a formal codification of what is already common practice, could later be used as justification for expanding the brief beyond Trump, the man, to larger groups and organizations. Namely the Republican Party as a whole. I doubt that you see this as anything more than this:

    But I’m worried that others may go slippery slope with it.
     
  6. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    Yes, but this is entirely a different matter. Neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists, and Gamergate are hate groups. Surely you aren't saying Trump Supporters should count as a hate group?
     
    King_Arthur and Zagan like this.
  7. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    ...You could make a strong case. There were some good people in Gamergate too, but the whole movement was built on rotten foundations. If you continue to support it despite that...
     
    Isfendil likes this.
  8. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    Hey now, don't reword me, I didn't and don't support Gamergate, they are a hate group, period. At the end of the day I could understand a rule like this on a well moderated forum, but if we're being honest here, alternatehistory.com is not well moderated. The mods often use dubious reasons to kick people, what is suggested here is already a de facto rule, people are kicked all the time for stuff like this. Making it a full on rule will only encourage even worse acts of mod abuse; if someone can't handle the power they have without bias, you shouldn't give them more power.
     
    King_Arthur likes this.
  9. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    ...Not touching that.
     
  10. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    The idea that you don't even want to comment on the way the mods handle this site speaks volumes
     
  11. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    Nah, I just have a feeling things are not about to go well for you.
     
    nbcman likes this.
  12. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    Probably, like I said, the moderators here aren't good at being unbiased; I do agree that they likely will implement this stupid idea, but it will just be another thing wrong with the board. If I'm willing to put up with all the terrible things already here, it goes to show I'll put up with anything. I've done my part and can sleep soundly knowing I at least tried to keep things fair, equal, and morally right here.
     
  13. January First-of-May Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    This is pretty much my main problem with that idea. We're sure to have some people who think Trump is actually kind of nice, meh, could've been worse, and it could easily be a single badly phrased statement that could get them banned.
    (Also, yes, slippery slope. I'd expect the immediate next target to be Israel rather than the Republicans though; it is already an even more common practice for Israel than for Trump.)

    A member consistently, egregiously, and unqualifiedly (...is that a word?) supporting just about anyone (with possible exceptions for widely popular figures and/or AH.com mods) would indeed probably get banned (or at least kicked) sooner or later anyway; we ended up banning an egregious Fillmore supporter a while back, and there's a lot less Fillmore haters than Trump haters around.
     
    ToaKraka, Evan, damein fisher and 3 others like this.
  14. Mustard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    This is a terrible suggestion and, if implemented, would be blatant censorship which could have serious ramifications for freedom of speech on this forum (I know that many will say 'Ian's site, Ian's rules', but for a forum centred on discussion, then I'd argue that the ability to speak your mind ought to be sacrosanct).
     
  15. nbcman Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    You have the freedom to speak your mind on the forum however you also have to face the consequences of speaking your mind. There is nothing on the board that prevents you from hitting post reply regardless of what you put in your post.
     
    The Professor and Isfendil like this.
  16. Mustard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    That's quite a contradiction there - if you face repercussions for what you say, then by definition you do not have freedom of speech.
     
  17. Mad Bad Rabbit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    "Freedom of Speech" means the repercussions aren't death or imprisonment. Other people are still free to change their attitude and behavior towards you, based on whether they like or dislike your speech. Unless you have mind-control powers, you cannot escape those repercussions.
     
  18. nbcman Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Try this for freedom of speech. Tell your significant other that the pants they are wearing make them look bad. Or you parents that they don’t know anything. Will you face repercussions?
     
  19. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    Also, this forum is not a government. It can kick you out for anything. It's less like a country and more like a grocery store, that can kick you out if you're being disruptive.
     
    nbcman likes this.
  20. Mustard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    In the context of an internet forum, a 'kick' and a 'ban' might as well be 'imprisonment' and 'death' respectively. So my point still stands - if a Trump supporter were to make a post in chat declaring his support for the president and a mod swooped in and punished him, that would be censorship.

    I meant 'repercussions' in the legal sense (fine, imprisonment, etc.), not in the physical sense. I have no problem with someone being questioned on their views once they have said it - that is what a debate is called.

    First off, a government can imprison you for whatever it wants, if it chooses to introduce the legislation to do so. Secondly, I don't think your analogy works well - the purpose of a grocery store is to sell products, so if someone is doing something contrary to its aim then of course they should be removed from the premises. But the purpose of a forum like this is for discussion, and the purpose of chat in particular is political discussion, so introducing a blanket ban on a political belief runs contrary to its aims.