Political content doesn't mean political discussion

[jutfrank]

Nobody's asked for my opinion but I'll give it anyway.

I strongly dislike the forum rule that users may not post language with political content. The point of posting is to ask about use of language, not to make a political statement. I find it rather sad that any grown-up members of the forum would consider enquiries about use of language 'inflammatory'.

Having said that, I very much appreciate the rule that political discussion be avoided on the forum. This certainly is no place for it.

[kadioguy]

I take your point but the fastest way for us to get rid of potentially inflammatory content is simply to delete it. Yes, the mod could have taken the time to copy the contents of the post, save it, paste it into a PM and send it to you with an explanation, but we shouldn't really have to do that. If users simply avoided posting such content in the first place, we wouldn't need to do anything similar, nor would we need to be having this conversation!

That's true, but I really don't think that the content I quoted in my post was inflammatory. It was about "Your President will continue to put the People first". That was positive (no pun intended) and inspiring. Having read the rule in the general rules, before I had posted my post, I didn't think it violated the rule.

Plus, there's a first time for everything. This is the first time I have been in this situation. So I would wish that the moderator could have taken a little time to make a copy of the contents, and send it to me with an explanation. If this was the second time or more, then just delete my post. I wouldn't say a word.

[Piscean]

the fastest way for us to get rid of potentially inflammatory content is simply to delete it.

Given that the mods and some senior members are so insistent on source and context being given, it is perhaps not surprising that kadioguy should give too much of a quote rather than too little.

Given also that kadioguy has no history of posting threads about poliitics, and that his post was clearly a question about language, would it not have been simpler, and almost as quick, for a mod to delete the unnecessary words , allowing a valid question to remain?

If users simply avoided posting such content in the first place, we wouldn't need to do anything similar, nor would we need to be having this conversation!

I agree wholeheartedly with jutfrank: "I strongly dislike the forum rule that users may not post language with political content. The point of posting is to ask about use of language, not to make a political statement. I find it rather sad that any grown-up members of the forum would consider enquiries about use of language 'inflammatory'."

[emsr2d2]

The reason I used "potentially inflammatory" was not because the content itself is politically touchy. It was because I have been on the forum long enough to see that almost any post with political content can cause a raft of responses that definitely aren't to do with language.

[tzfujimino]

Well, I'd like to see the post in question - the link provided by Rover doesn't work for me.

Tweeting, in my opinion, is like writing song lyrics - there should be some room for creativity. What we should discuss is not the grammaticality but interpretation(s) of the particular phrasing used there. However, during the course of the discussion, someone might question its quality and say it's plain wrong. It's quite possible the tweeter (Kayleigh McEnany, in this case) might take it as a defamatory/an inflammatory remark.

I need to see the post first, but I'm inclined to think that it was the right decision for a moderator to make.

The issue here is that we don't know her true intention.

[Piscean]

The reason I used "potentially inflammatory" was not because the content itself is politically touchy. It was because I have been on the forum long enough to see that almost any post with political content can cause a raft of responses that definitely aren't to do with language.

So, do you believe that if a member posts a question such as

I saw in this sentence in an article by Sy Kofant in the Erewhon Gazette of 31 April 2021: "President Donald Trump is undoubtedly the most magnificent Precedent the United States has ever known. He should be added to Mount Rushmore". I think the writer probably meant 'President', but is 'Precedent' possible?

it should be deleted because it might cause a raft of responses that definitely aren't to do with language?

[Rover_KE]

I do, but I'd PM the poster with a response. On reflection, that's what I should have done in the present case.

[Tarheel]

I'm not in favor of political commentary of any kind. One, there are places for that. Two, the discussion can quickly get out of hand.

(As it is some posters seem to assume that everybody agrees with their opinion.)

[Charlie Bernstein]

This is as good a place as any to answer the question. The author of the tweet doesn't know the rules of capitalization. He uses it to emphasize a word.

Exactly. Always remember that native English speakers often don't have flawless writing skills, spelling skills, or grammar.

That's why it's better to study writing that has been edited. Editors correct writers' mistakes.

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . Tweeting, in my opinion, is like writing song lyrics - there should be some room for creativity. . . .

The problem isn't creativity. The problem is that Kadio was trying to learn English from unedited writing. That's bound to lead to confusion.