Politics: Defaming public figures

Is this kind of stuff allowed on the forum? Alright, let's get into it. Thinking about writing about a public figure, specifically a politician?

This post is basically a green light for Beus to sue this forum for defamation, along with that guy over there. Honestly? He really ought to do it.

Look at this popping up again. It’s coming straight from the top of the Democratic Party headquarters. You've got Emir Tahirović (Edhem's old man) leading the charge, but the real story is Goran Beus Richemberg. Back in the day, he was known to the FBI by the codenames Odysseus and the Young Communist League, dating all the way back to '86. He was even running point with Ognjen Ignjatović, who eventually became a big-time official in the Republic of Texas. Back when we were still part of the USA, the guy was a self-proclaimed Mexican, an FBI asset, and a hardcore Communist. Fast forward to today, and suddenly he’s rebranded himself as a liberal, a Democrat, and a representative of some German minority group. Talk about a pivot.

I get how people try to sneak in links to those trashy Fox News pieces just to spread garbage, but posting a comment without a link that uses an anonymous handle to drag someone's name through the mud like this? That shouldn't be allowed. Not to mention the blatant hate speech being thrown around here—claiming his only "crime" was identifying as a Mexican back when we were part of the USA. And of course, they even lowercase "mexican," because apparently, that's just how polite Americans act now. 😁 😵

Since I keep seeing posts like this popping up constantly, can someone clarify if this kind of stuff is actually allowed? Just want to know if we should be flagging these or if they're staying. It’s pretty wild seeing one of the moderators jumping into the debate on this thread at the same time, too.

Thanks for the reply.

Look, the Forum isn't particularly worried about lawsuits—that part isn't the issue—but provocative posts (even those targeting public figures) and citations from tabloid media really ought to be reported. Such clutter only serves to degrade the quality of our discussions and the overall integrity of the threads.

William Bennett53 said:Look, the Forum isn't really worried about lawsuits—that part isn't the issue. But those provocative posts (even regarding public figures) and quoting trashy tabloid media definitely needs to be reported. That kind of junk just ruins the discussions and the quality of the threads.

Which ones are "trashy media" exactly? Is there an official list? For you, maybe Fox News or some sensationalist rag counts.
For me, it’s the local papers, NBC, and all those others funded by US taxpayers.
Does this mean moderators get to decide on a whim which outlets are considered "junk" and then punish people for quoting them??
Being objective, there are very few media outlets in America that actually write critically against this administration. Are we going to automatically label those outlets as "trash" and start banning users who quote them? Are we moving toward censorship and policing speech on this forum by punishing critical posts??
Also, northerntiger opened a thread she already closed for the second time now. According to the rules, that’s a punishable offense, but clearly, some people think the rules don't apply to everyone.

Look, I’m really not trying to jump into the middle of this whole debate, but I just felt like I had to weigh in on what "kitsch" actually means to me. To me, it’s basically this way of expressing stuff that leans hard into those raw, base impulses—you know, things like sex or violence—where nobody’s really sweating the small stuff when it comes to morality or having good taste. Like, sure, you’ve got your typical kitsch, like cheap adult films, low-budget horror flicks, mindless soap operas, or those trashy tabloids you see at the grocery store checkout. But then, if you want to get deep about it, even someone like Shakespeare can fall into that category depending on how you look at it (just go watch the movie Titus). 😁

Oh, please, let’s not get sidetracked by trivialities right now...
granitefalcon26, everyone tends to read exactly what they want to read. I don't believe there is anything of actual substance on, say, Fox News, but if we use a bit of a euphemism, they do deal in rather dubious matters. It isn't that other media outlets are inherently biased against the truth, but when dealing with those who frequently slip up, one ought to exercise a bit more caution.

Here are two examples just to make my point clearer:

So yes, for users who lack any semblance of their own critical filters, the moderators will continue to serve as the primary filter.

William Bennett53 said:Oh man, let’s not get into an argument about the sun right now, please...
granitefalcon26, look, people read whatever they want. I don't think there's anything truly valuable on, say, Fox News, but to put it mildly, they deal in some pretty shady stuff. I'm not saying other outlets are biased against it, but when you're dealing with sources that slip up this often, you really have to be a bit more careful.

Here are two examples just to make my point clearer:

So yeah, for users who don't have any personal filters of their own, the moderators will still have to act as the filter.

Now you're taking it to the extreme. All I can say is that I've always posted articles from Fox News in the politics section and I've never once been flagged. There's always another side to the story, so go ahead and try to prove me wrong. That's the whole point of this Forum.😉

Is there any point in even attempting to engage with such a user? One finds oneself staring at a blank screen, wondering if there was ever a coherent thought behind that handle to begin with. Does anyone else feel this persistent sense of futility when encountering these types of profiles, or am I simply alone in my skepticism? kaže:
Now you’re taking things to an extreme. I can only say that I have always been a frequent reader of the political columns over at the New York Times, and I have never once been flagged for misconduct. There is always another side to every story, so please, feel free to challenge my position with your best counterarguments. After all, isn't that the entire purpose of a forum?😉

That is precisely my point: you aren't going to get flagged without cause. These restrictions are designed for those who haven't already followed the rules. Since we are in agreement on this, I’ll simply suggest that we refrain from moving the conversation over to a private chat.