Civility in politics threads: Bushtard.

January 11, 2002 6:26 PM

Bushtard? I'm not a fan of Bush, but this is really getting old. Any suggestions for how to discourage this method of posting?
posted by jheiz to Etiquette/Policy at 6:26 PM (7 comments total)

Laughing behind hands, civil discourse and benign neglect in anticipation of a yanked post or a belated epiphany on the part of the poster that this lamely lamely worded thing is going to be here forever. And even trolls have a place in the greater e-cology.
posted by y2karl at 6:33 PM on January 11, 2002

Pointless thread, the nepotism angle being discussed in the past several times, and the trolling description. It has been removed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:40 PM on January 11, 2002

Good catch, skallas. I was on my way here for the same reason.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:54 PM on January 11, 2002

"Its back" because this particular blogger seems to have a little trouble handling time-outs.

Now, if you little rascals could attempt to debate and/or comment on the issue, rather than merely whine "troll", perhaps we'd get somewhere. And personally, I find highly significant the fact that the "nepotism angle" actually resulted in President Bushtard making his little payment on this particular Friday...regardless of prior Mefi conjecture about it.

But hey, them's as haves the gold makes the rules.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:31 PM on January 11, 2002

And let's see... "Bush is an ignorant hick" is cool and "Meet his Royal Majesty King Bush the Shameless" is fine and the endless Clinton name-calling is OK with the right wing here, but a little humorous look at Bush's legitimacy ala "Bushtard" is not.

Bushtard ala "bastard." You may be aware that a bastard is "illegitimate". Not Bushtard as in "retard", for heaven's sake. Although if the shoe fits...

Ok, I guess we've all got the complete picture now.


posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:51 PM on January 11, 2002

fold_and_mutiliate: multiple wrongs do not make rights, the other comments were just as stupid.

What's more:
Now, if you little rascals could attempt to debate and/or comment on the issue, rather than merely whine "troll"

Your post was dripping in sarcasm and made use of silly name-calling -- and you expected debate?

I have an extremely low opinion of Bush's administration, and could have made the same points you were trying to make without the trolling.

What you are asking for, when you post what you posted, is not debate, but a flame war. You're begging for similar name-calling and caustic responses.

You can't seriously tell me you don't see that? You expect people to respond to "bushtard" with "Well, actually, I think the appointments were perfectly acceptable, because...".

Sure.


posted by malphigian at 9:05 PM on January 11, 2002

"Its back" because this particular blogger seems to have a little trouble handling time-outs.
Translation: I can do anything I want, as often as I want, and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me. Didn't our good friend PrivateParts talk like that?
posted by darukaru at 9:10 PM on January 11, 2002