Travolta giving his 707 to museum

Tarheelpilot said:
What did she do?
Click to expand...

She made a Trump severed head prop that was covered in fake blood. Took a picture with it and posted it online.

It got bad press and her employers decided to sack her to distance themselves from the PR nightmare.
 
ARFlyer said:
She made a Trump severed head prop that was covered in fake blood. Took a picture with it and posted it online.

It got bad press and her employers decided to sack her to distance themselves from the PR nightmare.
Click to expand...

Correct.

And as a friendly reminder to the board (not referring to anyone in particular), let's not let this topic get political. IOW, no commentary on whether the act itself (or responses) were acceptable.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct.

And as a friendly reminder to the board (not referring to anyone in particular), let's not let this topic get political. IOW, no commentary on whether the act itself (or responses) were acceptable.
Click to expand...

Please do not think that discussing the act or the responses are political discussions. They are not. The act was one of depravity. Now discussing her "motivations" or her "beliefs" about POTUS that led her to do it would possibly be political. However discussing the act itself and the responses to it would not be.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Please do not think that discussing the act or the responses are political discussions. They are not. The act was one of depravity. Now discussing her "motivations" or her "beliefs" about POTUS that led her to do it would possibly be political. However discussing the act itself and the responses to it would not be.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but we also know where those discussions tend to go, especially when polarizing political figures are involved.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Fair point, but we also know where those discussions tend to go, especially when polarizing political figures are involved.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand that but to stifle a conversation and/or ban someone due to where the conversation could lead rather than where it is currently is an overreach in my opinion.

Without going into a political discourse, I am not a big fan of our current leader and I poked fun of him before myself for something he said. I would have poked fun of anyone who said what he did regardless of who they were or their political affiliation. However I find the bloody head picture to be way out of bounds. I say that not as someone with a particular political belief but as someone with at least a shred of decency.

It seems that we can poke fun at each other, celebrities, AOPA, EAA, FAA and practically anyone else in the news for what they say and do but when we do so at a politician, it is deemed political and forbidden. Seems a bit ridiculous.

I appreciate what the mod team tries to do but sometimes I do question how it is applied and the judgment behind it.

Rant off.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Oh, I understand that but to stifle a conversation and/or ban someone due to where the conversation could lead rather than where it is currently is an overreach in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Nobody gets banned for what they "could" do, only for what actions have been taken. Reminders are regularly placed into threads before they get out of hand if a topic comes up that is highly charged and can head political. Like it or not, it's based off experience that, well, threads head that way regularly. You may not see it because 1) you don't see the reports that come in and 2) those threads are typically deleted, or at least certain posts deleted.

Your points are noted. We also don't ban people for disagreeing with the MC.
 
ARFlyer said:
She made a Trump severed head prop that was covered in fake blood. Took a picture with it and posted it online.

It got bad press and her employers decided to sack her to distance themselves from the PR nightmare.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I don't watch tv so I miss these kind of delightful stories. What a dumb ass thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top