Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[Blaine91555]

What I am saying is that refusing to allow political discussion is lazy.

I think we all know political baiting when we see it. The motivation behind mud slinging has little to do with the actual topic. I don't think you're going to be able to bait any of the administration or staff here.

Look at the list of forum topics. Pretty much covers anything in the way of history or current event's. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to. We all understand that what you want is not political discussions.

I also think you may be being influenced by some of the former and current ATS moderators...

You are pretty transparent.

[VulcanWerks]

It better remain politics-free.

Or said differently, “Mud Pit” free.

Politics will academically intersect as a datapoint to most subjects that we could cover in the spirit of a site like “Deny Ignorance”.

Data-driven analysis also OK regarding political issues.

“Mud Pit” like behavior needs to be shunned and eliminated from a site like this. I found ATS for the UFOs in 2017. I also appreciated the analytic geopolitical commentary. Said differently, thinking.

The “Mud Pit” killed ATS, offered nothing of value but Bitchute videos and became where the partisan went to rant and pop off.

IMO, that killed ATS. Look at what invaded.

No political bickering. Share data, drive conversation, provoke thought.

Deny ignorance, don’t flame partisan commentary.

Or just stick to talking about UFOs and interesting topics.

[FlyingClayDisk]

I think we all know political baiting when we see it. The motivation behind mud slinging has little to do with the actual topic. I don't think you're going to be able to bait any of the administration or staff here.

Look at the list of forum topics. Pretty much covers anything in the way of history or current event's. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to. We all understand that what you want is not political discussions.

You are pretty transparent.

"We ALL"???  Who is "WE", Blaine?  "WE ALL"??  Do you speak for everyone here, Blaine?  You speak for all members, and all staff?  How else am I supposed to interpret "We All"?

I'm going to need to go calm down before I respond further, but I will say this...Yes, I AM transparent (as you suggest).  Unfortunately, you and not so transparent.

You don't know what I want beyond what I say I want.  You don't speak for me; I speak for me.  So, I challenge your "We all".  "YOU" may think these things, and "YOU" may feel these things, and those may be "your" opinions, but I think you're way out of school with "WE ALL".  This isn't some punk kid you're dealing with here, and frankly "we all" sounds like a grade school principal brow beating some 4th grader with "WE ALL...know you stole Sally's lunch sack!"

And, I would think you would be glad I read the T&C's, and also took the time to read and find an already posted thread about the topic at hand, rather than just posting a new topic and/or just diving into one of the forums and proving out the point that sometimes a political discussion is unavoidable (which you too will soon find out...after you ban much of your membership for the same).  Instead, I brought up this discussion here, in what I believed to be the correct forum...without having brought up a single politics topic anywhere else here.  Isn't that how it's supposed to happen?  Or, is that forbidden too?

And no, you are flat wrong, I do want political discussions.  I wouldn't have suggested it if I wanted something else.  I would have suggested a free-for-all, mud-pit, anarchy environment (which is what you are implying 'I want") if that is what I truly wanted, but it isn't.  "We all" don't know what I want, only I do.  You don't speak for me.  I speak for me.  And I was clear in what I stated as wanting.  I am not part of your "We".

P.S. - I'm sorry, dude, but your reply and your tone really did piss me off.  The whole "We All" thing was uncalled for.  So, if I have somehow misinterpreted something, then please let me know and I will reconsider.

edit - Your post came off as power-drunk and high and mighty.  I am an honest member here, and I don't appreciate that attitude.  Sorry, but it really does.

[Maxmars]

Well, there are several replies here following my initial editorial comment which I'd like to reply to, but rather than replying to each individually, I will attempt to consolidate my reply into a more general (yet specific) response.

.....

At the risk of exacerbating any friction (perceived or real)...  Respectfully, I would like to address your summation points at least in part.

Containment:  I agree that topic constraints for organizing our dialog is logical.  But there is a wrinkle here... especially with conspiratorial analysis in which political motivation is part and parcel.  Politics is infused into much of what we discuss here... it's a fact of history, a factor in social order, and a means to describe ideologies.  Creating a "Political" forum seems rather superfluous. 

What could such a forum focus on?  Experience has shown me is that it is more often an 'excuse' to launch partisan attacks, lamentable personal characterizations, and an exploitable venue for members to aggregate in active (and usually antagonistic) fragmentation.  If such a forum were discussions of actual political thought, it would be unnecessary to moderate.  But it is more often (again, my opinion, my experiences) is abused to create an echo chamber of everything that is detrimental and unproductive to dialog.

I offer a theoretical example about this... If I were to create a thread meant to explore the interface between governmental forms of republic versus democracy... how long before someone makes it about mocking political figures, denigrating people who disagree, or creating 'humorous' characterizations of dissenters?  I point out that none of that is actually "political."  My experience tells me that some would find it natural to call names, cast aspersions, and generally wax anti-social.

The real question is - "What is Politics?"  Is it really about the clown show in the circus, the cast of characters marketed by parties and their opponents, the theater of chuckles and chortles over evident stupidity, or hubris, or poor personal hygiene?  Is that politics?  I think not. 

Hence those who "get off" on making that kind of point in discussion are frustrated when they can't...even though they are usually smart enough to discern the difference.

Your "breath of fresh air" is along the lines of my thinking as well... it is NOT politics that "ruins" things...

It is the "partisan spirit" and its manifestation as "agree or be ridiculed" that does that.   It is the slandering and smearing of persons that ruins the discussion... mostly because such assaults call for an equal and opposite reaction - almost never about the topic of politics, but instead about party impetus towards vilifying or worshipping some 'character' in the theatrical production of the moment.  Almost exclusively relying on "media" commentary describing events which they designate as "political."  And usually descending into member insulting...defiance of terms and conditions... and resentful claims of 'censorship.'  Sad, but frequently true.

Your "Bottom Line" seems afflicted with a misunderstanding.   You state that there is an impediment to participating here if "politics" cannot be discussed.  I have seen politics discussed here... without difficulty... and without antagonism.  The most successful examples share one common element... no discussion of 'personalities.'  Not engaging in smarmy attacks, purposeful offense, reductive memery, or direct antagonism is not a 'restriction'... it's courtesy and respect.  Engaging in it is not 'freedom' it is social oppression... bullying, and often just mean-spirited.  Dialogue does not require this as an element, and it often serves to destroy dialog.. and never "enhance its meaning."

I, for one, don't wish to see you withdraw.  I fully expect you can express yourself here well, and perhaps even find some useful and productive conversations.  But if as a prerequisite you demand the right to engage in the kind of pseudo-political garbage that other media talking-heads generate, or posture as abrasive and rejecting any and all dissent to your opinion, I don't think you'll enjoy it here much.

In my opinion, the object here is discussion. 

Wherever partisanship rears its head, actual discussion is suppressed amidst proclamations of bias.  Hence, I would say no to activism, no to antagonistic proselytization or partisanship, and no to casual denigration.  Which is why I often say... "Take that where it is, in fact, appreciated... and enjoy the theater of the waste.... where truth goes to be slaughtered."

But that is hyperbole and theoretical... everyone can make their own assessment of whether this conforms to the draconian police state.  I hope most will see that characterization as hyperbolic as well.

[FlyingClayDisk]

At the risk of exacerbating any friction (perceived or real)...  Respectfully, I would like to address your summation points at least in part.

Containment:  I agree that topic constraints for organizing our dialog is logical.  But there is a wrinkle here... especially with conspiratorial analysis in which political motivation is part and parcel.  Politics is infused into much of what we discuss here... it's a fact of history, a factor in social order, and a means to describe ideologies.  Creating a "Political" forum seems rather superfluous. 

What could such a forum focus on?  Experience has shown me is that it is more often an 'excuse' to launch partisan attacks, lamentable personal characterizations, and an exploitable venue for members to aggregate in active (and usually antagonistic) fragmentation.  If such a forum were discussions of actual political thought, it would be unnecessary to moderate.  But it is more often (again, my opinion, my experiences) is abused to create an echo chamber of everything that is detrimental and unproductive to dialog.

I offer a theoretical example about this... If I were to create a thread meant to explore the interface between governmental forms of republic versus democracy... how long before someone makes it about mocking political figures, denigrating people who disagree, or creating 'humorous' characterizations of dissenters?  I point out that none of that is actually "political."  My experience tells me that some would find it natural to call names, cast aspersions, and generally wax anti-social.

The real question is - "What is Politics?"  Is it really about the clown show in the circus, the cast of characters marketed by parties and their opponents, the theater of chuckles and chortles over evident stupidity, or hubris, or poor personal hygiene?  Is that politics?  I think not. 

Hence those who "get off" on making that kind of point in discussion are frustrated when they can't...even though they are usually smart enough to discern the difference.

Your "breath of fresh air" is along the lines of my thinking as well... it is NOT politics that "ruins" things...

It is the "partisan spirit" and its manifestation as "agree or be ridiculed" that does that.   It is the slandering and smearing of persons that ruins the discussion... mostly because such assaults call for an equal and opposite reaction - almost never about the topic of politics, but instead about party impetus towards vilifying or worshipping some 'character' in the theatrical production of the moment.  Almost exclusively relying on "media" commentary describing events which they designate as "political."  And usually descending into member insulting...defiance of terms and conditions... and resentful claims of 'censorship.'  Sad, but frequently true.

Your "Bottom Line" seems afflicted with a misunderstanding.   You state that there is an impediment to participating here if "politics" cannot be discussed.  I have seen politics discussed here... without difficulty... and without antagonism.  The most successful examples share one common element... no discussion of 'personalities.'  Not engaging in smarmy attacks, purposeful offense, reductive memery, or direct antagonism is not a 'restriction'... it's courtesy and respect.  Engaging in it is not 'freedom' it is social oppression... bullying, and often just mean-spirited.  Dialogue does not require this as an element, and it often serves to destroy dialog.. and never "enhance its meaning."

I, for one, don't wish to see you withdraw.  I fully expect you can express yourself here well, and perhaps even find some useful and productive conversations.  But if as a prerequisite you demand the right to engage in the kind of pseudo-political garbage that other media talking-heads generate, or posture as abrasive and rejecting any and all dissent to your opinion, I don't think you'll enjoy it here much.

In my opinion, the object here is discussion. 

Wherever partisanship rears its head, actual discussion is suppressed amidst proclamations of bias.  Hence, I would say no to activism, no to antagonistic proselytization or partisanship, and no to casual denigration.  Which is why I often say... "Take that where it is, in fact, appreciated... and enjoy the theater of the waste.... where truth goes to be slaughtered."

But that is hyperbole and theoretical... everyone can make their own assessment of whether this conforms to the draconian police state.  I hope most will see that characterization as hyperbolic as well.

I appreciate your measured response.  Candidly though, some of your staff speaks on your behalf in a much different and less open tone. 

I don't wish a "mud-pit" environment, nor did I ever suggest such.  What I did suggest is an avenue to discuss politics and current events related to the same, nothing more.

I have not, and will not, discuss politics in any capacity beyond this discussion.  And, candidly, as I pointed out to Blaine, I thought this was the appropriate place to bring up such matters.  Instead, Blaine say he knows differently than me about what I think, and what I truly want, which I take strong exception to...and then casts aspersions.

What else can I say?

[DBCowboy]

I think the biggest conspiracy is politics.

Politics is behind everything.

Who runs Area 51?  Government.
Who does not want disclosure?  Government.
Who stops open research on drugs to treat covid and other diseases?  Government.

What is the fuel that the government engine runs on?

Politics.

*boom*

I have now won all your internets.  They belong to me now.

[Maxmars]

I appreciate your measured response.  Candidly though, some of your staff speaks on your behalf in a much different and less open tone. 

I don't wish a "mud-pit" environment, nor did I ever suggest such.  What I did suggest is an avenue to discuss politics and current events related to the same, nothing more.

I have not, and will not, discuss politics in any capacity beyond this discussion.  And, candidly, as I pointed out to Blaine, I thought this was the appropriate place to bring up such matters.  Instead, Blaine say he knows differently than me about what I think, and what I truly want, which I take strong exception to...and then casts aspersions.

What else can I say?

Honestly, I never considered that you intended a return to that "Mud-Pit" environment.  I rather expected that you, had the personal courage, like DBC, to bring the subject forward, hoping (and this is an assumption on my part,) that you could find a reasonable compromise to your desire to actually discuss what I call "popular politics." 

I will confess here that I hold that idea, "popular" politics, in a rather poor light.  The source of most opinion is squarely dependent on "popular" media... which unlike most, I don't regard as actual journalism, or dispassionate analysis.  So I tend to be in the "con" family of relaxing about it.  I have little trust that we are not being "played" with all this "viral" reporting, and the form it takes.  But I digress, for that is a topic for another discussion.

I do regret your exchange with Blaine, but I fully understand his perspective about the topic.  Any unfortunate turn that took is out of my hands to control, and I would never presume to debate anyone on "how" they express or perceive... those are sovereign things.  I hope that whosoever is offended, or emotional affected can balance it against the moment and clear it as an obstacle.  It is really the only way to move forward freely.

Also, as an aside, I am aware that I can be verbose... and that can be off-putting to many, so I apologize... I am not trying to "beat a dead horse" so much as I am trying to make clear how I understand our conversation.  In short (stop rolling your eyes,) it is a thing I do for myself...

I think we can understand each other.  That alone makes this conversation worthwhile.

---

I think the biggest conspiracy is politics.

Politics is behind everything.

Who runs Area 51?  Government.
Who does not want disclosure?  Government.
Who stops open research on drugs to treat covid and other diseases?  Government.

What is the fuel that the government engine runs on?

Politics.

*boom*

I have now won all your internets.  They belong to me now.

I love it!!!! 

I think we could discuss this all day long without ever getting into any ugliness.

Two points, (just to peak your interest)

Government isn't an "object operating automatically," it is people... most are members of some club or other'
What give government its "power" is us, the people - usually disengaged and distracted enough to allow "circus celebrities" to run the day-to-day show.

I wonder, since we are discussing politics... is this considered "off-topic?"

[DBCowboy]

The only true self-perpetuating machine is government.

Government exists to feed government.

People come second.

We created government like Frankenstein's Monster.

We lost control of it the moment it was created.

Politics is the only way we, as the wee people, can dissect it.

[Maxmars]

The only true self-perpetuating machine is government.

Government exists to feed government.

People come second.

We created government like Frankenstein's Monster.

We lost control of it the moment it was created.

Politics is the only way we, as the wee people, can dissect it.

I disagree, but hold your opinion in high regard.
Government has certainly been wrested away from the common citizen... and like Shelly's monster, seems to defy comprehension as a whole at this point.

It is a political discussion... requiring equality of understanding.. which can only be achieved by discussing it... politics, I mean, not the "produced" theater of popular media.

But we really should explore this further... at your leisure.

[DBCowboy]

I disagree, but hold your opinion in high regard.
Government has certainly been wrested away from the common citizen... and like Shelly's monster, seems to defy comprehension as a whole at this point.

It is a political discussion... requiring equality of understanding.. which can only be achieved by discussing it... politics, I mean, not the "produced" theater of popular media.

But we really should explore this further... at your leisure.

It all boils down to how free do you want to be.