Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[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.

[FlyingClayDisk]

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

DB's, or mine...or both?

"Leisure" is not something we have at the moment.  What we have is 'real' situations and 'real' world issues.

We can exist in a fantasy world of UFO's and paranormal, but as I have pointed out; this will only hold so much water.

The age-old moderators from ATS may be familiar faces to new members, but candidly, most of them are burnt-out (all due respect).  To suggest otherwise, is misguided. 

DI Admins...be wary of what I say...there are many thorns upon the road upon which you walk.

There are many who intentionally will deceive you.

I honestly think  DB and myself are the least of your worries.

---

Allow me, an old radio DJ, back in the "day" to propose a song to you all.  It says a lot, a lot about our lives

---

I really don't care, Deny Ignorance, but you have let your 'moderators' weigh in and control your destiny.  If this is what you choose, then so be it. 

I personally think this is a mistake, but I do not regulate this site (your former ATS monitors do; they define you).  I would not let any previous, burnt out, moderators define me or my websites, but here we are.  The choice is yours.  If they say they are not "burnt out", then ask them to prove it...like really prove it (i.e. new, novel ideas, new ways to capture new members, not tired old "we Won't" mantras)  They can't, none of them can.  They're tired, they're jaded and they're "cooked".  Make them prove they aren't...and none of them will be able to.

The ATS moderators are loved, and they've done a fantastic job, but they're old, and they're done.

Think about this for a moment...how long have you seen these troopers, day in and day out, fighting the good fight?

It's time for new blood, new things.  The 'happy days of old'... are gone.  Ignoring things like politics is ignoring reality and the fundamental underpinning of this website, deny "Ignorance".  Anything less is just a lie, or burying your head in the sand.

I will not make political posts in the various forums Blaine talks about...I disagree politic will be welcome there, and Blaine (among others) will be swift to delete my posts (with warnings...strike one...strike two and ... be gone).  He will see to it, if for no other reason than  to see me gone, personally.

Do you not see the bias here?

Ah, but I appeal on deaf ears.

For all others...I will always stand for liberty.  And I will never shy away from honor, honesty and the right to speak out.
I will lose here, but that is okay.  I will always fight for liberty.  To the end.

[putnam6]

Let's put it this way 22 new Topics on ATS 10 of them are easily politically related in 5 different forums

As long as ATS is active there is no reason why DI has to politics in more than one or two locations. Mostly because this discourse is not changing minds, it's just pissing people off, and we can't have proper dialog and discussions and it bleeds into every other forum.

If it's bickering back and forth, no new information no educational value, it isn't changing people's minds or leading to a real discussion what's the point? 

Generally think 3 SUB folders should have political content, a Political Current Events folder, An Election year folder, and we need a DI Political Editorials Folder for everybody's personal political rant. All placed in Politics forum, and political mentions elsewhere need to be strictly shunned or removed outright.

[l0st]

Warning! - Unpopular Opinion Ahead -

 I personally believe no discussion board can continue to exist without a political discussion section.  I believe this to be particularly true for any website which focuses any sort of conspiratorial, controversial or current events content.  Many say politics ruined other sites (such as ATS); I disagree.  In fact, I would posit the exact opposite; attempts by other websites to curtail, restrict or eliminate political discussion see a dramatic drop in participation across the entire site after which they languish in the sun, wither and drift off into irrelevancy.  The facts are, politics occupy almost every single element of the news cycle today, and better than 90% of all the conspiratorial / controversial subjects of our time boil down to political in nature.  Squashing this type of discussion and content only reduces overall contribution on a site such as this.

Case in point; there are a total of 6,722 posts (total, all forums) here on DI since its inception, compared to 22,539 posts in just the last 7 calendar days on ATS (104,841 posts in the past 30 days).  Granted DI is relatively new compared to ATS, but the lion's share of active ATS members (key being 'active') are members here on DI.  So, why the difference?  Well, for one thing, politics often draws participants in, and they then engage on (10) other non-politics subjects while there.  Exclude/prohibit politics, and many of those same individuals do not engage at all.

The other thing I think some are missing is the fact that other websites (ATS is only one example) didn't suddenly shift their focus to political activism, the world outside did.  Between the MSM, social media and numerous other factors, the new paradigm is politics.  Bottom line - politics is what people are talking about, regardless of any website focus.  Failure to realize this is conscious failure to accept what is going on outside one's window.  Politics IS the new conspiracy, and more importantly than ever; politics is the one area where seeking the "truth" and "denial of ignorance" is paramount to survival.  Refusing to recognize this is burying one's head in the sand.  All due respect to members who are interested in paranormal studies, UFO's and other supernatural phenomenon, these are indeed interesting subject areas, but in today's age these same topics alone are not sufficient to sustain a discussion forum today.

One only needs to look at the social media website 'reddit' to see the staggering proportion of political discussions in comparison to all other topics added together.  Yes, policy makers and site creators can say...'well, we just don't want that here!'...and this is fine, but realize by saying this that you turn away large segments of your potential content providers and audience by doing so.  If people are content living in this bubble, then this is fine also, but just know there is a very good probability that is all it will ever be, a bubble.

Again, I'm sure this opinion and editorial statement is a wildly unpopular one here, but I feel it is important to throw it out there in an effort to truly get to the "truth" we all so desperately wish to get to.

Very best regards, and thanks for your time.
FCD

I agree insofar as politics are often intrinsically entwined with conspiracy on many cases. However, the political trolling behavior typically involves those who do not come to these sites to discuss politics as they pertain to conspiracy. What they do is attack every single thread with silliness like "f*ck Drumpf" (I know we've all seen it) and this is not discussion and ads nothing to the conversation. The only goal seems to be insulting those they disagree with regardless of actual facts.