Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[DBCowboy]

All good and well, but come November, it's going to be crazy.

[putnam6]

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

Honestly, I agree with FCD, but it's got to be kept to one forum, seriously


When you are just discussing Bigfoot or Nessie and you get a political reference, usually just a joke, that everybody either laughs at or lets it slide. Now it's almost always challenged then it goes sideways...

[FlyingClayDisk]

I personally believe you are wrong. It's just a matter of not caring what size the board is and not pandering to the political trolls that infest the Webverse. Politics can be discussed civilly and those who are just posting to spread hate can be removed easily.

DI is a breath of fresh air and I think it's the exact right time for it to be born. The audience who does not want political mud throwing is just as large, if not  larger than the other side.

Fair enough.  It was an opposing editorial.  You are entitled to your opinion. 

Judging by my absolutely 'chilly' welcome here (on the 'intro' thread) I know where I stand, and that's okay.  I expected no less; I am confident that I am 'persona-non-grata' here.  In any case,  I will not break the T&C's, but I am here as an observer, FWIW.

[DBCowboy]

To be honest?  I think many are uneasy about talking politics because we're heading towards 1984 and they don't want people to point that stuff out.

[Creaky]

Make a great debate in a debate forum

I think ats was taken down due to its political bent

[Rigel4]

If we have a political forum .. this site will go the same way as the other site did 8 years ago and has never recovered.
I am against this, as no matter how policed even one forum might be.. il'll get out of hand and soil the entire site.

my 2 bobs worth

[DBCowboy]

How will we be able to discuss the police-state if we're not allowed to discuss the police-state?

[Maxmars]

How will we be able to discuss the police-state if we're not allowed to discuss the police-state?

That's a really good question. 

I mean, if the (or any) police-state, or oppressive situation is a direct function of the political ideology, how could you discuss it? 

Would you have to caricaturize the leadership and underlings as people, turn them into cartoon figures and lampoon every aspect of their lives?  Would you have to create a slogan campaign, an encyclopedia of memes, and monetize the outrage?  Would you need to psychologically damage anyone who disagrees with you?  

Or would it be possible to simply address the policy or act that you disagree with and use reason and persuasive argument to demonstrate where and how it is unacceptable? 

Would you really need to vilify the people or persons who support the presumable 'bad' policy... or could you just talk about the policy and why it's wrong.

I get it though, sometimes I break my own rules too.  And I'm not talking about reducing your expressions to some form of clinically-detached dry humorless thing.  If it were only an exception in political discourse it could be accepted as a small thing, maybe not embraced, but overlooked mostly. 

But right now, that trash talk is 'celebrated' to the point of making most political discussion a slug-fest of insults and generalizations... vilification has become the new "normal."

If you hate Biden, or you hate Trump... can you express why specifically... or only trash and belittle either one, along with all who disagree?

[DBCowboy]

That's a really good question. 

I mean, if the (or any) police-state, or oppressive situation is a direct function of the political ideology, how could you discuss it? 

Would you have to caricaturize the leadership and underlings as people, turn them into cartoon figures and lampoon every aspect of their lives?  Would you have to create a slogan campaign, an encyclopedia of memes, and monetize the outrage?  Would you need to psychologically damage anyone who disagrees with you?  

Or would it be possible to simply address the policy or act that you disagree with and use reason and persuasive argument to demonstrate where and how it is unacceptable? 

Would you really need to vilify the people or persons who support the presumable 'bad' policy... or could you just talk about the policy and why it's wrong.

I get it though, sometimes I break my own rules too.  And I'm not talking about reducing your expressions to some form of clinically-detached dry humorless thing.  If it were only an exception in political discourse it could be accepted as a small thing, maybe not embraced, but overlooked mostly. 

But right now, that trash talk is 'celebrated' to the point of making most political discussion a slug-fest of insults and generalizations... vilification has become the new "normal."

If you hate Biden, or you hate Trump... can you express why specifically... or only trash and belittle either one, along with all who disagree?

Some will support the police-state, some will be against it.

If we can't even talk about it here, then I won't be a frequent flier.

I hafta say what I hafta say.  

When I was a writer for Townhall, I wasn't as censored.

[Maxmars]

Some will support the police-state, some will be against it.

If we can't even talk about it here, then I won't be a frequent flier.

I hafta say what I hafta say.  

When I was a writer for Townhall, I wasn't as censored.

Have you been censored here?  Have we blocked you from speaking your mind?

All that I saw was a request to constrain antagonistic partisanship, not to stay silent.

I'm sorry you feel censored.  And I apologize if I seemed to imply anything like that.  That was never my intent...
I am only a moderator after I am a member, please accept that my opinions are my own.