Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[Blaine91555]

Didn't work last time and unlikely to work in a new setting.

Exactly right.

[LogicalGraffiti]

My two cents worth on this is that, in my opinion, politics in any forum discussion certainly has a place as long as it's on topic.  For example, if someone posts a topic titled "the sky is too blue and we don't get enough rain", people should talk about that specifically like, why is it too blue, what's the real effect, what can we do about it, etc.  What kills a thread for me (and is prevalent on the "other site") is that someone comes in and says "it's [insert your most hated president's] fault because he's not my guy".  That triggers a response to address the accusation and the discussion can easily devolve into political trolling which brings the whole "the sky is too blue" discussion to an end.

[VulcanWerks]

I do not want to feel censored.

I've always spoken my mind, much to the chagrin of Mods, but I've never tempered my tongue.

Thr biggest conspiracy going on right now is the god-damned government gaslighting all of us.

If I can't say that, and say that honestly, then, I won't be here.

I like a forum where I can just write and not worry about deadlines or grammar or nib-shit editors.

 

I don’t think anyone here would materially disagree with the need for lack of censorship.

Or, as you note, “speak your mind”.

I’ve read your posts for years and tend to agree with your take more often than not. But, I also don’t see you as someone who simply pops off and doesn’t have any substance to their commentary on an issue.

The “mud pit” got way out of control IMO and ultimately lacked a lot of substance. It also seemed to literally make up emotionally charged talking points, ongoing. Speech, and most other things, don’t “offend me” but instead become annoying commentary when it’s just mud slinging without much thoughtful commentary alongside it.

When the posts become “FJB!!!!Reeeeeee” I don’t care to “censor” anyone but that also gets annoying.

The study and understanding of politics, history, “narratives”, law are all crucial to understand (at least I think so). I’d rather draw the line at substantive conversations vs. outright mudslinging. You’re not “censored” in that model but rather there’s some expectation of insightful/thoughtful/intelligent commentary - which offers a range of perspectives for us for us all to consider and grow from.

[Raptured]

Totally agree with Byrd's comments a few replies up.
I found myself participating less and less on ATS simply because of the "tribal" mentality of many of the posters there.  Discussions degraded into name-calling, finger pointing, gaslighting and inuendo. 
If someone didn't agree with something you say or want to discuss they label you this or that and then their like-minded buddies focus on you in a pile-on.  It got so tiresome.
A good number of people now base their thoughts and ideas on soundbite-politics and have seemingly lost the ability to think for themselves.  It's really sad

[Maxmars]

I propose that the only place for political topics to be discussed effectively is in an environment where there is a tradition of conduct and an built-in exclusion of trolling... the Debate forum sounds a perfect fit to my thinking.

Only the active participants can contribute to the discussion (no "piling on,") there is no room (or need) for garbage input (which is pointless anyway,) and the prevailing "tradition" is to discuss the topic (NOT each other) which constrains the "free-for-all" hazard... this might avoid making it about 'feelings,' 'aspersions,' and other media/activism antics.

But this is just an opinion I have...  Would anyone be game to try it out, I wonder?  

Just sayin... certainly there are enough bold members who could.

[DBCowboy]

Just got post banned from ATS.

[theshadowknows]

Just got post banned from ATS.

Welcome back 

I get what you're saying. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say that all topics aren't on the table, but the current political climate seems to be too much for most people to handle without resorting to personal attacks and tribalism. I did take note of what Byrd said about allowing politics in the debate forum here. In a structured setting like a formal debate, I think that would be a good thing. Would you like to be a contender?

[DBCowboy]

Welcome back 

I get what you're saying. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say that all topics aren't on the table, but the current political climate seems to be too much for most people to handle without resorting to personal attacks and tribalism. I did take note of what Byrd said about allowing politics in the debate forum here. In a structured setting like a formal debate, I think that would be a good thing. Would you like to be a contender?

Absolutely!

[VulcanWerks]

I propose that the only place for political topics to be discussed effectively is in an environment where there is a tradition of conduct and an built-in exclusion of trolling... the Debate forum sounds a perfect fit to my thinking.

Only the active participants can contribute to the discussion (no "piling on,") there is no room (or need) for garbage input (which is pointless anyway,) and the prevailing "tradition" is to discuss the topic (NOT each other) which constrains the "free-for-all" hazard... this might avoid making it about 'feelings,' 'aspersions,' and other media/activism antics.

But this is just an opinion I have...  Would anyone be game to try it out, I wonder?  

Just sayin... certainly there are enough bold members who could.

Game.

[DontTreadOnMe]

I totally agree. A debate in a controlled setting is a really good idea on compromise here.

 Sounds like a plan!