Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[Maxmars]

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 wouldn't presume that your opinion is unpopular.  In fact, I think it is well-received (at least in my case.)  

But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree, in the strictest sense.

I think we see the same problem but approach it quite differently.  Once again, my opinion.

I absolutely concur that political thought is central to nearly any conspiratorial discourse.  And nearly all examinations of events that lend themselves to discussion include, by necessity, that angle of analysis.  I also concur that Denying Ignorance and truth seeking is a requirement for survival.

But I disagree with you saliently on several things I understand from your comments. For example "Many say politics ruined other sites (such as ATS)..."  Yes, many have said that... (although I maintain that what "ruined" many discussion boards isn't "politics" but political activism and political theatrics.)  The issue for me is the commonly held notion that "talking about politics means talking about politicians and their frequently inane utterances. 

Politics existed long before "political celebrity" became a commodity in marketing.  It was placed into the dialogue by media, and reinforced by "political celebrity" talking-heads...  Who constantly use characterized politician behavior as a "symbol" of politics.

Most people never consider the actual politics, but focus on the clown-show, the theater foisted and produced by politically-inclined media producers... wannabes, who 'feel' their way through engagement by polls, and utterances provided by other entities in the service of political celebrity and theater.  This is where virtue signaling and grandstanding take their most prominent roles... it's mostly theater.

In regards to the discussions here as opposed to the long-standing ATS, it might also be a reflection of generational differences between users, some of whom are not relying on internet activity to form their sense of "identity."  I have noticed that the virtually useless banter around memery and sloganeering only appears where people want to "join the show" not actually say anything towards the goal of constructive discussion.  But that is part and parcel of activism... a posture which is more about "look at me" (as opposed to "look at the issue.")  But then, what I want is not relevant to "monetization" or "opinion-crafting marketing via ego-feeding."

As negative as it may appear otherwise, I think there is nothing wrong with activism as a means to express support of an ideal...  but nowadays activism is a thespian thing... not about ideals... it's just about 'making noise and being paid attention to.'  It's a 'fan' activity... "Rah rah rah."

I have no grudges against the likes of Reddit, or whatever else is out there.  They are "conversational grounds" tilled for monetization and data gathering... as such, they are what they are.   But frankly, I have found very little actual "content" there, and among those things that can be counted as content, I find most of what it evokes doesn't really add up to meaningful, or enlightening discourse... of course, there is the occasional exception... as long as it evokes "hits" (i.e. makes money.)

Personally, I have no use for the "show" when evaluating policies.  But that's just me, and I know that my opinion is often poorly received... but that may be because the answer to it is simply "I disagree" (which is fair) and not a string of media produced memes and clown-show theater.

In closing, "We don't want that here." is often insufficiently defined... I know what I want to avoid... useless discussions about politicians and political celebrities... What I DO want is discussions about the politics itself:  Issues, policies, challenges, misfires, bad and good premises, real life and people... ideas to makes things understood, clearer.