Will this forum remain Politics-free?

[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?