re: Rules Enforcement - Political Discussions

[Black Widow Void]

Since my first computer that was capable of going on line, I've always had a love/hate relation with the internet.

The one positive is that this allows those of us in search of broader thoughts, perspectives etc... to go beyond our local 'real-life neighborhood' circle (this includes perspectives on women, politics, music, philosophy etc..) .

Because commercial networks and those of "underwriter status" can be questionable when reporting facts, I personally enjoy reading perspectives from different (and contrasting) view points from people (such as those on so suave). To my knowledge, these members aren't 'bought and sold.' And... may I assume it's the same case with all the mods?

And since my days of newsgroups and then forums (and the observations of many mods) I've really been impressed with Atom Smasher's diplomacy. Normally, mods tend to play “it’s my way or the highway” and I’ve enjoyed the absence of such attitudes.
and by the way, it still feels weird to talk about someone in the 3rd party when they can read this as well.

As a forum member, I realize that I'm not 'entitled' to any explanation, but I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that this adamant intolerance of political opinions seems incongruent - considering the tolerance given to forum members and other subject matters.

If the past political discussions had resulted into the drivel of name calling back and forth, it's easy to understand such mod-intolerance, but the overall tone has contained more civil discourse. Therefore, this political rule seems a bit contradictory in view of mod-tolerance practices elsewhere.

Again, as a member, I realize that I'm not entitled to an explanation, but this 'heavy-handiness' seems so contradictory to the otherwise positive behavioral image presented elsewhere by mods on sosuave,

With the above paragraph being expressed (and considering that explanations have been provided when closing a topic or banning a member) might we better understand the reasoning behind this barring of political discussion?

 

[Ohso-Phresh]

Since my first computer that was capable of going on line, I've always had a love/hate relation with the internet.

The one positive is that this allows those of us in search of broader thoughts, perspectives etc... to go beyond our local 'real-life neighborhood' circle (this includes perspectives on women, politics, music, philosophy etc..) .

Because commercial networks and those of "underwriter status" can be questionable when reporting facts, I personally enjoy reading perspectives from different (and contrasting) view points from people (such as those on so suave). To my knowledge, these members aren't 'bought and sold.' And... may I assume it's the same case with all the mods?

And since my days of newsgroups and then forums (and the observations of many mods) I've really been impressed with Atom Smasher's diplomacy. Normally, mods tend to play “it’s my way or the highway” and I’ve enjoyed the absence of such attitudes.
and by the way, it still feels weird to talk about someone in the 3rd party when they can read this as well.

As a forum member, I realize that I'm not 'entitled' to any explanation, but I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that this adamant intolerance of political opinions seems incongruent - considering the tolerance given to forum members and other subject matters.

If the past political discussions had resulted into the drivel of name calling back and forth, it's easy to understand such mod-intolerance, but the overall tone has contained more civil discourse. Therefore, this political rule seems a bit contradictory in view of mod-tolerance practices elsewhere.

Again, as a member, I realize that I'm not entitled to an explanation, but this 'heavy-handiness' seems so contradictory to the otherwise positive behavioral image presented elsewhere by mods on sosuave,

With the above paragraph being expressed (and considering that explanations have been provided when closing a topic or banning a member) might we better understand the reasoning behind this barring of political discussion?

Sometimes it gets in the way.

Case in point, my attempt to post facts on Covid-19 as it was just gaining traction in a broader awareness and transitioning out of China were initially constantly derailed by political commentary.

Polarized political commentary doesn’t really do anything but entrench one in their own tribal identity. Most of it reduces down to inflammatory language, projections and ad hominem attacks. No real knowledge transference can be had in that environment.

As a counter-point, one of the sources that I cited as to discredit the opposite political reference point, upon further examination, it itself was guilty of the same misrepresentation that I was pointing out the ‘other’ was doing.

As I see it, being ‘meta’ about it can allow for transference of ideas. Being argumentative about it just for the sake of arguing gets kinda old and unproductive. The political pov’s then bleed into other topics and the signal-to-noise ratio of the forum in general degrades.

 

[Black Widow Void]

@Ohso-Phresh

The 'hi-jacking' and postings that morph into other topics isn't uncommon. The un-commonality though is the stronger scrutiny toward political postings (than other topics).

Although some postings might contain inaccurate facts, the great thing about this forum.... is having such varied members (meaning; that we'll get balanced and varied views).

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Ohso-Phresh]

@Ohso-Phresh

The 'hi-jacking' and postings that morph into other topics isn't uncommon. The un-commonality though is the stronger scrutiny toward political postings (than other topics).

Although some postings might contain inaccurate facts, the great thing about this forum.... is having such varied members (meaning; that we'll get balanced and varied views).

Wouldn't you agree?

I’d agree as long as two open minds are attempting to communicate. Sometimes it just comes down to the righteousness of the louder voice (or more frequent poster) that prevails and not necessarily by the merit of ideas presented.

A trigger point for me is when the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ are thrown about and tbh, it comes across as Orwellian doublespeak.

 

[logicallefty]

@Black Widow Void Officially We have always had a rule prohibiting political discussions. In practice, however, the mod team has Tried to be flexible with it and let the political discussions go on so long as members weren’t fighting and bickering. Me personally I love discussing politics just as much as anybody and have participated in many political threads. As of lately, though, the threads have just gotten too bloody too quick. So we decided we would go back to strictly enforcing the rule. Politics are a lot more sensitive now than they used to be. Maybe someday we can take the lax approach again. Hopefully so.

 

[samspade]

What's amazing to me is how quickly topics steer toward politics. It's like everything has to be put into a column. This is right, that's left. Your opinion on coronavirus is just the latest. The media feed this stuff on other sites so it seeps in here because people absorb it. Everyone wants to be "right" (correct). I stopped getting emotionally invested in issues a long time ago, so I try to see things from other peoples' perspectives. I'll only add that there are some users who are very good at pushing others' buttons.

 

[Black Widow Void]

Ohso-Phresh
As far as members in political postings using the terms "right" or "left" ... how is this different than the non-political postings which accuse members accuse (usually new members that never return) of being weak and "beta? The latter seems *much more* common.

samspade
I disagree. Not "everyone wants to be right." I enjoy reading varied perspectives in hopes to learn new information and I sometimes do.
If topics as you say, tend to always go political more political than you like, then how about a seperate theme set to political discussions only?

Amante Silvestre & logicallefty
Seeing as though you two are mods, I (especially) appreciate your responses.
As stated above, I think it's a fair assessment/observation to conclude that there's more insults and bullying being delivered toward new forum members that are more sensitive and vulnerable (walking wounded) .. than that seen between old-timers exchanging contrasting views within the political discussions.

Personally, I'd think that there's be more moderation and consideration given toward new members that are more legitimately sensitive than us old-timers engaging in political discussion . Especially considering that a lot of new members will not return after receiving those smug 'chest-thumping' responses.

My above isn't written with the intention of starting an argument or debate, but a matter of stating an observation.

 

[samspade]

samspade
I disagree. Not "everyone wants to be right." I enjoy reading varied perspectives in hopes to learn new information and I sometimes do.
If topics as you say, tend to always go political more political than you like, then how about a seperate theme set to political discussions only?

Yeah, that was a faulty generalization by me. I mean when the threads devolve into bickering; not every single thread is like that.

 

[RickTheToad]

I have zero interest in being anyone’s mommy here to sooth hurt feelings.

Umm, you were previously a female? Are you in the middle of transitioning or something?

 

[zekko]

Personally, I prefer the more lenient approach lefty mentioned that was taken here previously, especially in the Anything Else section. Pretty much everything is political anyway, from discussions on health care and Covid-19 to the anti-feminist bent that this site is based on. Even now, a lot of seemingly innocent comments are thinly veiled political statements. I don't really feel the need to be protected from someone's opinions.

As for new posters complaining, this site has always taken a "tough love" approach about changing attitudes. Guys want to jam that red pill down newbie's throats lol.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Remember when you guys made Bradd80, the biggest fraud on sosuave, into a mod? And then I had to point out a thousand times that he was tricking all of you? Then he finally quit and ran away. That was hilarious.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

Since my first computer that was capable of going on line, I've always had a love/hate relation with the internet.

The one positive is that this allows those of us in search of broader thoughts, perspectives etc... to go beyond our local 'real-life neighborhood' circle (this includes perspectives on women, politics, music, philosophy etc..) .

Because commercial networks and those of "underwriter status" can be questionable when reporting facts, I personally enjoy reading perspectives from different (and contrasting) view points from people (such as those on so suave). To my knowledge, these members aren't 'bought and sold.' And... may I assume it's the same case with all the mods?

And since my days of newsgroups and then forums (and the observations of many mods) I've really been impressed with Atom Smasher's diplomacy. Normally, mods tend to play “it’s my way or the highway” and I’ve enjoyed the absence of such attitudes.
and by the way, it still feels weird to talk about someone in the 3rd party when they can read this as well.

As a forum member, I realize that I'm not 'entitled' to any explanation, but I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that this adamant intolerance of political opinions seems incongruent - considering the tolerance given to forum members and other subject matters.

If the past political discussions had resulted into the drivel of name calling back and forth, it's easy to understand such mod-intolerance, but the overall tone has contained more civil discourse. Therefore, this political rule seems a bit contradictory in view of mod-tolerance practices elsewhere.

Again, as a member, I realize that I'm not entitled to an explanation, but this 'heavy-handiness' seems so contradictory to the otherwise positive behavioral image presented elsewhere by mods on sosuave,

With the above paragraph being expressed (and considering that explanations have been provided when closing a topic or banning a member) might we better understand the reasoning behind this barring of political discussion?

My guess is, there's politician members here or evidence that they read here.
I was thinking about that reading the Prince H. thread.

 

[samspade]

Remember when you guys made Bradd80, the biggest fraud on sosuave, into a mod? And then I had to point out a thousand times that he was tricking all of you? Then he finally quit and ran away. That was hilarious.

I don't remember any of this. But now that you mention it, what happened to him?

 

[Ohso-Phresh]

Ohso-Phresh
As far as members in political postings using the terms "right" or "left" ... how is this different than the non-political postings which accuse members accuse (usually new members that never return) of being weak and "beta? The latter seems *much more* common.

Well, so far in my short time here, I’ve observed in some cases ‘left’ and ’right’ labels used for it’s exact opposite distinction and definition thus the Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ description.

As for the Alpha/Beta distinction, that seems to have come onto the scene when biology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology intersected with the rise of PUA culture, now ‘redpill’ rational thought manosphere culture.

It hard to keep track, now I understand there are also ‘Omegas’, ‘Sigmas’, ‘Deltas’ and whatever rebranding is envogue as the youth attempt to challenge the silver-backs. That’s not a fair statement actually, a more apt description is that new distinctions are arising as the field of inquiry develops.

I dunno if I answered your question and I do appreciate you elevating the conversation.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

Its true. We don’t want to upset any Congressmen because SoSuave needs that Congressional funding to support all of the backbone transplants we attempt to do around here. Lol.

nice, lol

 

[logicallefty]

@Black Widow Void

You are absolutely right %110 there absolutely is a lot of bullying towards new members. It pizzes me off far more than I publicly state because new guys come to this forum in desperate situations and they need clear minded objective men to communicate with. First, they need a little moral support with a less abrasive method of delivery. Then after a while if they don't listen then they need tough love. But Even with tough love they don't need to be personally attacked. We were all there once. I can also tell you that if it wasn't for new guys coming here SoSuave wouldn't need to exist. If all the guys on here "know it all" then why do we even have a forum? Great post! Thanks for giving me an excuse to get this off my chest.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I don't remember any of this. But now that you mention it, what happened to him?

He had a panic attack and had the mods delete every post he ever made. He pretended to be a lawyer, but it never occurred to him that someone here might have been through law school and be able to tell that he was making it all up.

 

[Atom Smasher]

He had a panic attack and had the mods delete every post he ever made. He pretended to be a lawyer, but it never occurred to him that someone here might have been through law school and be able to tell that he was making it all up.

Not all of us wanted him in as a mod. Some were dead-set against it, but my guess is that some had limited exposure to his real personality. It can happen. We discovered it and we handled it.

Now @Bible_Belt, I have seen you several times making up fictitious stories about what happened to this member or that, and this is one of those times. You frequently talk as if you actually know what happened, when you couldn't possibly know the dealings we have had with him and how he disqualified himself. This is a running issue with you. I'd advise you to to discern the limits of what it is possible for you to know in order to separate fact from speculation.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Not all of us wanted him in as a mod. Some were dead-set against it, but my guess is that some had limited exposure to his real personality. It can happen. We discovered it and we handled it.

Now @Bible_Belt, I have seen you several times making up fictitious stories about what happened to this member or that, and this is one of those times. You frequently talk as if you actually know what happened, when you couldn't possibly know the dealings we have had with him and how he disqualified himself. This is a running issue with you. I'd advise you to to discern the limits of what it is possible for you to know in order to separate fact from speculation.

Uranus is leaking gas.

Uranus has started leaking gas, NASA scientists confirm

Highly detailed and scientific NASA research can confirmed that something massive is coming out of Uranus.

happymag.tv

 

[Spaz]

There should be no rules against discussing any topic, what's the problem anyways?

We are all men here, not some sensitive little babies that goes crying blood each time someone disagrees with him.

Some of the men here ought to grow up.