Political ???

[Smitty37]

Realizing that we should not make political posts here I am sometimes confounded by what is considered political.

It sometimes seems like any mention of items that are government actions is considered political even when the items are law.

Example: Government makes regulations that I have to live with yet any mention of some them is called political others are not. Postal service both in the USA and Canada is carried out by Quasi government bodies and overseen by government yet we can say anything we like about the postal service without arousing the ire of the moderators. Customs is entirely a government activity and we can say about anything we wish about customs. Yet other regulations that impact our business seem to be off limits - minimum wage, health care, regulations affecting jobs etc. are all government control and even in a strictly factual context (meaning just saying this is the way it is even in a non judgemental fashion) will attract the attention of moderators.

Government is big and has a lot of impact on our lives... it is difficult to do anything at all that is not touched in some way by some level of government. Is the idea on limiting 'politics' to ban speaking about government. I can understand banning direct slams on individual politicians and political parties or naming names but is it political to say X regulation is causing Y".....

Just curious.

 

[OLDMAN5050]

Its OK to post a thread of a bird cussing but by all means don't talk politics or call out our leaders by name...............

 

[maxwell_smart007]

Like it or not, polarization in politics is the cause of most of the flame threads and fights on this forum - or at least, it traditionally has been - we've been very good lately. However, people are very passionate about their political views, and it's nearly impossible to speak about politics dispassionately - especially on a forum - which is why politics are not allowed as a discussion topic.

Mentioning that "And don't forget to give credit to our glorious president for this one. Requiring healthcare paid by the employer at 30 hours per week is the cause. " is a political statement, because it both mentions a polarizing topic, speaks of a politician with derision and irony, and essentially invites comments to follow...

So if you're wondering why I posted a gentle reminder in the other thread, that is the reason why.

Andrew
assistant moderator

 

[ed4copies]

For several years, I thought this policy was unnecessary. But, there are many forums (actually fora) where politics is the topic for which the forum exists.

Having visited a couple of them, the rhetoric is often enflamed and the opinions don't need to be very well informed in order to be passionately embraced.

So, there is a place for "fighting over politics", which leaves the IAP as a place for civil discussion of penmaking.

It really DOES make sense, when you think about it.

FWIW,
Ed

 

[Jim Burr]

1) For the most part, we, as a culture, have lost the ability of debate without bashing the opponent to inflate poor self-esteem.
2) Most cultures have become so PC that you can no longer be offended by being offended...just the mere thought that someone may be offended is enough to slam on the brakes...and that offends me.

 

[NittanyLion]

Like it or not, polarization in politics is the cause of most of the flame threads and fights on this forum - or at least, it traditionally has been - we've been very good lately. However, people are very passionate about their political views, and it's nearly impossible to speak about politics dispassionately - especially on a forum - which is why politics are not allowed as a discussion topic.

Mentioning that "And don't forget to give credit to our glorious president for this one. Requiring healthcare paid by the employer at 30 hours per week is the cause. " is a political statement, because it both mentions a polarizing topic, speaks of a politician with derision and irony, and essentially invites comments to follow...

So if you're wondering why I posted a gentle reminder in the other thread, that is the reason why.

Andrew
assistant moderator

Andrew,
My apologies. This comment was not appropriate.

 

[maxwell_smart007]

Not a problem, Steve - my apologies for using it as an example - but Smitty was (assumably) asking why I posted a gentle reminder in the other thread!

 

[kovalcik]

"...which leaves the IAP as a place for civil discussion of penmaking. "

I don't know about that. Just start a thread asking what the best pen finish is, whether TBC or a mandrel is better, or whether you should use Micro Mesh AND a buffing system.

 

[Joe S.]

I think the customs thing is ok because it relates directly to the hobby, as do discussions on banned materials like ivory and songbird feathers. Not-relevant-to-penmaking political threads/comments don't really sit well.

"...which leaves the IAP as a place for civil discussion of penmaking. "

I don't know about that. Just start a thread asking what the best pen finish is, whether TBC or a mandrel is better, or whether you should use Micro Mesh AND a buffing system.

And bring up PSI. :biggrin:

 

[D.Oliver]

Its OK to post a thread of a bird cussing but by all means don't talk politics or call out our leaders by name...............

There's a thread about a cussing bird?

 

[Smitty37]

Not a problem, Steve - my apologies for using it as an example - but Smitty was (assumably) asking why I posted a gentle reminder in the other thread!

Nope - I have had a number of posts deleted as "political" that I did not think were political. Including one where what was said did not mention any particular politician or political party, where no one in the thread (except the moderator) even noticed and where the moderator made what I thought was an incorrect assessment of what was said.

I've also seen warnings that I thought were unwarranted by what had been posted - that did not include the one Andrew just mentioned -- that post was specific and did mention a particular political figure.

That post did start me thinking about it though.

 

[wood-of-1kind]

Its OK to post a thread of a bird cussing but by all means don't talk politics or call out our leaders by name...............

There's a thread about a cussing bird?

By 'George' there is :biggrin::biggrin:

 

[tbroye]

I like Red Pens:biggrin:





I am in just one of the moods today, the devil made me do it,

 

[ed4copies]

Can't abide red, blue or it just ain't a pen!!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[edstreet]

So what IS political?

Political \Po*lit"i*cal\, a.

1. Having, or conforming to, a settled system of administration.

2. Of or pertaining to public policy, or to politics; relating to affairs of state or administration;

3. Of or pertaining to a party, or to parties

By very definition conforming to established public rules and any posting is in itself 'political'.

Very mention of IAP is itself political as it indicates it's the group of pen turners.

Perhaps the word 'political' is very vague, contrasting and often deceptive in context.

 

[alphageek]

So what IS political? By very definition conforming to established public rules and any posting is in itself 'political'. Very mention of IAP is itself political as it indicates it's the group of pen turners. Perhaps the word 'political' is very vague, contrasting and often deceptive in context.

Sigh... We don't need a dictionary definition, nor is it really vague. In the context of our forum what is political is pretty darn easy to pick out.

Mail and customs are "governmental" but not necessarily political. And since shipping is so important to pen turners (it must be since that seems to get more cheers than anything else), it is a valid topic. However, any topic can get turned into a political mess, just like any topic could turn into personal attacks. The rules are in place to keep things from getting "ugly" and usually do the trick.

And one more reminder - we have varied political views (party and country) within the mod team, but we don't play favorites. We keep the peace in Jeff's house as he wishes it and keep it out regardless of who the political posts are for or against.

Dean
Asst mod

 

[edstreet]

So long story short, mail/shipping/customs is gov and gov is political and we show favortism to exclude mail/shipping/customs from the rules? I am curious to about the use of 'necessarily' as that's like being somewhat pregnant.

Having a definition of something does indeed give much needed clarity and removes obsecurity. The lines often gets muddied in support of whatever cause is being made and having a definition really helps to keep things on track.

The very interesting part about this is censorship.

Now people often wonder why I put 'confusion' down as my location.

 

[alphageek]

So long story short, mail/shipping/customs is gov and gov is political and we show favortism to exclude mail/shipping/customs from the rules? I am curious to about the use of 'necessarily' as that's like being somewhat pregnant.

Having a definition of something does indeed give much needed clarity and removes obsecurity. The lines often gets muddied in support of whatever cause is being made and having a definition really helps to keep things on track.

The very interesting part about this is censorship.

Now people often wonder why I put 'confusion' down as my location.

We do NOT show favoritism to exclude mail from the rules. Just because some shipping is government (only USPS is), and government leads to political discussions - that doesn't mean that shipping is political.

The short and sweet is that the rules are already complicated enough. Putting a ton of more text and definitions would not only not clarify things any more, it would just prompt more debate. The rules as they are work in over 99% of the times they are used - if people have an issue with a way the rule is applied they are welcome to question the mod team or Jeff.

As for censorship - remember this is Jeffs house, not a government entity so free speech does not apply. Jeff doesn't like shutting things down, but will for the greater good.

Dean
Asst mod.

 

[Smitty37]

So long story short, mail/shipping/customs is gov and gov is political and we show favortism to exclude mail/shipping/customs from the rules? I am curious to about the use of 'necessarily' as that's like being somewhat pregnant.

Having a definition of something does indeed give much needed clarity and removes obsecurity. The lines often gets muddied in support of whatever cause is being made and having a definition really helps to keep things on track.

The very interesting part about this is censorship.

Now people often wonder why I put 'confusion' down as my location.

We do NOT show favoritism to exclude mail from the rules. Just because some shipping is government (only USPS is), and government leads to political discussions - that doesn't mean that shipping is political.

The short and sweet is that the rules are already complicated enough. Putting a ton of more text and definitions would not only not clarify things any more, it would just prompt more debate. The rules as they are work in over 99% of the times they are used - if people have an issue with a way the rule is applied they are welcome to question the mod team or Jeff.

As for censorship - remember this is Jeffs house, not a government entity so free speech does not apply. Jeff doesn't like shutting things down, but will for the greater good.

Dean
Asst mod.

Dean, we've had our differences and we've had a lot friendlier moments but as often as I have been subjected to "moderation" I have yet to have a moderator's decision reversed, even when someone in the line has privately indicated to me that perhaps a mistake was made.

Maybe others have had different experiences.

 

[jeff]

Don't over-complicate it folks. The only reason that we avoid political discussion here is that it has proven itself over the years at IAP (and most anywhere else, I suspect) to be the one topic where it's almost always impossible to respectfully disagree. As soon as the discussions begin mentioning specific party politics or specific politicians, things get nasty.

In fact, you'll notice that even when the topic starts out somewhat light and interesting, someone often jumps in with a "well that's because of that dirty [insert any politician's name]" and things go straight downhill. So, here we define "political discussions" as arguments resulting from the injection of partisan politics or discussion of specific political figures.

Many people are very committed to their ideology, and from the safety of their keyboard are happy to aggressively defend it. Then people with opposing viewpoints are only too happy to aggressively dissect their "facts" with "facts" of their own, and the outcome is never pleasant.

We can respectfully discuss absolutely any topic. Global Warming (not tonight in NE Ohio, it's -12!), the postal service, the Supreme Court, heath care, roads and bridges, war and peace, the economy, outer space, whatever! BUT, as soon as the argument begins about why one party or politician is better than another, or is evil, or has just ruined XYZ or is not religious enough, or too religious for your taste, or you name it, then we stop the discussion.

To your question, Smitty; "... is X regulation causing Y...". Can a causation question often be answered outside of chemistry, physics, or mathematics? As soon as there is opinion involved, there's pile-on from both sides, and it often is not presented respectfully.

Hope that didn't muddy the water too much!

 

[Smitty37]

Don't over-complicate it folks. The only reason that we avoid political discussion here is that it has proven itself over the years at IAP (and most anywhere else, I suspect) to be the one topic where it's almost always impossible to respectfully disagree. As soon as the discussions begin mentioning specific party politics or specific politicians, things get nasty.

In fact, you'll notice that even when the topic starts out somewhat light and interesting, someone often jumps in with a "well that's because of that dirty [insert any politician's name]" and things go straight downhill. So, here we define "political discussions" as arguments resulting from the injection of partisan politics or discussion of specific political figures.

Many people are very committed to their ideology, and from the safety of their keyboard are happy to aggressively defend it. Then people with opposing viewpoints are only too happy to aggressively dissect their "facts" with "facts" of their own, and the outcome is never pleasant.

We can respectfully discuss absolutely any topic. Global Warming (not tonight in NE Ohio, it's -12!), the postal service, the Supreme Court, heath care, roads and bridges, war and peace, the economy, outer space, whatever! BUT, as soon as the argument begins about why one party or politician is better than another, or is evil, or has just ruined XYZ or is not religious enough, or too religious for your taste, or you name it, then we stop the discussion.

To your question, Smitty; "... is X regulation causing Y...". Can a causation question often be answered outside of chemistry, physics, or mathematics? As soon as there is opinion involved, there's pile-on from both sides, and it often is not presented respectfully.

Hope that didn't muddy the water too much!

That was just a rhetorical question that can often be answered perhaps not with 100% certainty but answered. We also have Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics questions that the answer is correct based on the assumptions but not certain because the assumptions are not cast in concrete.

 

[edstreet]

my brain hurts.

can we go back to talking about how many coats of CA we use, why we must use carbide tips in chisels and ask what is kitless?

 

[Smitty37]

Sorry, I should have made that last post .... for you unreligious folks "The Devil Made Me Do It".

 

[edstreet]

Oh and Jeff, I am not trying to over complicate it. I am trying to break it down to better understand things.

 

[robutacion]

Humm..! I would like to be that "bird", sometimes (I may already am, possibly...!:wink

No, no no, I'm not going to "bite" as I hate "politics" and want nothing to do with them, regardless if they are white, black or blue...!:biggrin:

So, my comment is in regards to our friend Smithy, that seems to be full of beans and loves to stir the pot, obviously...!

I have been told since a little boy that, "if you want to play with fire, expect to be burnt...!", that in life, as proven to be as true and accurate as is me typing this post here so, a quick look to what Smithy is on about, made the turn the other way and move.

Sure, I sometimes like to have a look and see how close/far the thread is from being closed/terminated, I may be wrong but, 95% of identical threads endup that way, with things said that shouldn't and peoples feeling being offended...!

As a result, I will end here, my participation on this thread...!

You know, if it quacks, swims, flyes, smells like a duck and looks like one, it probably IS...!:wink::biggrin:

Good luck,

Cheers
George

 

[jeff]

Just a bit more clarification. Our Acceptable Use Policy simply says, "Discussions of politics and religion are not allowed." The words aren't complicated, but the interpretation can be.

Since "Politics" essentially means "everything affecting citizens", I hope it's obvious that we don't intend to limit discussion based on the literal interpretation of the word.

I think Andrew said it somewhere in this thread; the things that are a problem are discussions about the virtues of specific parties, specific people, or the obvious hot-button issues.

For those of you who feel you've been unfairly censored or been asked to tone something down, please understand that we do the best we can with a difficult topic. The mods are well-intentioned guys trying to handle a topic that isn't easy to moderate. We try our best not to take arbitrary action. If you feel you've been unfairly moderated, you can always send me a PM and I'll be happy to open a discussion with the team.

 

[jeff]

Oh and Jeff, I am not trying to over complicate it. I am trying to break it down to better understand things.

I welcome the questions and the discussion.

 

[Smitty37]

Humm..! I would like to be that "bird", sometimes (I may already am, possibly...!:wink

No, no no, I'm not going to "bite" as I hate "politics" and want nothing to do with them, regardless if they are white, black or blue...!:biggrin:

So, my comment is in regards to our friend Smithy, that seems to be full of beans and loves to stir the pot, obviously...!

I have been told since a little boy that, "if you want to play with fire, expect to be burnt...!", that in life, as proven to be as true and accurate as is me typing this post here so, a quick look to what Smithy is on about, made the turn the other way and move.

Sure, I sometimes like to have a look and see how close/far the thread is from being closed/terminated, I may be wrong but, 95% of identical threads endup that way, with things said that shouldn't and peoples feeling being offended...!

As a result, I will end here, my participation on this thread...!

You know, if it quacks, swims, flyes, smells like a duck and looks like one, it probably IS...!:wink::biggrin:

Good luck,

Cheers
George

that should include "and is found in the company of ducks":biggrin:

 

[Old Codger]

Just a quick comment...if I find a posting that I consider 'Polical'. I just ignore it and move on to a more topical posting. This is a 'Turner's Forum'... My personal opinion is, if you want to talk politics...go to ta 'POLITICAL FORUM' and let turners cuss/discuss wood, lathes, lathe accessories, finishes, etc... and keep the politics out of this forum!

 

[ctubbs]

When I have difficulty understanding the meaning of a word, I break it down into its component parts.
To simplify, politics = poli many, a large number, several. tics blood sucking insects that often carry and transfer bad disease. Therefore politics are a bunch of blood sucking, disease carrying insects.

No wonder Jeff wishes not to hear discussion about them here.

Charles

 

[alphageek]

my brain hurts.

can we go back to talking about how many coats of CA we use, why we must use carbide tips in chisels and ask what is kitless?

Oh and Jeff, I am not trying to over complicate it. I am trying to break it down to better understand things.

No wonder your brain hurts... the above 2 posts were done in that order less than 10 minutes apart. You sure that there is only 1 person in there? :biggrin:

 

[thrustmonkey]

Sooooooo...... what was the bird cussing about?

 

[edstreet]

my brain hurts.

can we go back to talking about how many coats of CA we use, why we must use carbide tips in chisels and ask what is kitless?

Oh and Jeff, I am not trying to over complicate it. I am trying to break it down to better understand things.

No wonder your brain hurts... the above 2 posts were done in that order less than 10 minutes apart. You sure that there is only 1 person in there? :biggrin:

You must have not fully understood the 2 paragraph line that I post earlier.

And FYI there's 3 people's in there, not one.

 

[Smitty37]

my brain hurts.

can we go back to talking about how many coats of CA we use, why we must use carbide tips in chisels and ask what is kitless?

Oh and Jeff, I am not trying to over complicate it. I am trying to break it down to better understand things.

No wonder your brain hurts... the above 2 posts were done in that order less than 10 minutes apart. You sure that there is only 1 person in there? :biggrin:

You must have not fully understood the 2 paragraph line that I post earlier.

And FYI there's 3 people's in there, not one.

there being where???

 

[tbroye]

Reality thats where there is:biggrin:

 

[rherrell]

I like Red Pens:biggrin:





I am in just one of the moods today, the devil made me do it,

Can't abide red, blue or it just ain't a pen!!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I like red, white AND blue pens....oh wait, that's political...never mind.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: