Political Discussions

[Sea Ray]

The Non-Sports Chatter section is now littered with locked threads due to its bordering on being political. Without getting into a discussion of what's political and what isn't, why are politics such taboo around here? What is the basis for such a policy?

[Boss-Hog]

You're asking moderators to a spend a large amount of their free time moderating discussions in which people are highly unlikely to change their minds on the topic. When we did previously allow these, the political threads were often threads that required the most moderation due to repeated rules violations. These threads often got very heated and it at times carried over to non-political threads. We only have a certain amount of time our moderators can voluntarily offer to the site and I'm not going to ask them to spend a good chunk of that time moderating topics that has nothing to do with the primary focus of this site. Primarily for that reason, political and religion-based threads have been moved off site for numerous years and we're not going back on that decision. Our stance on this has been very clear since it was implemented: no political or religion-based threads on this site.

Also see the stickied thread in the Non-Baseball chatter forum on this very topic.

[Kingspoint]

Why was the thread on the health hazards from what's going on in Japan closed?

The only person who tried to post political opinions was Dom Hefner. I asked him three times to stop going there because I figured that his repeated attempts to turn it political would close it. The rest of us would stay on the topic and he'd come along and throw out comments about people's political agendas. The rest of us were just trying to find out about the health risks of what's going on.

Now you've closed a good information thread that helps the general public just because one poster stuck his two cents in about his political feelings about nuclear energy. The rest of us didn't have an opinion one way or another and were sharing information about links that reported health risks/concerns and links that reported where we need not be worried about our health (at whatever particular times that the links were presented).

This is too important a topic to let one person ruin it for everyone else.

[Brutus]

Kingspoint, you're more than welcome to start that topic again, provided the think-tank discussions and political meta-commentary about the media stay out of it. That's not just directed at you, but anyone that contributes.

The thread was closed because it was getting political and the discussion started venturing toward posters instead of the topic itself. Feel free to restart the topic and it won't be locked if it stays on track.

[top6]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

Why was the thread on the health hazards from what's going on in Japan closed?

The only person who tried to post political opinions was Dom Hefner. I asked him three times to stop going there because I figured that his repeated attempts to turn it political would close it. The rest of us would stay on the topic and he'd come along and throw out comments about people's political agendas. The rest of us were just trying to find out about the health risks of what's going on.

Now you've closed a good information thread that helps the general public just because one poster stuck his two cents in about his political feelings about nuclear energy. The rest of us didn't have an opinion one way or another and were sharing information about links that reported health risks/concerns and links that reported where we need not be worried about our health (at whatever particular times that the links were presented).

This is too important a topic to let one person ruin it for everyone else.

With all due respect, that thread, and your statement about Dom Hefner, and the insults directed at him in that thread, raise the precise problem I have seen in other threads. Specifically, one person posts their opinion on some topic, which is blatantly political. Then someone responds with a contrary opinion, and only the person who responds is accused of being political. In other words, people tend to believe that their opinions are not political, but that other, contradictory opinions on the same topic are.

Two posts above Dom Hefner's first post in that thread, Sea Ray posted this:

Let's look at the worst nuclear accident in this country, Three Mile Island. It too was overblown by the Press but in their defense, at the time we didn't know what the long term effects would be. We now know that it was really quite minimal. In fact Wiki said the following:

This is stating a political view about an important policy issue: namely that people and the press generally overreact to anything that has to do with nuclear power, and that they specifically overreacted to the incident at Three Mile Island. As I said in another thread about a Sea Ray post (the teachers thread), there is nothing wrong with this per se. (And actually, unlike the teachers thread, I probably agree a little more with Sea Ray on this one.) But it puts someone who disagrees in an awkward position: either let something they believe is important and wrong stand unrebutted, or get dragged into a forbidden political discussion.

Just thinking about that thread in particular, there were links to a lot of "information" about nuclear safety. I don't know enough to have a dog in this fight, but surely that thread is not all that useful if someone can't chime in and say, "um, that information is from the Society For Increasing Nuclear Power in America, and therefore may not be all that reliable." And if someone is posting stuff from the Sierra Club or whatever, someone should be able to point that out as well, as potentially unreliable. Then, bam, we are in a political discussion again.

I think my point is that some topics are just always going to be political, and therefore people may just have to find some other place to talk about them than a Reds message board.

[Sea Ray]

TOP6, there's absolutely nothing political in the post you referenced above. The quote I included was from Wiki. If that's a political website, I'm not aware of its leanings. It directly related to my point that the Press tends to over inflate stuff for ratings, hence the example of Three Mile Island which history has shown to not have caused health problems. My point was about the Press and its tendancy to go with the worst case scenario with the intent of getting ratings.

Your attempt to turn it into a pro or anti nuclear rant is misguided.

I never brought up the issue of nuclear power as it relates to policy, now did I?

[top6]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

TOP6, there's absolutely nothing political in the post you referenced above. The quote I included was from Wiki. If that's a political website, I'm not aware of its leanings. It directly related to my point that the Press tends to over inflate stuff for ratings, hence the example of Three Mile Island which history has shown to not have caused health problems. My point was about the Press and its tendancy to go with the worst case scenario with the intent of getting ratings.

Your attempt to turn it into a pro or anti nuclear rant is misguided.

I never brought up the issue of nuclear power as it relates to policy, now did I?

Well it seems to me that most - if not all - of Dom Hefner's posts were devoted to disagreeing with your statement and similar statements. So how are his posts political if yours are not?

Of course, you are not the one saying his posts were political, so that is really more aimed at Kingspoint than you.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by top6

But it puts someone who disagrees in an awkward position: either let something they believe is important and wrong stand unrebutted, or get dragged into a forbidden political discussion.

Exactly, thank you.


Sea Ray, you link was to a right-wing radio station, featuring a well-known flak for nuclear energy. To say that you're just trying to "inform" is completely disengenous.

But, if it were up to me, you'd be allowed to do so. And I'd be allowed to respond it kind.

But it's not my board, so if politics isn't allowed then that link should've been removed.

What happened is that link was allowed to stand while my comments about it's credibility, or lack thereof, was removed. That's inconsistent.

[Brutus]

Linking to a media outlet, whether it be known for being "left-wing" or "right-wing" is not a political discussion. If it's a media outlet, there's nothing wrong with linking to it if it's actual news and tangent to the discussion.

Making political comments because of the link is going into a political realm.

It's really grasping at straws to object to a link to a news station because they are deemed to lean one direction or another. By that logic, we should never allow links to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, GlennBeck.com or any other media outlet because someone will always have a view that it's a left-wing or right-wing outlet.

If it's legitimately a news organization, there's nothing wrong with posting a link provided it's tangent to the subject. The mods don't see a problem with linking to news stations, nor do we want to get into a situation where we have to decipher the reputation of such outlet. But when a political comment is made, it's much easier to nip it in the bud because there's not too much to assume once that happens.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by top6

Well it seems to me that most - if not all - of Dom Hefner's posts were devoted to disagreeing with your statement and similar statements. So how are his posts political if yours are not?

Of course, you are not the one saying his posts were political, so that is really more aimed at Kingspoint than you.

It's got nothing to do with Dom or KP. You accused me of being political and I'm asking you to show me where.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Exactly, thank you.


Sea Ray, you link was to a right-wing radio station, featuring a well-known flak for nuclear energy. To say that you're just trying to "inform" is completely disengenous.

But, if it were up to me, you'd be allowed to do so. And I'd be allowed to respond it kind.

But it's not my board, so if politics isn't allowed then that link should've been removed.

What happened is that link was allowed to stand while my comments about it's credibility, or lack thereof, was removed. That's inconsistent.

My link was to a quote from an expert in nuclear energy that came from the ABC affiliate in Chicago. Your attempts to label it and the expert are to put it mildly, "weak". If you don't think he's qualified then say so; better yet, put your own expert up and tell us why he's more qualified.

To call Jay Lehr "a Flak" is inflammatory at best and does nothing to help your cause. You may think he's well known but I had never heard of him until after this Japan incident. Maybe I've been under a rock but I've never heard him speak at a GOP convention or seen him in the news politically or otherwise before last week. For you to accuse me of cherry picking someone based on his politics was unfounded on your part. I had/have no idea of his political leanings. I heard him speak about the Japan issue during an interview on CNN and that's the first I'd ever seen or heard of him.

[top6]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

It's got nothing to do with Dom or KP. You accused me of being political and I'm asking you to show me where.

Your views on how the press reacts to things generally, and how they react to issues involving nuclear power, are political (in my opinion). Dom Hefner disagreed with your views, and stated an opinion contrary to your views, and was accused of being political, but for some reason you are not. So I think in the context of this thread Dom and KP have a lot to do with it.

If I say something like, "the press grossly misreports that facts about the invasion of Iraq and functions largely as a proganda machine devoted to supporting U.S. foreign policy," I have not explicitly stated my views on U.S. foreign policy or our invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I wouldn't make that statement on a board that prohibited political discussion.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

It's really grasping at straws to object to a link to a news station because they are deemed to lean one direction or another. By that logic, we should never allow links to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, GlennBeck.com or any other media outlet because someone will always have a view that it's a left-wing or right-wing outlet.

Can you really not tell the difference between an AP lede and a long-winded commentary from an energy company think-tank shill?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Can you really not tell the difference between an AP lede and a long-winded commentary from an energy company think-tank shill?

Let me answer a question with a question... can't you debate the merits of his points without regard for whether you think he's a "shill" or "right-wing" think-tanker?

What he thinks is irrelevant to his politics. It was a legitimate newsworthy event that shouldn't have been political. If you disagree with his points, debate them, challenge them or ignore them. His perceived political background, which was not mentioned whatsoever (other than an affiliation with a think-tank organization), was not tangent to the discussion.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

My link was to a quote from an expert in nuclear energy that came from the ABC affiliate in Chicago.

First of all, the "expert" claim is dubious. He's not a nuclear engineer, he has a Geological Engineering degree from Princeton and PhD in Environmental Science, whatever that is, from the University of Arizona. He's a noted AGW denier

Second, characterizing WLS as an "ABC affiliate" is a dodge. The station features Rush, Hannity and Mark Levine. It's political orientation is clear.

Third, the idea that you just went searching for some facts and came away with Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute is pretty hard to believe.