Political Discussions

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

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?

Most of the time, yes. On here, I don't know. It's hard to imagine going down that road without it "turning political". I think the link's heavy political bias was worth noting. I did so and was prepared to move on.

Check out this exchange:

Cincrazy: I don't know that I agree with this. Just because it hasn't blown yet doesn't met it's not going to. The last of the workers have been evacuated from the place, what's that tell us? Not good.

KingsPoint: Read the post directly above yours. There's a couple of links to more information than anyone could possibly read. In the end you'll be better informed than you were before. You sound very interested. You should find the information fascinating.

In answer to yours and Rojo's question of why are people getting evacuated and what are the current risks, this article (one of many from that link I gave you and Rojo) provides specific information to help you answer that question: (the update of this article is Updated: 2011-03-16 08:00)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/20...t_12177086.htm

Cincrazy: Hey, thanks for the information. Much appreciated.

An innocent poster has been propogandized with "information" because the challenge to the sources has been removed. That's a disservice.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by top6

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 .

There's a very good reason. It's because nothing I wrote was political. If you recall I clearly didn't address Dom's response to my comments and I made it clear that I wouldn't. Do you remember that post from me?

Originally Posted by top6

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.

If I say the above then we can discuss it but since I didn't it really has nothing to do with this issue at hand. I made a comment that the Press embellishes stories for ratings and this nuclear story in Japan was an example of that. Why? Because they kept giving the doomsday scenario as opposed to the most likely scenario. I said nothing about the pros and cons of nuclear power per se. If you think the above is political then that's on you...

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Rojo

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. .

Fine. Then state that you don't think his education qualifies him as an expert and tell us why. That leaves politics out of it.

Originally Posted by Rojo

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

Once again, it's you needlessly bringing politics into this. Why go there? Regardless of whether a radio station employs Rush Limbaugh, you can refute Dr Lehr with an expert of your own and reasons why he/she should be believed over my expert. Once again, politics are avoided

Originally Posted by Rojo

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.

Why do you care how I heard of Jay Lehr if not for your intention to instill politics into this? Not that it's any of your business but in the air of full disclosure I will tell you that I first saw Jay Lehr on CNN as an expert in this area and I thought what he said made sense. Not having access to a transcript I Googled him, hence the comment I posted here. Hence it was CNN who brought him on as a expert on energy, not me. And I hardly think CNN is a right wing organization.

If nothing else, we now can clearly see how politics were drawn into this thread. Thanks...

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

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 you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

[Sea Ray]

Boss, I've had an epithany and I want to humbly apologize for ever starting this thread. I had other ideas of how it was going to go and honestly, it's changed my opinion on the subject.

I now fully understand your policy on politics. There are certain folks who will force politics into this stuff even where none is present and it's never been clearer than the examples given here in this thread the past day or so. With that in mind you do owe it to your staff to have a no tolerance policy towards politics...

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

If you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

If it's a quote directly from Glenn Beck I'd agree with you but if it's quote from a guest on the show what does it matter that the guest was on his show when it was said?

The way to combat it is to prove how the quote was false or out of context. Just saying it's from Glenn Beck and leaving it at that does nothing to prove your point

[top6]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

There's a very good reason. It's because nothing I wrote was political. If you recall I clearly didn't address Dom's response to my comments and I made it clear that I wouldn't. Do you remember that post from me?

You simply saying something isn't political doesn't change anything. You stated an opinion on a subject. Dom stated a contrary opinion on precisely the same subject. Either both of those statements are political, or neither of them are. I am actually still not clear on whether you think Dom's posts were political or not. KP just specifically called out Dom's posts in this thread as inappropriate, and all I was really saying is that they were just a response to you.

But, yes, this thread does sort of answer the question you posed in the OP.

[RBA]

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

If you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

What constitutes "blatantly partisan or slanted" to some won't be apparent to others. It's pretty simple: discuss the merits of the issue. If the issue is what constitutes health hazards of radiation from a possible meltdown, it's pretty simple to discuss the claims made by a presented expert. Either what the expert is saying is legitimate or it's not. If it's not, then a person should be able to discuss why those claims are not accurate.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by top6

You simply saying something isn't political doesn't change anything. You stated an opinion on a subject. Dom stated a contrary opinion on precisely the same subject. Either both of those statements are political, or neither of them are. I am actually still not clear on whether you think Dom's posts were political or not. KP just specifically called out Dom's posts in this thread as inappropriate, and all I was really saying is that they were just a response to you.

But, yes, this thread does sort of answer the question you posed in the OP.

I have clearly stated that my posts were not political and why. You've failed to show where I brought politics into it at all. If you thought I was arguing for more nuclear power in general then you misread what I wrote.

[top6]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I have clearly stated that my posts were not political and why. You've failed to show where I brought politics into it at all. If you thought I was arguing for more nuclear power in general then you misread what I wrote.

I have clearly stated why I think your posts were political and why. I guess we disagree. Just because your point wasn't as simplistic as "more nuclear power" doesn't mean it wasn't political. As I said, I think you are correct, the media does a terrible job covering certain stories, and did a very bad job on this story in particular. There are very serious political ramifications of that opinion, though.

You still have not answered the question implied in my last post. Do you think Dom Hefner's posts in that thread were political? I think they are as well. KP clearly stated that DH's posts were political and yours were not. (Or KP just forgot about your posts.) That was the point I disagreed with and responded to.

Finally, I like your posts, even though I disagree with many of them. If I posted here more, I would probably be pushing the limit of what is political as much as I perceive you to be doing.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

What constitutes "blatantly partisan or slanted" to some won't be apparent to others. It's pretty simple: discuss the merits of the issue. If the issue is what constitutes health hazards of radiation from a possible meltdown, it's pretty simple to discuss the claims made by a presented expert. Either what the expert is saying is legitimate or it's not. If it's not, then a person should be able to discuss why those claims are not accurate.

We are telling the American people to have patience, courage, resolve and determination.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

These two quotes are pretty benign, and difficult to argue against... until you know who said them.

The first one is from Gaddafi about the current situation in Libya.
The second one is from Lenin about indoctrinating the children of Russia with Communism.

It would be great if we could discuss the merits of every argument without discussing the merits of the person who said it, but sometimes, that is impossible.

But this really gets to a far bigger point.

This argument in this thread is not itself political, it is about what is political. If you ban any particular type of discussion from a message board, you will constantly have to deal with this very issue... what defines it?

Nobody said anything in this thread or the one that was closed that was politically charged or that stated any political opinion. But individual's political views tinted their discussion, because that is impossible to avoid sometimes. And because politics are a banned subject, they were called out on it by other posters. You really can't blame anyone on this, as it is unavoidable when politics are banned.

I'm not saying banning politics on this board is a bad idea, just that this situation is going to come up over and over again as long as it is.

[Plus Plus]

This is a reminder to the more politically inclined of us that we have sparsely moderated forums offsite that are perfect for any discussion on political, semi-political, or pseudo-political topics.

This thread should show to all who read or participated in it how easily something can be interpreted as political. The moderating staff is going to also be viewing this in a subjective manner, meaning that things that are posted that are not meant to be political could be interpreted as being political, leading to moderation taking place.

Another thing that I would like to say on my own end (and this may apply for other moderators as well): upon taking a position as a moderator here at Redszone, I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board- this will lead to better depth of discussion between all of you and an easier time as moderators for myself and the others.

[Unassisted]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board-

Taking this feedback to heart, maybe the best thing to do would be to close down the non-sports section of the forum and move ALL of those discussions to the Peanut Gallery?

This suggestion isn't meant to be an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If that section causes the most hard feelings among members, IMO, it might be time to consider the possibility that RedsZone has evolved to a point where a section discussing current events that aren't related to sports is no longer needed.

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

Taking this feedback to heart, maybe the best thing to do would be to close down the non-sports section of the forum and move ALL of those discussions to the Peanut Gallery?

This suggestion isn't meant to be an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If that section causes the most hard feelings among members, IMO, it might be time to consider the possibility that RedsZone has evolved to a point where a section discussing current events that aren't related to sports is no longer needed.

That was not the sentiment that I meant to convey at all; I think that a number of the threads on the non-sports forum are very well done and constructive to the site. I am solely referencing a few threads that have caused extensive work for the moderating staff, all of which have (coincidentally) been in the non-sports forum.