Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Edit: never mind. I'll drag the snark to a thread I don't mind seeing locked.

The only opportunities lost by banning politics is that we no longer have the pleasure of masterbating our inflated sense of riteousness all over someone else’s sense of riteousness.

“Oh, baby, I’m so right and you’re so wrong!”

“Naw baby, I’m right and you’re wrong. Oh, I’m going to be right in my pants!”

“No, I’m going to be right first! Oh, you’re so wrong you ignorant plebe!”

“Oh you think so? Your incorrectness turns me on so much! I think I’m going to be right all over your face!”

“You’re so wrong we’re going to need a mop to clean this up afterwards!”

*Both* “I’m so close to being right!”

* Thread lock*

*Both* “What?!? But I was so close to being right! Why’d you have to right-block me?”

I that's your opinion then you are always free to not read or post in any thread related to politics. But that doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to discuss the subject.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The only opportunities lost by banning politics is that we no longer have the pleasure of masterbating our inflated sense of riteousness all over someone else’s sense of riteousness.

“Oh, baby, I’m so right and you’re so wrong!”

“Naw baby, I’m right and you’re wrong. Oh, I’m going to be right in my pants!”

“No, I’m going to be right first! Oh, you’re so wrong you ignorant plebe!”

“Oh you think so? Your incorrectness turns me on so much! I think I’m going to be right all over your face!”

“You’re so wrong we’re going to need a mop to clean this up afterwards!”

*Both* “I’m so close to being right!”

* Thread lock*

*Both* “What?!? But I was so close to being right! Why’d you have to right-block me?”

What has been read cannot be unread...

 greatbigtree wrote:
[snip]

I gotta ask... how's that any different from many of the discussions in YMDC, Background, and Tactics, really? Politics is simply another form of human interaction, and any time people disagree over something, especially in fundamental ways, we'll get arguments like that.

I don't know if I agree with Ouze's original post, but well, I don't like that objection.

 Frazzled wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
The only opportunities lost by banning politics is that we no longer have the pleasure of masterbating our inflated sense of riteousness all over someone else’s sense of riteousness.

“Oh, baby, I’m so right and you’re so wrong!”

“Naw baby, I’m right and you’re wrong. Oh, I’m going to be right in my pants!”

“No, I’m going to be right first! Oh, you’re so wrong you ignorant plebe!”

“Oh you think so? Your incorrectness turns me on so much! I think I’m going to be right all over your face!”

“You’re so wrong we’re going to need a mop to clean this up afterwards!”

*Both* “I’m so close to being right!”

* Thread lock*

*Both* “What?!? But I was so close to being right! Why’d you have to right-block me?”

What has been read cannot be unread...

Don't fret oldster you are closer to end your suffering caused by this abomination due to old age then others here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
[snip]

I gotta ask... how's that any different from many of the discussions in YMDC, Background, and Tactics, really? Politics is simply another form of human interaction, and any time people disagree over something, especially in fundamental ways, we'll get arguments like that.

I don't know if I agree with Ouze's original post, but well, I don't like that objection.

Ymdc especially can end up literally the same way.

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
[snip]

I gotta ask... how's that any different from many of the discussions in YMDC, Background, and Tactics, really? Politics is simply another form of human interaction, and any time people disagree over something, especially in fundamental ways, we'll get arguments like that.

I don't know if I agree with Ouze's original post, but well, I don't like that objection.

I think the differences are that debate about real world politics:

1) Can relate to issues that people will not drop. Ergo the arguments go on and on and get worse and worse. Even if the original thread gets closed the toxicity between those arguing remains and can long term affect their relations on the site.

2) Has a much higher chance of users getting insulted and either fighting back (making it worse) and/or reporting posts and threads and members to the mods. Ergo generating a lot more background issues that have to be resolved.

3) Is not a core requirement to being able to chat about hobbies and wargames.

Ergo as its not essential for the site and because previous repeat situations ahve shown that its more likely to cause a fight which results in losing members, creating a bad admosphere and lots of mod time eaten up (and subsequent more insults to the mods from users not happy with the choices made in those resolutions). All that negativity and issues basically isn't worth the benefit of being able to debate real world politics on a website devoted to and structured for the discussion of miniature models and wargaming.

 Overread wrote:
I think the differences are that debate about real world politics:

1) Can relate to issues that people will not drop.

... I remember hundred page threads over "Female Space Marine" topics and the like. There are some topics that people just... go absolutely nuts over when it comes to the lore, the tactics, the rules, what have you. So I gotta disagree with this one.

 Overread wrote:
2) Has a much higher chance of users getting insulted and either fighting back (making it worse) and/or reporting posts and threads and members to the mods. Ergo generating a lot more background issues that have to be resolved.

Not sure I agree with this one, either. I've had people carry grudges against me for years over stuff that was said in hobby portions of the forum. Still, you have something of a point. But people feel very, VERY strongly about their hobby, and can be pretty mean-spirited in responding to disagreements there.

 Overread wrote:
3) Is not a core requirement to being able to chat about hobbies and wargames.

Neither is talking about what guns you own, but we got a 130+ page thread about that. Ironically, guns are a highly political topic.

As if the rules are applied capriciously and arbitrarily.

Well, discussing contentious issues related to the hobby is part of the core mission of Dakka. Some places will ban certain narrow topics, but generally Dakka is pretty open about on topic posting. The OT discussion is secondary to the actual core function of Dakka, and as such can be much more actively pruned, topic wise.

It's not like a gag rule on political discussion is unusual in clubs.

 Melissia wrote:
Neither is talking about what guns you own, but we got a 130+ page thread about that. Ironically, guns are a highly political topic.

To be fair, that thread has almost universally managed to avoid becoming a political debate thread, and the mods have allowed several similar threads to continue up to the point politics became the overt point of discussion. No one screams at each other there, and I doubt it generates much mod attention.

I think that's fair.

I had a thread locked that nobody responded to, because a mod decided the mere potential for political discussion existed. Now granted, my OP certainly could have taken a political path, but it was far from certain. Didn't matter, potential exists so apply sledgehammer.

How much attention did that really require? All of none?

Also, if you haven't noticed, rightwing and centrist politics are vastly more likely to be tolerated than leftist politics. I wonder why.

 Peregrine wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
(is it really that big a deal?)

Depends on the politics. Disagreement over a 1% difference in tax rate? Not a big deal even if some people overreact. But if your political position is "LGBT people shouldn't have rights, and forced conversion is great" or "ban all Muslims" or similar then yeah, you're a terrible person and cutting someone off is 100% appropriate. And one of the nice things about allowing political discussion is that people with appalling beliefs will often eagerly reveal themselves.

And freedom of speech allows them to do so. Regardless of the fact that you are morally right, it doesn't give you the right to take away the rights of others.

 Polonius wrote:

It's not like a gag rule on political discussion is unusual in clubs.

As problematic as those gag rules are they're still more legitimate than a forum ban. In an offline club there is no private discussion, so everyone nearby has to listen if a political argument starts. Ur on a forum you can just not click on politics threads. It ceases to be a desire for quiet space and becomes smug insistence that because one person is privileged enough to be able to "not enjoy politics" they're entitled to shut down anyone else trying to discuss it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
(is it really that big a deal?)

Depends on the politics. Disagreement over a 1% difference in tax rate? Not a big deal even if some people overreact. But if your political position is "LGBT people shouldn't have rights, and forced conversion is great" or "ban all Muslims" or similar then yeah, you're a terrible person and cutting someone off is 100% appropriate. And one of the nice things about allowing political discussion is that people with appalling beliefs will often eagerly reveal themselves.

And freedom of speech allows them to do so. Regardless of the fact that you are morally right, it doesn't give you the right to take away the rights of others.

Freedom of speech does not mean that I can't call someone a and tell them to GTFO my club, block them on social media, etc. Please don't misuse the concept like this.

To reiterate, this thread wasn't about re-allowing open ended, purely political discussions, but rather the way moderators handle hobby-related discussions with tangential political overtones.

 Ouze wrote:
To reiterate, this thread wasn't about re-allowing open ended, purely political discussions, but rather the way moderators handle hobby-related discussions with tangential political overtones.

The two are closely related, however. The only reason hobby political discussions are shut down is an over-zealous obsession with shutting down discussion that certain people don't like. And the best solution is to fix the ban and stop worrying about whether or not something is "too political".

OK, so if we're just back to the usual people arguing over whether or not politics should be allowed on the forum, we can all move on. There's nothing to be gained by rehashing the exact same arguments over and over again.