Re political threads

[DesertRider]

A thought/plea/suggestion:

This is an election year in the U.S. and we have more than 8 months to go until the election. That means we are going to be so bombarded night and day with political ads and commentary on TV, radio, print, web, and outhouse posters that long before the election comes we're all going to be sick of this stuff (all except the wild-eyed fanatics, who seemingly can never get enough of political bickering).

With that in mind, what say we all agree to keep partisan politics off the forum and let us have a little haven of peace where we can carry on discussions, have some fun, and not have the peace intruded upon by the political venom that seems to be spewing gushers this political year. We've just seen a couple of political threads here (one just shut down by the moderator, the other one rapidly becoming just as rancid), and I think even to those of us who participated it should be fairly obvious that (1) nothing was settled, and (2) nothing will ever be settled that way. I mean, to paraphrase the apocryphal, political opinions are like anal orifices: everyone has one, and no one really wants to listen to anyone else's.

So why don't we agree, as mature adults, not to engage in wasteful and quarrelsome political arguments here, and use the energy and bandwidth to discuss things more enjoyable. We all came here because we want to talk about something we supremely enjoy (that's motorcycles, for those who may have forgotten), why blot it with something that promotes rancor and which we're going to get too much of already?

[kbasa]

In.

:thumb

As a moderator, I hate having to shut down a conversation, but politic threads generally generate as much useful discussion and sharing of thoughts as a religious debate.

YMMV.

So - how 'bout that new GS?

[Rich]

10-4, I'm with ya!!

[fish]

I gotta say...I'm out on this one. This is a virtual campfire, and as such, we don't dictate what topics are brought up (just like we don't dictate which beverages are brought out). If you don't like the discussion at this campfire, walk over to the next one. Nobody is forcing anybody to click on a thread...and there's lots of different campfires here. I'm all in favor of moderating threads as needed to keep it civil.

First politics, then religion, then money, then guns, then diets, then tankbags...where will it end?

So...out.

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by fish
This is a virtual campfire, and as such, we don't dictate what topics are brought up (just like we don't dictate which beverages are brought out).

I'm not suggesting anyone dictate anything, only a "gentleman's agreement" (with apologies to the ladies here). That we apply our collective social sense, not that we apply any authority to enforce it.

[kbasa]

Originally posted by fish
I gotta say...I'm out on this one. This is a virtual campfire, and as such, we don't dictate what topics are brought up (just like we don't dictate which beverages are brought out). If you don't like the discussion at this campfire, walk over to the next one. Nobody is forcing anybody to click on a thread...and there's lots of different campfires here. I'm all in favor of moderating threads as needed to keep it civil.

First politics, then religion, then money, then guns, then diets, then tankbags...where will it end?

So...out.

Fish has a point, and a very good one at that.

I'm modifying my vote to "when political threads get out of hand, we'll lock them."

[lorazepam]

I may disagree, and take a shot or two, but I have to say out as well. I believe in the freedom to disagree, and to state my opinion no matter how warped it may be.

[DesertRider]

Freedom of speech does not mean we have to use it to the limits. Voluntary restraint is often the best policy, and that's all I was asking -- that we apply some voluntary self-control to avoid topics that tend to inflame more than enlighten. But it requires everyone's cooperation, and if you insist on continuing in what you've been doing, then no one will stop you.

[eljeffe]

Originally posted by Eric Blume
Out - Freedom of speech in the campfire.
I am willing to hear your points of view, and maybe comment on them

Eric,

You're not interested in intelligent debate. This is demonstrated by your use of baited questions in a form resembling the following:

"Does Eric Blume still beat his wife, and is it ethical if he refuses to stop?"

Your use of assumptive language in the questions you have posed to the group and your circular debate style allows only for your point of view. When countered with a well reasoned and differing opinion, you quip meaningless comments like you were stuffing your face with cereal. You're a great example of the worst kind of troll to habit the realm of internet discussion formus.

If you want to have a spirited debate, go for it. If you're going to play your game with stinky bait, maybe you should go play elsewhere. Might I suggest www.jugheads.org :snore

Then again, we can always make this an easy decision -- "click here to IGNORE Eric Blume (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=121)" :bliss

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by eljeffe
Then again, we can always make this an easy decision -- "click here to IGNORE Eric Blume (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=121)" :bliss

Didn't know you could do that. Hmmm.

[DarrylRi]

Originally posted by DesertRider
Freedom of speech does not mean we have to use it to the limits. Voluntary restraint is often the best policy, and that's all I was asking -- that we apply some voluntary self-control to avoid topics that tend to inflame more than enlighten. But it requires everyone's cooperation, and if you insist on continuing in what you've been doing, then no one will stop you. Actually, this sounds good to me. I promise not to start such a thread, and I'll try (but no guarantees) to stay out of one that's going on.

[BradfordBenn]

It's like a TV Channel or a Radio Station, if you don't like what is on, change the channel.

So if you guys want to talk politics I don't care, I just won't watch.

[ian408]

Originally posted by fish
I gotta say...I'm out on this one. This is a virtual campfire, and as such, we don't dictate what topics are brought up (just like we don't dictate which beverages are brought out). If you don't like the discussion at this campfire, walk over to the next one. Nobody is forcing anybody to click on a thread...and there's lots of different campfires here. I'm all in favor of moderating threads as needed to keep it civil.

First politics, then religion, then money, then guns, then diets, then tankbags...where will it end?

So...out.

Swimmin' with the fish on this one.

Ian

[knary]

I'm a firm "out". Keep the discussions civil, but keep them coming. We're all adults here and, with an occasional nudge from a moderator or two, can even behave as such.

So...a few less succinct thoughts....

1. Eric, if possible, try to take a more open approach in your posts. You may think these questions have obvious answers, but your fellow BMW riders may not. Play nice. A little less crap stirring please. There are better places for it. IOW, your dissenters have a point - if you ask "Is bush an idiot or just evil?" (my question), you're not asking for a discussion, you're poking those who like Bush in the eye. Again, there are better places for this kind of behavior.

2. Those of you that have already written Eric off as blowhard and worse, take it all with a grain of salt and realize that your position may seem just as unreasonable to another person on the other side of the political spectrum.

3. AND, believe it or not, reasonable people can come to different conclusions with the same information. IOW, if you loath Bush, you're not a necessarily whacko liberal idiot, and if you love him, you're not necessarily whacko right-wing idiot. (I have to remind myself of the latter every time I see someone espouse their support for Shrub)

4. This is a friggin' internet forum! Personalities and opinions take a hyperbolic turn. Don't get all bent over someone else's POV. That other person might be the best riding buddy you could ever imagine.

5. This is a chance for us to step out of our ghettos! (excuse the misuse of the term). Think about the bigger picture. We're chatting with people ALL OVER the country and, in some cases, world. How cool is this?!?! This is a chance to swap words and ideas with folks you would never otherwise encounter. Revel in the amazingnessity of it all. :D

I'm rambling and tired. I just got back from Tahoe on business. I didn't ride - which was good. They got a good dose of snow last night and it would have been less than fun today. From another trip down...

[Cliffy777]

I enjoy reading what everyone has to say. It is a gas to connect with people from all over the country.
I hate it when people start calling names and what not.
I am in favor of any thread goes. If you don't like it, then don't read it.
I am glad the heavy handed moderators shut 'em down when they get too nasty.
Talking about bikes is fun, but a lot of the other threads we have had on here are great as well. The exchange of ideas is stimulating, especially if we can do so without resorting to name calling.

[RebeccaV]

Originally posted by knary
Don't get all bent over someone else's POV. That other person might be the best riding buddy you could ever imagine.
I've met, ridden, and hung out with all many folks with whom I have some large, fundamental and potentially contentious differences. Somehow through the magic of the motorcycling community we manage to be quite good friends. It's a very cool thing.

I guess I'm in the 'play nice' camp. Getting pissy about a subjective subject is pretty absurd.

[DesertRider]

I certainly agree that one of the great things about an Internet forum is the sharing of ideas from all over. And certainly personalities differ, and one must allow for that (and people do, by and large). However, I think those who say one should just ignore political discussions are missing the point. To explain:

The contentious "political" threads in question often deal with matters close to people's core beliefs. It's not the pure politics angle that is interesting (poll numbers, delegate counts, etc.), but the beliefs that drive politics -- what is right, what is wrong, etc., though certainly this year discussions of candidates themselves is going to be part of it too.

Because such views and beliefs are closely held by most people, they take offense when their views and beliefs are insulted. Not disagreed with -- many people enjoy a discussion and sharing of views. But in face-to-face conversation most people have learned that the only way to have those discussions is with tact and with an attitude of mutual respect. Done that way, lots of people every day discuss widely divergent views, and do it in an enjoyable manner over a cup of coffee (or whatever).

But if instead of mutual respect one person chooses to insult or belittle the other's views, what will occur is not useful discussion, but at best a shouting match, and it could quickly turn into a bar fight.

For instance, I could go to a party and have a quiet conversation with a Jew about a book that claims that the Holocaust never happened. It's an extremely inflammatory topic, but two people could sit down, discuss how that view came about, etc. (And no, I don't believe that, but I've had exactly that conversation on a couple of occasions.) But if I walk into the party and begin by yelling out, "So I read that all you Jews made up the whole Holocaust thing so you could screw the Palestinians out of their land, in fact I read that Swiss Jews bankrolled the Nazis," then what will happen is not a polite discussion, but a mob brawl.

And at that point it would not be very appropriate for someone to say to the group, "Any Jews who don't like what this guy is saying and don't want to get into an argument, just leave." That's because, whether they leave or not, they know that in that public forum (the party) things they hold closely are being savegely insulted, and they are not inclined to allow that to go on unopposed.

Telling people who are insulted to not participate is in effect saying, "Either fight, or let me go on insulting what you believe." In real life, we would never allow that. A party attender with such rude and boorish behavior would be asked to leave; at a bar he would be thrown out; at a public event police would likely remove him. (And at a Dean rally Al Franken would physically attack him, as recently occurred. Bizarre.)

The flaw is that the "either leave or be insulted" choice is a false choice. The proper choice is the third one, and the one we insist on in every medium but the Internet: That you can say whatever you like and discuss anything you want to, but you must do it with tact and with respect. And frankly, I don't see why the basic social rules about civility should be suspended just because we're interacting elecltronically instead of in person.

The reason I made the suggestion that we agree not to partake in contentious political t hreads is because there seem to be some folks who seem to revel in being uncivil and disrespectful, as a community we seem unwilling or unable to curb such repeated behavior, and it is that behavior that leads to the angry turn that such threads inevitably take. But if we could find a way to hold people to the same social rules we insist on in other venues of personal interaction -- simple tact, mutual respect, and refrain from disparagement -- I think it would be great to be able to discuss political topics. The question is whether everyone is willing to abide by such basic rules of civility, and if not then if we as a community can find ways to keep it from continually recurring. The answers, based on history, is that some folks are unwilling to refrain from such behavior, and as a community we are unable to curb it. But perhaps someone has an idea on how we can do that, and then perhaps we can have useful discussions over (virtual) coffee instead of going at each other with broken bottles.

[Cal]

Gentlemen and you know who you are,

The problem I see is one of Respect of the other individuals "core beliefs" In other words if you want respect give it back maybe then you can talk to each other like civilized human beings.

About this being the campfire and you can talk about anything. If we would all have been camping together I would have asked each one of you to keep to either keep quiet or change the subject.

When individuals start calling each other names it is time to have moderators or even Trinity if that is what you want to call them to step in.

This is not infringing on your right of Free Speech but on keeping civility on this forum.

That is the reason why in Puerto Rico the best bars have signs that state "No Politics or Religion are to be discussed here". Why? Because we will always get emotional about it and the end result is friendships broken.

For example: Don't get me started on The Bill of Rights or on the never ending issue of Puertorrican independence, both issues which I will gladly discuss on a one on one with you but not on this forum.

I enjoy reading most of your posts, while I might not post much myself I consider that all of you are individuals whom I would not mind sharing a fire with.

I hope that you all can resolve your issues with respect and civility towards each other.

Sincerely,

Cal Garcia
1974 R90/6
1992 K75
Cal Garcia

[snoone]

just wanted to add my 2 bits

What would you do?_

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one._
Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By_
giving an honest answer you will discover where you stand morally._
The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which_
you will have to make a decision._
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous._

Please scroll down slowly and consider each line. Thoughtfulness_
is important for this evaluation to be meaningful!_
Ready?_

Begin._

You're in Florida. In Miami, to be exact... There is chaos_
around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. This is a_
flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for_
a major newspaper caught in the middle of this great disaster._
The situation is nearly hopeless._

You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses_
and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the_
water. You are witnessing Nature all its destructive fury._

You see a man in the water; he is fighting for his life,_
trying not to be swept away amidst the roiling water and debris._
You try to get closer. Somehow the man looks familiar._

Suddenly, you realize who it is..._



It's George W. Bush!_


At the same time you realize that the raging waters are about to_
take him under, forever._
You have two options. You can put down your camera and try to rescue him_
or you can take the most dramatic photos of your career._
So, you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer Prize winning_
photo, documenting the death of the world's most powerful man._


Now, here's the question (and please... give an honest answer):_















Would you select color film, or go with the classic simplicity of black and white?_

[MarkF]

how do you feel about abortion and gun control?

MarkF

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by knary
... and if you love [Bush], you're not necessarily whacko right-wing idiot. (I have to remind myself of the latter every time I see someone espouse their support for Shrub)

So it's now July, we meet at Spokane, and as we're chatting I tell you that "You know, Scott, every time I talk with you I have to keep continually reminding myself that you're not a whacko idiot." Would you feel that's a good way for me to address you, or would you think I'm being a jerk?

(And no, I do not think that about you, Scott. I'm trying to illustrate my earlier point about basic civility and respect.)

[kbasa]

Political beliefs are held close to the heart and are unique for every individual.

While discussion can happen, frequently those discussions turn into wars.

When they do, the moderators will close them down. But in the meanwhile, let's all learn a little more about each other.

And please, no trolling to try and cheese folks off......

That's just lame.

[knary]

Originally posted by DesertRider
So it's now July, we meet at Spokane, and as we're chatting I tell you that "You know, Scott, every time I talk with you I have to keep continually reminding myself that you're not a whacko idiot." Would you feel that's a good way for me to address you, or would you think I'm being a jerk?

(And no, I do not think that about you, Scott. I'm trying to illustrate my earlier point about basic civility and respect.)

In the context of a larger conversation, I would have NO problem with that comment. My point in that little side note is that I too sometimes forget to look past my own nose and realize that a there is a person expressing that opinion that I might disagree with and that that person deserves at least a minimum amount of respect.

But let's not lose perspective on why we're here - because we all like motorcycles and, with the exception of a few, BMW's in particular. To borrow from the IBMWR, the best model for a place like this is a campfire. Basic civility, in this context, is going to include good natured ribbing and a large dose of sarcasm. You have to take this stuff for what it is - fun. We're not curing cancer here or making international policy. We're chatting and joking and poking.

If someone isn't prepared to laugh at themself, they shouldn't post in an on-line forum.

And yes, anyone that likes Bush is a right-wing wacko. :bliss
(please note sarcasm in my tone and bouncing smiley face)

[Visian]

No.... further out. Jupiter. No... further out. Freakin' Alpha Centauri, man. :jose

The *whole idea* of this forum is open discussion. (And not, BTW, circular arguments...) and while I understand the "gentlemen's agreement" thought, I subscribe to the "change the channel" metaphor.

Besides... I can just about guarantee that most folks posting here wouldn't like my politics. Talk with Andy Goldfine. :wow

Click.

[mgraced]

I like the dialogue on various topics and I am adult enough to decide what I want to read and not read.

[fish]

hi gsgirl :wave

[R75_7]

Desert Rider,
While reading your rather lengthy reasoning I noticed in your scenario you missed an option. To listen and keep your mouth shut. It's humbling. In many situations I practice this. It's something I learned in the military it lets others draw attention while you learn about them without giving yourself away. And most people who practice Judaism do not like to be called "Jews". Very interesting,hmm. Stiring the pot might cause you to think or see a point of veiw you didn't existed. Worked for me.
Stir on,
Michael

[mgraced]

Originally posted by fish
hi gsgirl :wave

Hello fishie!:wave

[chasman]

Hey Kbasa,

That comment about "...no trolling to try and cheese folks off..." wasn't about the Wisconson contingent was it? HaHaHa!

Seriously, politely discuss and debate, like you would around the camp fire (if you thought everyone was armed)! 8>O


Riding Like the Wind (in a few weeks)...

chasman
Black '02 K12RS

[lancew]

my .02 (like anybody cares!)

Three Caveats:

1) Go into political discussions realizing that you are probably never going to change the other person's mind.

2) Try and think about the issues rather than the people.

3) There are good & honest people on both sides of most debates (except, of course, for the people I disagree with).

IMHO, the biggest problem we have is that the two-party system is too entrenched & beholden to special interests. We don't need finance reform, we need truth-in-advertising laws on Political ads. A commercial about litigation limits shouldn't be sponsored by "Committee for People's Rights", it should be sponsord by "Trial Lawyers of America". An ad about lowering taxes shouldn't be bought by "Club for Growth"- it should be bought by "People Who Hate Taxes".

If I did this right, you will have no clue that I am actually a bleeding-heart liberal.

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by lancew
IMHO, the biggest problem we have is that the two-party system is too entrenched & beholden to special interests.

Can you define "special interest"?

I'm asking because 8 months to go in this election season and I'm already tired of hearing about "special interests." "Special interest" has become an all-purpose bogeyman and, I think, utterly devoid of meaning or substance.

If a bunch of people get together and decide to appeal to government as a group (a basic constitutional right), the people who agree with them will call them a "public advocacy group"; those who don't call it a "special interest." So to liberals the NRA and right-to-life groups are "special interests," while to conservatives the Sierra Club, MoveOn, and Emily's List are "special interests." Yet all those groups are just voluntary associations of people who are seeking to influence public policy -- not only completely valid but a necessary and even laudable aspect of democracy.

John Kerry, in particular, seems very fond of prattling on and on about "special interests," yet he is one of the biggest recipients of all kinds of "special interest" money. And in principle I really don't have much of a problem with that -- it's natural that those who like his views would help support him (presuming he wasn't linking his votes to the money). I just wish he'd quit going on and on as if he were somehow different from anyone else in Washington, or as if those on the other side of the aisle were not entitled to do the same things he and his supporters do.

[R75_7]

So much for "no more political threads please" Just a little dig. I like your stuff, man, makes it more fair and balanced.

[DarrylRi]

Originally posted by R75/7
So much for "no more political threads please" Just a little dig. I like your stuff, man, makes it more fair and balanced. I dunno, it doesn't sound anything like Fox "News".

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by R75/7
So much for "no more political threads please" Just a little dig. I like your stuff, man, makes it more fair and balanced.

I suggested that the better course is to keep politics out of a motorcycle forum. I still think that would be the best course. But by an overwhelming margin others disagreed, and I guess political discussions are in. And if they are, then I'll take part just like everyone else (much as Eric woud wish otherwise, I'm sure :bliss ).

[MarkF]

Is that what the MOA, AMA, etc. are? SPecial interest groups are fine except when they use their numbers as weight when their numbers may have no idea what they are being used for. Such as the AARP. The majority of it's members only joined for the insurance.

MarkF

[knary]

Originally posted by MarkF
Is that what the MOA, AMA, etc. are? SPecial interest groups are fine except when they use their numbers as weight when their numbers may have no idea what they are being used for. Such as the AARP. The majority of it's members only joined for the insurance.

MarkF

How do you know that?
The AARP has weight, IMHO, because politicians know damn well that senior citizens vote.

[jgr451]

Must
Keep
In
Mid
A
Troll
Is
A
Troll.............


Are those doughnuts?

[lancew]

DR- I agree with your reply to my post completely, especially the part about "special interests" being in the eye of the beholder. What I meant to say was that the two parties have gotten so entrenched that it has screwed up the whole system. Who ever would have thought that the liberal, big-government democrats would be making hay about the deficit, or that the small-government conservative republicans would be talking about personal issues like same-sex marriage?

For the record, even though I've voted Dem in every prez race since 1988, I would vote for John McCain or Colin Powell over anybody else out there.

[MarkF]

Originally posted by knary
How do you know that?
The AARP has weight, IMHO, because politicians know damn well that senior citizens vote.

A poll of AARP members showed that the majority joined for the insurance. The same poll showed that the majority did not even know that the AARP lobby supported more gun control. Many personally did not support gun control.

The Police lobby does the same thing. It supports a liberal agenda and well as more gun control because many Chiefs support these measures. The rank and file police officer is a conservative that believes in personal gun ownership for lawful citizens.

MarkF

[knary]

Originally posted by MarkF
A poll of AARP members showed that the majority joined for the insurance. The same poll showed that the majority did not even know that the AARP lobby supported more gun control. Many personally did not support gun control.

The Police lobby does the same thing. It supports a liberal agenda and well as more gun control because many Chiefs support these measures. The rank and file police officer is a conservative that believes in personal gun ownership for lawful citizens.

MarkF

Fair enough. :)

So much stuff gets posted that's based on rumor and assumption that it's good to ask.

[lorazepam]

The AARP is also an organization which has lobbyists, and recieves federal funds. I don't understand why a private organization that has a definate agenda, should recieve federal money, and then use it to influence those that gave it to them.