Poll: Have You Thought Of Leaving Forum Because Of Politics?

[pmward]

Have you ever considered leaving this forum because of the political banter?

[doodle]

I have by and large left this forum because of politics. I cannot identify with the people here...especially those entertaining Trump imposing martial law and 'rounding up the conspirators'. This forum used to have a healthy balance of viewpoints that encouraged interesting discussion and debate. We had the whole spectrum here. Lately it's moved so far right that centrists have now become the forums marxists. It is evident that many here want this place to become a safe space for their alt right views...whether by blocking individuals, trying to cordon off areas where they can have their own discussions, or lambasting individuals with a different perspective. In addition, people's opinions regarding events don't seem to be persuaded by facts and evidence anymore so discussion is futile at that point....debates are starting to resemble holy wars.

[buddtholomew]

I’m visiting Bogleheads more often as this site has devolved into a political forum. That’s all there ever is to read about around here. I HATE politics so maybe I’m biased.

I’m grateful this site started around the time I began investing in the PP else I never would have ascribed to the philosophy sifting through all the current threads.

[Mountaineer]

I treat material on the forum that I am not interested in just as I treat the TV. Turn the channel to something else; I don’t pout, scream, or otherwise relinquish control of my emotions to others.

[pmward]

I’m grateful this site started around the time I began investing in the PP else I never would have ascribed to the philosophy sifting through all the current threads.

Right. If I were just venturing to this forum for the first time these days looking for an alternate investment forum to the usual, I wouldn't have stuck around. I would have looked at recent conversations, turned, and ran the other way. I don't think it's fair to the investment theme of the forum to shoe horn a political forum into it. I also don't think it's fair for the people that come here only for politics to have the investment theme of the forum detract new people from finding their political discussions. People don't come here looking for a political forum, they come here looking for an investment forum.

[vnatale]

I treat material on the forum that I am not interested in just as I treat the TV. Turn the channel to something else; I don’t pout, scream, or otherwise relinquish control of my emotions to others.

Yes. There are some things discussed here (non-political) that are of no interest to me. I treat those posts accordingly.

Vinny

[mukramesh]

I’m grateful this site started around the time I began investing in the PP else I never would have ascribed to the philosophy sifting through all the current threads.

+1

[ahhrunforthehills]

Yes, but not because I am offended by people's views. In fact, I feel the politics section has helped me.

The politics sections has pulled back the curtain on many posters. It is easier to understand their thought process, how much data they gather, where/how they gather it, how much bias they use when they process it, how quickly/slowly they form an opinion, and then how forcefully they push that opinion.

Investing during a perceived crisis is no different than politics. Some people can keep their frontal lobes fully engaged. Others have their frontal lobes shut down as their fight or flight response kicks in.

The politics section has taught me a valuable lesson. A LOT of people on this forum (on both sides of the argument) seem completely unable to effectively process large amounts of reliable information while keeping their biases at the door.

In the investing section, I find myself not even reading posts from many posters as a result. Nothing personal... I just don't have the time or desire to separate biases from opinions. With the exception of 2 or 3 posters, I now treat it like the tabloids... mostly for entertainment and might make me aware of something I should research further... but, for the most part, I now take everything posted with a huge grain of salt.

I suspect others feel the same way.

[vnatale]

Bogleheads forum has some good info but I stopped going there because of how ridiculous the moderation is. Reminds me of an HOA board who started an investing forum.

“What is your guys end of year tax planning moves with Biden appearing to be the new president?”

Thread locked. Political discussion not allowed.

“Now that the AP has called the election for Biden, what are your tax planning moves around his proposed tax plan?’

Thread locked. Proposed legislation discussion not allowed.

And here’s a perfect example, which is a real thread locked there in their consumer products sub forum 5 days ago:

“What dental hygiene products do you recommend for tooth and gum care?”

Thread locked. Medical advice outside scope of forum.

Meanwhile we have an actual dentist here and a 7 year old thread on tooth and gum care as a pinned sticky with 15 pages of discussion.

That’s the epitome of difference between Bogleheads and Gyroscopic investing. Personal responsibility. The mods assume if you take medical advice from a thread, you won’t sue them if it’s bad, and if you tried, you’d lose. You assume personal responsibility for vetting the information you read in threads.

I suppose if you enjoy living in a large community with an HOA then go to Bogleheads. If you prefer an HOA-free small community where sometimes your neighbor will park their rusty RV on the street, but you have the freedom to do the same, then stick with Gyroscopic investing.

Well stated!

Vinny

[pmward]

Bogleheads forum has some good info but I stopped going there because of how ridiculous the moderation is. Reminds me of an HOA board who started an investing forum.

“What is your guys end of year tax planning moves with Biden appearing to be the new president?”

Thread locked. Political discussion not allowed.

“Now that the AP has called the election for Biden, what are your tax planning moves around his proposed tax plan?’

Thread locked. Proposed legislation discussion not allowed.

And here’s a perfect example, which is a real thread locked there in their consumer products sub forum 5 days ago:

“What dental hygiene products do you recommend for tooth and gum care?”

Thread locked. Medical advice outside scope of forum.

Meanwhile we have an actual dentist here and a 7 year old thread on tooth and gum care as a pinned sticky with 15 pages of discussion.

That’s the epitome of difference between Bogleheads and Gyroscopic investing. Personal responsibility. The mods assume if you take medical advice from a thread, you won’t sue them if it’s bad, and if you tried, you’d lose. You assume personal responsibility for vetting the information you read in threads.

I suppose if you enjoy living in a large community with an HOA then go to Bogleheads. If you prefer an HOA-free small community where sometimes your neighbor will park their rusty RV on the street, but you have the freedom to do the same, then stick with Gyroscopic investing.

To be fair, I agree the Bogleheads forum is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that. These are not binary choices. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There is a WIDE gap in between the two.

[mukramesh]

To be fair, I agree the Bogleheads forum is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that. These are not binary choices. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There is a WIDE gap in between the two.

I find your statement to be apropos to the political discourse libertarians have with leftists. Whereby libertarians point to places like Venezuela and say, “we don’t want that” and the leftists agree but don’t realize the slippery slope they’re creating with policies will eventually result in Venezuela.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

"A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience."

[pmward]

To be fair, I agree the Bogleheads forum is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that. These are not binary choices. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There is a WIDE gap in between the two.

I find your statement to be apropos to the political discourse libertarians have with leftists. Whereby libertarians point to places like Venezuela and say, “we don’t want that” and the leftists agree but don’t realize the slippery slope they’re creating with policies will eventually result in Venezuela.

I think you're wrong. Things are not binary black and white like that. Our own country is an example of that. We were started as a liberal country for the time. We evolved into a moderate county. We are not Venezuela. I know you love your binary buckets, but it doesn't work out that way in real life.

[SomeDude]

This thread is like a perfect metaphor for the two dominate political philosophies in the country lol.

Group A wants people to have freedom to choose their actions and take responsibility for their choices.

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

It's funny these almost perfectly coincide with the beliefs about potential election fraud.

This lends more credence to my theory about the nature of people driving them to one political group or another.

[pmward]

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

Show me one place anyone has suggested banning people or instituting rules? Nobody has suggested this. The only suggestion that has been made is to create a separate political website and get rid of the "politics" sub-forum here. No recommendations have been made about moderating here. You're inserting words in everyone's mouths that don't agree with you. In other words, you are the very person creating and reinforcing these 2 groups.

[Smith1776]

As in the other thread, I don't understand. Why would someone leave here due to the politics? Why not just stop browsing this subforum where all the political content has been corralled into?

[SomeDude]

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

Show me one place anyone has suggested banning people or instituting rules? Nobody has suggested this. The only suggestion that has been made is to create a separate political website and get rid of the "politics" sub-forum here. No recommendations have been made about moderating here. You're inserting words in everyone's mouths that don't agree with you. In other words, you are the very person creating and reinforcing these 2 groups.

Re: I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing
Post by mukramesh » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:14 pm

Maybe the answer is to warn/temporarily-ban/permanently-ban the abrasive people.

[pmward]

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

Show me one place anyone has suggested banning people or instituting rules? Nobody has suggested this. The only suggestion that has been made is to create a separate political website and get rid of the "politics" sub-forum here. No recommendations have been made about moderating here. You're inserting words in everyone's mouths that don't agree with you. In other words, you are the very person creating and reinforcing these 2 groups.

Re: I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing
Post by mukramesh » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:14 pm

Maybe the answer is to warn/temporarily-ban/permanently-ban the abrasive people.

Fair enough, I missed that part. That is not my recommendation however.

[mukramesh]

People are banned all the time on Internet forums. I don't think my comment was controversial. I wasn't referring to a specific person that I thought should be banned, so I apologize if it came across that way.

Group A wants people to have freedom to choose their actions and take responsibility for their choices.

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are already rules against spam which are intended to preserve forum quality. Most sites have rules against trolling, flaming, etc. Rules exist. The discussion is about what the rules should be.

[SomeDude]

People are banned all the time on Internet forums. I don't think my comment was controversial. I wasn't referring to a specific person that I thought should be banned, so I apologize if it came across that way.

Group A wants people to have freedom to choose their actions and take responsibility for their choices.

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are already rules against spam which are intended to preserve forum quality. Most sites have rules against trolling, flaming, etc. Rules exist. The discussion is about what the rules should be.

If I had to choose between spam and trolls.....I'll take spam all day any day.

Rules are fine for conduct, but we've got a group of people that want all political discussion banned (not you Mukra), but I see your suggestion and see where it's headed. Mods are people. If they start banning people for the behavior of upsetting others, the trolls will have a field day. They will say everything hurts their fee fees that ruins their trolling.

Trolls are easy to spot if you know the signs, not all mod can see that, but they can see when people claim their fee fees are hurt and we're seeing that now. Everything will become hate speech unless we stand for the 1st amendment here!!!!

ok that last line might be over-the-top.

[pmward]

People are banned all the time on Internet forums. I don't think my comment was controversial. I wasn't referring to a specific person that I thought should be banned, so I apologize if it came across that way.

Group A wants people to have freedom to choose their actions and take responsibility for their choices.

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are already rules against spam which are intended to preserve forum quality. Most sites have rules against trolling, flaming, etc. Rules exist. The discussion is about what the rules should be.

If I had to choose between spam and trolls.....I'll take spam all day any day.

Rules are fine for conduct, but we've got a group of people that want all political discussion banned (not you Mukra), but I see your suggestion and see where it's headed. Mods are people. If they start banning people for the behavior of upsetting others, the trolls will have a field day. They will say everything hurts their fee fees that ruins their trolling.

Trolls are easy to spot if you know the signs, not all mod can see that, but they can see when people claim their fee fees are hurt and we're seeing that now. Everything will become hate speech unless we stand for the 1st amendment here!!!!

ok that last line might be over-the-top.

Yeah trolls are easy to spot... we all recognized you as one right out of the gate.

[l82start]

didn't i just post a recommendation that we ALL play nice?

if its in good humor and teasing giving each other a hard time is fine ...

be nice guys... if you want to end this kind of conduct you will stop feeding it.... or is what you really want is to be the louder troll?

[Tortoise]

As in the other thread, I don't understand. Why would someone leave here due to the politics? Why not just stop browsing this subforum where all the political content has been corralled into?

Some people just can't help themselves, Smithers. They lack self-control. They find it too tempting to just move that mouse cursor over "Politics" and click.

[mukramesh]

People are banned all the time on Internet forums. I don't think my comment was controversial. I wasn't referring to a specific person that I thought should be banned, so I apologize if it came across that way.

Group A wants people to have freedom to choose their actions and take responsibility for their choices.

Group B wants the admins (government) to prohibit certain behaviors and take no responsibility for their choices. They want the responsibility to lie with a small group of people and ban (imprison) people that break the rules they want instituted.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are already rules against spam which are intended to preserve forum quality. Most sites have rules against trolling, flaming, etc. Rules exist. The discussion is about what the rules should be.

Rules are fine for conduct, but we've got a group of people that want all political discussion banned (not you Mukra), but I see your suggestion and see where it's headed. Mods are people. If they start banning people for the behavior of upsetting others, the trolls will have a field day. They will say everything hurts their fee fees that ruins their trolling.

Yes to be clear, I am not proposing banning all political discussions. I am all for enforcing rules of conduct.

In my experience, most internet forums devolve not because of particular topics but because of particular posters.

[SomeDude]

As in the other thread, I don't understand. Why would someone leave here due to the politics? Why not just stop browsing this subforum where all the political content has been corralled into?

Some people just can't help themselves, Smithers. They lack self-control. They find it too tempting to just move that mouse cursor over "Politics" and click.

It's like suing McDonalds for "making" you fat, even though you order several double Quarter pounders a day.

Does double quarter pounder sound better than half pounder?

[mukramesh]

As in the other thread, I don't understand. Why would someone leave here due to the politics? Why not just stop browsing this subforum where all the political content has been corralled into?

Some people just can't help themselves, Smithers. They lack self-control. They find it too tempting to just move that mouse cursor over "Politics" and click.

It's like suing McDonalds for "making" you fat, even though you order several double Quarter pounders a day.

Does double quarter pounder sound better than half pounder?

It's not like that at all. It's more like people going to McDonald's to buy a burger and then leaving because they got insulted by the cashier.