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

[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.

[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?

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.

Ohh yeah, I was referring to the absurdity of posting on political threads, then getting upset and asking for the threads to be shut down so no one else can post.

[Mountaineer]

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.

That’s a wonderful whopper of a story!

[glennds]

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?

I prefer 1/4 Kilo Royale with Cheese

[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?

I prefer 1/4 Kilo Royale with Cheese

And mayo on your fries?

[vnatale]

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."

Any time I hear anyone using that term... their argument automatically loses a lot of its power.

Vinny

[SomeDude]

How about “just the tip” regulation, just for a minute, just to see how it feels, and stopping there.

I suggest not. I tried this last Jan with my wife. She ended up giving birth Aug 27th, and it's been Hell on Earth ever since.

That is a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

[pmward]

Okay, so I find it very convenient that this poll was started this morning and within a last few days we've had several new forum accounts registered. And maybe those new posters are responding to our poll.

Are Bogleheads intentionally coming here, registering for accounts just to tamper with our poll? And if so, are they trying to Boglehead-ify our forum? Or are they trying to disrupt it so we destroy ourselves and they can be the leading financial forum on the internet?

How about some rules where you have to be a registered member for at least one month with valid post history before participating in polls that are non-binding recommendations to the moderators?

I demand a full investigation into the findings of this poll. Also, as of right now, 3:40pm Eastern, the results are 11 to 10, in favor of keeping the politics subforum. To maintain the integrity of the poll, I demand we stop accepting new responses immediately.

And also we review all responses made from forum members in the last week, compare IP addresses to existing posters, even use some browser fingerprinting to make sure people aren't trying to make multiple accounts to respond to the poll using different VPNs.

Hahaha. Ok you got me to laugh on this one.

[doodle]

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.

This post is so on target, OMG OMG.

Hmmm...what camp do I fall in then defending keeping this place open to all topics...considering my role as resident authoritarian Marxist here?

It's a stretch to equate regulation of speech on a forum with all regulation....that is my primary issue with many on this board, the all or nothing extremism.

[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.

This post is so on target, OMG OMG.

Hmmm...what camp do I fall in then defending keeping this place open to all topics...considering my role as resident authoritarian Marxist here?

It's a stretch to equate regulation of speech on a forum with all regulation....that is my primary issue with many on this board, the all or nothing extremism.

Outlier

[doodle]

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.

This post is so on target, OMG OMG.

Hmmm...what camp do I fall in then defending keeping this place open to all topics...considering my role as resident authoritarian Marxist here?

It's a stretch to equate regulation of speech on a forum with all regulation....that is my primary issue with many on this board, the all or nothing extremism.

Outlier

How about nuanced freethinker? I prefer that.

[Mountaineer]

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.

This post is so on target, OMG OMG.

Hmmm...what camp do I fall in then defending keeping this place open to all topics...considering my role as resident authoritarian Marxist here?

It's a stretch to equate regulation of speech on a forum with all regulation....that is my primary issue with many on this board, the all or nothing extremism.

Outlier

How about nuanced freethinker? I prefer that.

Nice Avatar. You can run but you can’t hide.

[Mountaineer]

Perfect!!!! It is now 48% to 52%.