Go to page:

Can we have a brand spanking new forum called Politics?

poet Anonymous

JohnnyBlaze said:When you subtract the blatant bait threads, the few legitimate threads dedicated to current [f]actual events remaining don't really justify the need for a brand new subforum.
Welcome JB..

very astute observation there. Unfortunately the misabuse of good faith is what I see it as...the taking advantage of the tolerance part of the free underground. If not for the obvious stinky and unsanitary nature of the loo there won't be any need for a dedicated 'room' for them in ANY of the homes and places where people get together.


Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
101awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 10360

cold_fusion said:
First of all I welcome your views Ahavati.

All your points make perfect sense.
I too had to argue with my own self before going ahead with the creation of this thread.
Your point re the overarching umbrella that is the Speakeasy Forum is absolutely spot on. And if not for the experience of self and a few of the DU poets who, as you know poets are more sensitive to things in general and especially of negative nature, and DU being an escape for all people coming away from their own personal struggles , am saying the sanctuary nature of the place is being somewhat disturbed.


I appreciate the reception, CF.  Can you possibly enlighten me as to how the sanctuary nature of DU is being disturbed? Is it the titles of the threads? Or do such members lack self-control and become upset when they open and read them?

As one who participates in political threads. ( well, my own ) I'm genuinely confused as to how the nature is being disrupted, as such threads are non-disclosed unless opened by a member.

Your advice re choosing and exercising the option to ignore is very valid.
All I am trying to do is explore, the options, the pros and cons of having a dedicated space to exercise free speech and let steam off without infringing on the right of existence and to be in prominence of other threads of other (non-political) variety.


See, this is also why I am confused. . .at the time of your posting this, there were only four political threads out of the twenty that can be seen. Not even 1/4th of the threads that can be seen are political, and yet, they're in prominence over all other threads?

Do you see why I am somewhat confused?

Unfortunately, rules only end up being drafted after the trust, the good faith/ expectations of and from all to observe decency and do the right thing are repeatedly ignored and others' right to peaceful enjoyment of life are not respected. Just like the right to protest does not mean right to disrupt the peace of a suburban neighbourhood. The town halls the public squares the dedicated venues.

thank You once again for your invaluable insight and shedding lights on all other aspects of the request.


So would your solution for visiting a library or bookstore be to remove a certain genre of literature so you wouldn't have to see it? Even if you're not being forced to open and view it?

Is that not in and of itself becoming the monster you profess to hate by interfering with another's right to peaceful enjoyment of what it is they enjoy? Which, btw, interferes with no one's rights unless they become personally involved by their own choice.

So, by that standard, then women shouldn't wear certain clothing because it entices men who can't control themselves by simply looking away? Yes; it really is that simple.

Do you understand why I am confused? I mean no one here has been attacked more harshly than I have in the political arena; and yet, I choose to ignore the attacks; therefore, how is my political thread interfering with your ( and the other sensitive members ) peaceful enjoyment of this site when there have been no attacks and/or threats against you?

Thank you for the welcome and engagement.

poet Anonymous

Ahavati said:

So would your solution for visiting a library or bookstore be to remove a certain genre of literature so you wouldn't have to see it? Even if you're not being forced to open and view it?

Is that not in and of itself becoming the monster you profess to hate by interfering with another's right to peaceful enjoyment of what it is they enjoy? Which, btw, interferes with no one's rights unless they become personally involved by their own choice.

So, by that standard, then women shouldn't wear certain clothing because it entices men who can't control themselves by simply looking away? Yes; it really is that simple.

Do you understand why I am confused? I mean no one here has been attacked more harshly than I have in the political arena; and yet, I choose to ignore the attacks; therefore, how is my political thread interfering with your ( and the other sensitive members ) peaceful enjoyment of this site when there have been no attacks and/or threats against you?

Thank you for the welcome and engagement.

I am about to go for a while and should be back in a few hours Ahavati.
I see your points re my lack of clear articulation. Am happy to do my best to clarify what confuses you.
Only point I will say at this moment in time,not every soul is you, nor as strong as you.
Some are too affected and damaged.

Jim Crow...for example I find that term personally offensive and insensitive... Used in title threads...

I'll come back in a few hours..thanks for your robust discussion and understanding. And welcome your presence.


JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Tyrant of Words
United States
20awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 5005

cold_fusion said:
Welcome JB..

very astute observation there. Unfortunately the misabuse of good faith is what I see it as...the taking advantage of the tolerance part of the free underground. If not for the obvious stinky and unsanitary nature of the loo there won't be any need for a dedicated 'room' for them in ANY of the homes and places where people get together.



i don't think people who willy nilly spew the terms Jim Crow, child fondler, rapist mobster, dementia Biden, slave party, etc are going to adhere to any particular structure that is created.

A person who wants attention is going to exploit the room that gets the most foot traffic, even if under the false pretense of an innocently titled topic such as "Hello Kitty Pajama Party"

And to create a subforum where such becomes welcome in an attempt to quarantine it is not a solution, while in the same breath it would punish those who contribute legitimate threads of a political nature minus inflammatory rhetoric meant to garner attention.


runaway-mindtrain said:
You debunked nothing JB pirate. You speak nothing but establishment jive, as you support ya slave party. So what does that make you? You can giggle and laugh but the world is laughing at your boy. Biden is a bitch. I don't give two shits what you or any other lying, cheating, Jim crow democrat thinks. Respond all you want to my posts. I hardly ever read them. I post facts on these leftist forums for OTHER people to SEE. It doesn't matter one goddamn bit what you respond with. People see the truth. Just like they see democrats and media covering for dementia Biden. Pathetic...


Please, let's not legitimize the above as political discourse, but rather deal with it for what it is.


Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
101awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 10360

cold_fusion said:
I am about to go for a while and should be back in a few hours Ahavati.
I see your points re my lack of clear articulation. Am happy to do my best to clarify what confuses you.
Only point I will say at this moment in time,not every soul is you, nor as strong as you.
Some are too affected and damaged.


Jim Crow...for example I find that term personally offensive and insensitive... Used in title threads...

I'll come back in a few hours..thanks for your robust discussion and understanding. And welcome your presence.



So, an entire forum should be created because of a few people who are "too affected and damaged" to be in the speakeasy?  

Okay, so there's this: what if a forum is created for politics, what makes you think that the same "affected and damaged" members won't simply go to that forum and reek havoc there? I mean, if they don't have the self-control in the speakeasy, then would it not be plausible to assume they won't be able to refrain from a new forum?

See, I think this is about something else, and not necessarily you personally. I think certain members are sick of seeing political threads, and rather than overlook the threads and focusing on their own enjoyment, they just want them gone ( preferably in a group ) so they don't have to see them ( even though they'll watch like hawks because, nosey & control ). Even if such threads only make up less than 1/4th of the forum threads ( there are still only four political threads out of twenty on the front page of the speakeasy forum )?

So, my understanding thus far is this: you are advocating that the rules of the speakeasy be changed to eschew political threads because of one member who utilizes hate speech such as Nazi's, dimentia, Jim Crow, etc.? And then there's the other member who basically echoes that, and spits out new threads like they do children? Then, subsequently, an entirely new forum or group be created rather than deal with certain member's behaviour accordingly?

So, in essence, toss the baby out with the bathwater?

Would it not be more feasible to address the behaviour of the members in question who use such hate language and multiply threads like rats? This reminds me of a work scenario I had once where ONE employee kept violating laws. But, instead of addressing the ONE employee, memos were constantly being sent out to ALL employees - because let's admonish everyone rather than having the hard conversation; or, lord forbid, performing a single disciplinary action toward the one who deserves it.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Carry on.

Northern_Soul
Northern_Soul
-Missy-
Fire of Insight
United Kingdom
6awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 10th Jan 2021
Forum Posts: 1270

It should be made clear that nobody is asking to silence it.

On the contrary, people are suggesting it has its own creative space because there's clearly a call for it. I think what it's more to do with (and I can see it from CF's view here) is the morale of the site as a whole. Who wants to be around arguing all the time? and then it continues off the forum into people's poetry. I think as a whole it can be a negative thing sometimes.

Not all threads, some. Not all people, some. This is a broad observation of the topic as a whole.

It's not just the front page, take the last 4 pages as an average. 18/19ish threads could be counted as politically motivated. With 20 posts per page, that's just under 25% of all posts of the last 4 pages in terms of figures.

JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Tyrant of Words
United States
20awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 5005

Northern_Soul said:Nobody is asking to silence it.

On the contrary, people are suggesting it has its own creative space because there's clearly a call for it. I think what it's more to do with (and I can see it from CF's view here) is the morale of the site as a whole. Who wants to be around arguing all the time? and then it continues off the forum into people's poetry. I think as a whole it can be a negative thing sometimes.

Not all threads, some. Not all people, some. This is a broad observation of the topic as a whole.

It's not just the front page, take the last 4 pages as an average. 18/19ish threads could be counted as politically motivated. With 20 posts per page, that's just under 25% of all posts of the last 4 pages in terms of figures.


There are currently 3 people disrupting the atmosphere with posts of an inflammatory nature, political and otherwise. You yourself recently engaged with one of them.

If those 3 people were encouraged by DUP staff to not be inflammatory, DUP's forums would be rather peaceful and there would be two or three active political topics at the most and those threads would be tame.

There's no need to make it out to be more than it actually is.

Viddax had the sense to lock a thread a few weeks ago that was obviously not meant for discussion, but was meant as flame bait instead. If only Viddax was around more often.



Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
101awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 10360

Northern_Soul said:Nobody is asking to silence it.

On the contrary, people are suggesting it has its own creative space because there's clearly a call for it. I think what it's more to do with (and I can see it from CF's view here) is the morale of the site as a whole. Who wants to be around arguing all the time? and then it continues off the forum into people's poetry. I think as a whole it can be a negative thing sometimes.

Not all threads, some. Not all people, some. This is a broad observation of the topic as a whole.

It's not just the front page, take the last 4 pages as an average. 18/19ish threads could be counted as politically motivated. With 20 posts per page, that's just under 25% of all posts of the last 4 pages in terms of figures.


As someone who participates regularly in political threads ( or, well, my own ) none of this is making sense to me.

Firstly, "just under 25%" is still less than 1/4th of all forum posts for four pages. So nothing's changed in that aspect; on the contrary, it simply verified my numbers. So thank you for that.

Secondly, how are you ( or anyone else ) subjected to arguing, unless you are reading and/or participating in the threads? If you would not open the threads, then you would not be subjected to any arguing, or politics in general, for that matter. These threads are not being forced upon you; you are making the personal choice to subject yourself to them, then subsequently you are complaining about your personal choice.

That being said, I haven't seen arguing in the last week or more because the members in question ( those administering what I consider hate speech ) are being flat out ignored ( in my thread, anyway ). And, historically being these members butter up to each other in their own threads, I seriously doubt there is any arguing goin on there. I wouldn't know because I DON'T open nor read their threads any longer. They do not interest me, and only affect me when they enter my space ( and are ignored ).

Thirdly, in regards to political commentary or poems spilling over into people's poetry. How is the creation of a new group or forum going to prevent that if it doesn't prevent it now? Or, are you also advocating that there be no political poetry as well?

Bottom line here, the only person I see arguing are those who don't participate in the political threads ( not mine, anyway ), but for some odd reason seem to want to control where they are located.

Pay attention to what you enjoy. Focus on your joy and overlook the choices of others if they affect you adversely.


Northern_Soul
Northern_Soul
-Missy-
Fire of Insight
United Kingdom
6awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 10th Jan 2021
Forum Posts: 1270

This is a suggestion forum. People are suggesting. That's all.

The threads don't effect me. But what about new people entering the site? The first thing they see is arguing. I'd be straight out the door if I was new.

Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
101awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 10360

JohnnyBlaze said:

There are currently 3 people disrupting the atmosphere with posts of an inflammatory nature, political and otherwise. You yourself recently engaged with one of them.

If those 3 people were encouraged by DUP staff to not be inflammatory, DUP's forums would be rather peaceful and there would be two or three active political topics at the most and those threads would be tame.

There's no need to make it out to be more than it actually is.

Viddax had the sense to lock a thread a few weeks ago that was obviously not meant for discussion, but was meant as flame bait instead. If only Viddax was around more often.




I agree whole-heartedly. He'll shut that shit down in a heartbeat.


Northern_Soul said:This is a suggestion forum. People are suggesting. That's all.

The threads don't effect me. But what about new people entering the site? The first thing they see is arguing. I'd be straight out the door if I was new.


Obviously they do affect you to the point that you're advocating for change. But, the change you're advocating for is only addressing a symptom, not the root cause of the issue. Which is certain individuals who continuously display ( what I consider ) hate speech and false information garnered to influence others negatively.

Until the root cause is addressed, then the symptoms will persist, and, over time, worsen.

JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Tyrant of Words
United States
20awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 5005

Ahavati said:

Obviously they do affect you to the point that you're advocating for change. But, the change you're advocating for is only addressing a symptom, not the root cause of the issue. Which is certain individuals who continuously display ( what I consider ) hate speech and false information garnered to influence others negatively.

Until the root cause is addressed, then the symptoms will persist, and, over time, worsen.


And I likewise SUGGEST that the root cause be addressed, instead of slapping a bandaid on what will certainly continue to be a festering boil on the right ass cheek of DUP.

poet Anonymous

Ahavati said:

So would your solution for visiting a library or bookstore be to remove a certain genre of literature so you wouldn't have to see it? Even if you're not being forced to open and view it?

Is that not in and of itself becoming the monster you profess to hate by interfering with another's right to peaceful enjoyment of what it is they enjoy? Which, btw, interferes with no one's rights unless they become personally involved by their own choice.

So, by that standard, then women shouldn't wear certain clothing because it entices men who can't control themselves by simply looking away? Yes; it really is that simple.

Do you understand why I am confused? I mean no one here has been attacked more harshly than I have in the political arena; and yet, I choose to ignore the attacks; therefore, how is my political thread interfering with your ( and the other sensitive members ) peaceful enjoyment of this site when there have been no attacks and/or threats against you?

Thank you for the welcome and engagement.


Well the bait threads are the bait threads...ok as I sed in my brief reply earlier, not everyone is you. Am not asking nor advocating silencing or censoring pushing down the vulgar,the obscene and inflammatory/bait threads or discourse...here we're talking about freedom of speech warts and all. All am saying is there's a reason there's dedicated smoking areas in public places... because it affects those non smokers too. So is the nature in my personal view of charged political discussion. Many if not most are just simply put off by it. As far as the option of people to keep ignoring the political threads, sometimes it just is not possible if it keeps repeating on the front page. And the stats you mention about the time of replying,only few of the political threads on the forefront, well there's some who do their bit to keep it that way.

I can see your confusion, because everything is clear to you re politics and the inescapable nature of it. And this is exactly what I meant - you don't mind participating in political discussion,you got the stomach for it. And you're not the only one, heaps more are. I personally don't mind a 'robust' political discussion. An adult one without the people discussing getting personal and attacking each other than attacking the views. But it is not everyone's cup of tea. And there is unnecessary distraction. Politics should have it's legitimate space, open and free but not spread on the front sheet.
Picture a public park where people are talking and hanging out and then there's heated arguments about- it is disturbing the peace. Does not mean the right to enjoyment of peaceful time of others must be subordinate to the freedom of speech of the fighters of both the good and the bad sides.

Here I am exploring, 'together' with one and all, re the option of whether we should have a dedicated  forum for political discussions, where any and everything good,bad and ugly of the side of politics, life can be openly discussed. You raised some good points re the cons and also some good questions.
Johnny's reply I really appreciate cause his points made great sense. He shed light on some aspects of the reality of the situation as well. Credit to him.

In short, I welcome any and all suggestions,in the process of exploring.

Ahavati there's a heaps of other points you've made which I will be replying to in due course but for the moment I will just remind me and all, here we are exploring, together the why's and why nots.

During my University studies one of the points re meetings and etiquettes was the unfortunate nature of group dynamics, where one speaker dominates the whole discussion. I come from a family of six siblings with huge age gaps between them... unfortunately my eldest brother is a family bully... whenever we held  a family meeting he just would not let others speak and dominate all the discussion. Would just shut topics out. Some of youngest siblings would just not open their mouths. I found the same at some of the team meetings during my career.
I would be happy if more people participated and more diverse views come across not just us the old DU members going on and on.Am afraid not many would. But am giving it a go anyways.

In advance am letting you and all know I would be able to only properly reply from Monday the 1st of March as I've got some stuff to deal with life offline.





lepperochan
lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
66awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14047

way I see it suggestion has been suggested. this is the thread for it. kinda like that thing the natives used to tie women to for King Kong to come get. so in that context you/ we are all more or less lending our opinions here towards the webmiss in order for her to take them into consideration

in the context of that context I think the tone is both unfortunate and indicative


Threads are more or less free space. that’s to say, everyone on the site has the option to view, take part in, and create threads.

if there is an appetite to narrow the parameters of speakeasy then I think it’s worth taking a look at, might also be worth taking a look at a cap of sorts



Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
101awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 10360

a few points, CF:

cold_fusion said:

[ . . . ] All am saying is there's a reason there's dedicated smoking areas in public places... because it affects those non smokers too.


A forum thread cannot affect a member if they do not open the thread, unlike smoking in public areas, which affects everyone within the area.

So is the nature in my personal view of charged political discussion. Many if not most are just simply put off by it. As far as the option of people to keep ignoring the political threads, sometimes it just is not possible if it keeps repeating on the front page. And the stats you mention about the time of replying,only few of the political threads on the forefront, well there's some who do their bit to keep it that way.

Firstly, CF, yes; it is a personal choice whether or not members choose to ignore a thread. Period. I see word games and question games pop up continually—that is what dominates the speakeasy.

Secondly, I am well aware of the politics behind the scenes here and the lengths they'll go to.

I can see your confusion, because everything is clear to you re politics and the inescapable nature of it. And this is exactly what I meant - you don't mind participating in political discussion,you got the stomach for it. And you're not the only one, heaps more are. I personally don't mind a 'robust' political discussion. An adult one without the people discussing getting personal and attacking each other than attacking the views. But it is not everyone's cup of tea. And there is unnecessary distraction. Politics should have it's legitimate space, open and free but not spread on the front sheet.

Firstly, you're wrong about the reason I am confused, CF. It's not because I understand the nature of politics, it's because your reasons for suggesting a new forum don't add up for me; thus, I am attempting to understand why.

Take the second example you're providing.

Picture a public park where people are talking and hanging out and then there's heated arguments about- it is disturbing the peace. Does not mean the right to enjoyment of peaceful time of others must be subordinate to the freedom of speech of the fighters of both the good and the bad sides.

A thread is not a public park. No one can hear a thing unless they personally CHOOSE to open the thread. The understanding with a public park is that you never know what you're going to get because people have a right to play music, which may annoy someone attempting to read, and so forth.

That is not the case here. I don't care how many times the very few political threads rise to the latest post listing. There are many alternative ones that dominate the list on a daily basis ( I know, I know, there are certain people making sure of that ).

Here I am exploring, 'together' with one and all, re the option of whether we should have a dedicated  forum for political discussions, where any and everything good,bad and ugly of the side of politics, life can be openly discussed. You raised some good points re the cons and also some good questions.
Johnny's reply I really appreciate cause his points made great sense. He shed light on some aspects of the reality of the situation as well. Credit to him.

In short, I welcome any and all suggestions,in the process of exploring.


We very much appreciate the consideration to express our opinion ( some of which are hard facts ). But I wish you would call a spade a spade ( which is the real reason you are suggesting this new forum ). We all know it's because of two members, and a third who acts like the site clown to draw attention to himself, and a fourth who periodically likes to spam across threads ( though seems to have calmed down ).

Ahavati there's a heaps of other points you've made which I will be replying to in due course but for the moment I will just remind me and all, here we are exploring, together the why's and why nots.

During my University studies one of the points re meetings and etiquettes was the unfortunate nature of group dynamics, where one speaker dominates the whole discussion. I come from a family of six siblings with huge age gaps between them... unfortunately my eldest brother is a family bully... whenever we held  a family meeting he just would not let others speak and dominate all the discussion. Would just shut topics out. Some of youngest siblings would just not open their mouths. I found the same at some of the team meetings during my career.
I would be happy if more people participated and more diverse views come across not just us the old DU members going on and on.Am afraid not many would. But am giving it a go anyways.

In advance am letting you and all know I would be able to only properly reply from Monday the 1st of March as I've got some stuff to deal with life offline.


In reference to dominating, how is it that certain members can freely run amok with their hate speech and disrespectful references in threads because there are no site guidelines which state one must adhere to the op's guidelines? And YET—you damn-well BETTER ask a question in the ask the next person a question thread or there are some who go nuts.

Do you see how imbalanced that is?

The Speakeasy forum, according to guidelines, is a *discussion* forum - not a word game forum; not a question game forum; but, according to guidelines, a discussion about anyting-but-poetry forum.

Politics, sans the antics by certain members, adheres to those guidelines.  If members are voluntarily opening and reading those threads, and then choosing to argue with a brick wall, then it's on them; not the brick wall.

Particularly when everyone knows certain avenues are nothing but a damn brick wall. There's going to come a point in everyone's life that they will need to accept responsibility for their own actions vs controlling the situation around them so they can have more room, and feel more secure and in control ( not implying you are doing that ).

Peace, CF.   Best of luck on your endeavor. Believe it or not, I know exactly what you are advocating ( and why you are really advocating for it ); but, overall it's not adding up logically. And that's where I fall short on the suggestion. Nothing more.



anna_grin
anna_grin
ilchruthach
Dangerous Mind
15awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 24th Mar 2013
Forum Posts: 3365

i wouldn't be against it exactly, i just dont think it would work.  imagine the time the mods would have to put in to moving every politics thread that was "accidentally" created in the public forum or "by mistake" turned political.  it would be a new boiler room but for trash politics.

i just think there should be consequences for things like uhh i dont know implicit racism and hate speech but i guess thats just me eh

Go to page:
Go to: