I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing

[Xan]

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I don't see any other reason why the ignorable subforum wouldn't solve the problem. It seems that the mere existence of discussion you don't like is too much to tolerate. If I'm wrong, can you explain again why the ignorable subforum doesn't solve your problem?

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Well the title of your thread is "I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing". And the main thing you seem to want is to create a completely separate forum for political discussions (which you are welcome to do, by the way), and then ban them here. So yes, you have called and are calling for a ban on political discussions.

Could you describe again exactly what suggestion you're making and how it would improve the situation? It isn't that I don't care, I promise.


This came up weeks ago and we implemented a solution. Maybe it would make more sense to start by describing what's good and bad about the solution that we literally just put into place, rather than acting like nothing's been done?

[pmward]

The politics section literally was created just a few weeks ago... up until ~Nov 12 I left the forum entirely for 6 months due to the politics getting on my nerves. Obviously, I'm thinking of leaving again.

Yeah, I realize the Politics sub-forum was just created in early November. But even prior to that, I don't remember seeing you post very often (if at all) in any of the political threads in the Other Discussions sub-forum. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what I recall.

It seemed like you really jumped into the political threads for the first time starting on Nov 12 -- just three weeks ago -- yet your user profile says your Politics posts comprise over 20% of your total posts since you joined in Jan 2019. Subtracting your six-month sabbatical, that means that in just the most recent 5% of the time you've been active on this forum, you've produced over 20% of your total posts.

That's a really big sudden burst of participation in the Politics sub-forum for someone who says that politics is getting on his nerves and who has already opted out of Politics sub-forum notifications in his user settings.

Are you admitting that this is a forum only for Pro-Trump, non-analytical/quant investors, that do not have a VP? Because the fact that all people that have left or complained supposedly have common characteristics... characteristics you don't have... proves my point exactly. Would those people have left if they felt like this was an open, welcoming, non-hostile environment here?

Things in the US have become a lot more politically polarized in recent years and especially recent months. My perspective is that as a result, the forum members became politically divided largely into two groups: (1) the never-Trumpers, and (2) those who don't necessarily think that Trump is Orange Hitler.

Both groups have been fairly vocal and well-represented in recent political threads, so I don't get the sense that the voices of the never-Trumpers are being drowned in a flood of American flags and spray tan. In some threads, maybe, but not all of them. It just seems that in general, the never-Trumpers here are the ones who seem to get so fed up with heated political discussions that they choose to leave the forum permanently rather than just opting out of the Politics sub-forum, taking a short forum vacation, or maybe blocking one or two users who raise their blood pressure the most.

Since the never-Trumper members tend to emphasize decorum, I often get the sense that they expect others to compromise (e.g., "meet in the middle") for the sake of appearances and orderliness. Strong disagreement can be terribly messy, and that's very distasteful and uncomfortable to the decorum folks. By contrast, the members who emphasize policy or substance over decorum tend to attach themselves strongly to what they have determined is philosophically right or truthful and are loath to compromise on that just for the sake of "meeting in the middle." Their position is that in truth vs. falsehood and right vs. wrong, there is often no room for compromise -- integrity is an all-or-nothing proposition.

This is a great representation of everything I have been pointing out. Look at all of the judgment in this. Both of me personally, and of everyone he thinks is on my side. Look at the whole painting of his side as this great perfect ideal with "truth" and "right' and "no compromise" and "integrity", and everybody else on the other side obviously lacking these things. Get over yourself man!!!

[pmward]

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I don't see any other reason why the ignorable subforum wouldn't solve the problem. It seems that the mere existence of discussion you don't like is too much to tolerate. If I'm wrong, can you explain again why the ignorable subforum doesn't solve your problem?

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Well the title of your thread is "I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing". And the main thing you seem to want is to create a completely separate forum for political discussions (which you are welcome to do, by the way), and then ban them here. So yes, you have called and are calling for a ban on political discussions.

Could you describe again exactly what suggestion you're making and how it would improve the situation? It isn't that I don't care, I promise.


This came up weeks ago and we implemented a solution. Maybe it would make more sense to start by describing what's good and bad about the solution that we literally just put into place, rather than acting like nothing's been done?

I basically said everything I really had to say on the subject is all back on page 1. From that point on the tangents came out. I was meaning it as a suggestion. It is what I think would be best. But hey, it's your forum, and it is what it is.

[Xan]

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I don't see any other reason why the ignorable subforum wouldn't solve the problem. It seems that the mere existence of discussion you don't like is too much to tolerate. If I'm wrong, can you explain again why the ignorable subforum doesn't solve your problem?

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Well the title of your thread is "I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing". And the main thing you seem to want is to create a completely separate forum for political discussions (which you are welcome to do, by the way), and then ban them here. So yes, you have called and are calling for a ban on political discussions.

Could you describe again exactly what suggestion you're making and how it would improve the situation? It isn't that I don't care, I promise.


This came up weeks ago and we implemented a solution. Maybe it would make more sense to start by describing what's good and bad about the solution that we literally just put into place, rather than acting like nothing's been done?

I basically said everything I really had to say on the subject is all back on page 1. From that point on the tangents came out.

So... The first post where you call for a ban on political discussion here. And just now you get after me for saying you called for such a ban. hmm.

[pmward]

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I don't see any other reason why the ignorable subforum wouldn't solve the problem. It seems that the mere existence of discussion you don't like is too much to tolerate. If I'm wrong, can you explain again why the ignorable subforum doesn't solve your problem?

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Well the title of your thread is "I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing". And the main thing you seem to want is to create a completely separate forum for political discussions (which you are welcome to do, by the way), and then ban them here. So yes, you have called and are calling for a ban on political discussions.

Could you describe again exactly what suggestion you're making and how it would improve the situation? It isn't that I don't care, I promise.


This came up weeks ago and we implemented a solution. Maybe it would make more sense to start by describing what's good and bad about the solution that we literally just put into place, rather than acting like nothing's been done?

I basically said everything I really had to say on the subject is all back on page 1. From that point on the tangents came out.

So... The first post where you call for a ban on political discussion here. And just now you get after me for saying you called for such a ban. hmm.

Show me one place I suggested you "ban" political posts. Matter of fact, if you read the entire first page you will see I said we should not moderate the political discussions that happen naturally. Mainly that having the separate sub-forum to encourage them I don't think was a fit... for all the reasons I mentioned on page 1. So please, quit putting words in my mouth.

[vnatale]

The politics section literally was created just a few weeks ago... up until ~Nov 12 I left the forum entirely for 6 months due to the politics getting on my nerves. Obviously, I'm thinking of leaving again.

Yeah, I realize the Politics sub-forum was just created in early November. But even prior to that, I don't remember seeing you post very often (if at all) in any of the political threads in the Other Discussions sub-forum. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what I recall.

It seemed like you really jumped into the political threads for the first time starting on Nov 12 -- just three weeks ago -- yet your user profile says your Politics posts comprise over 20% of your total posts since you joined in Jan 2019. Subtracting your six-month sabbatical, that means that in just the most recent 5% of the time you've been active on this forum, you've produced over 20% of your total posts.

That's a really big sudden burst of participation in the Politics sub-forum for someone who says that politics is getting on his nerves and who has already opted out of Politics sub-forum notifications in his user settings.

Are you admitting that this is a forum only for Pro-Trump, non-analytical/quant investors, that do not have a VP? Because the fact that all people that have left or complained supposedly have common characteristics... characteristics you don't have... proves my point exactly. Would those people have left if they felt like this was an open, welcoming, non-hostile environment here?

Things in the US have become a lot more politically polarized in recent years and especially recent months. My perspective is that as a result, the forum members became politically divided largely into two groups: (1) the never-Trumpers, and (2) those who don't necessarily think that Trump is Orange Hitler.

Both groups have been fairly vocal and well-represented in recent political threads, so I don't get the sense that the voices of the never-Trumpers are being drowned in a flood of American flags and spray tan. In some threads, maybe, but not all of them. It just seems that in general, the never-Trumpers here are the ones who seem to get so fed up with heated political discussions that they choose to leave the forum permanently rather than just opting out of the Politics sub-forum, taking a short forum vacation, or maybe blocking one or two users who raise their blood pressure the most.

Since the never-Trumper members tend to emphasize decorum, I often get the sense that they expect others to compromise (e.g., "meet in the middle") for the sake of appearances and orderliness. Strong disagreement can be terribly messy, and that's very distasteful and uncomfortable to the decorum folks. By contrast, the members who emphasize policy or substance over decorum tend to attach themselves strongly to what they have determined is philosophically right or truthful and are loath to compromise on that just for the sake of "meeting in the middle." Their position is that in truth vs. falsehood and right vs. wrong, there is often no room for compromise -- integrity is an all-or-nothing proposition.

Totally agree! However, it is so puzzling to me how a man such as Trump who exhibits no integrity gets the support of so many who DO have integrity.

Vinny

[pmward]

I made a suggestion and I laid out my reasoning. It's ok if you disagree. But it really is frustrating when people keep making false assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

Also, I'm not the only one. There were 10 people that voted "yes" and countless others that left this forum. So I think it was a legitimate subject to bring up for discussion.

I've also since conceded to l82start a page or 2 ago, so it's kind of moot at this point.

[Xan]

Mainly that having the separate sub-forum to encourage them I don't think was a fit... for all the reasons I mentioned on page 1. So please, quit putting words in my mouth.

That is something I don't think you've said before, and maybe you thought you did (or that it would be understood from what you actually were saying).

So it's your position that the separate Politics subforum has increased the political discussion here and was a bad idea? Finally there's a sensical position that can be discussed. Okay, maybe you're right!

Maybe we should discuss questions like:

* Has there been more political discussion here since the Politics subforum was created?

* Has it been more polite or more acrimonious?

* How much of the discussion/argument has been driven by you personally, pmward?

* Is it off-putting to members/visitors, particularly given the ability to ignore it?

(I honestly don't know the answers to these, as I've opted out of the Politics subforum myself. It's been really nice.)

[dualstow]

Show me one place I suggested you "ban" political posts. Matter of fact, if you read the entire first page you will see I said we should not moderate the political discussions that happen naturally. Mainly that having the separate sub-forum to encourage them I don't think was a fit... for all the reasons I mentioned on page 1. So please, quit putting words in my mouth.

I don’t get it. You didn’t use the word ban as far as I can tell, but you want the segregated space for politics removed. I think the logicial conclusion here is that you wouldn’t want politics to flow back into the regular section. However, you are fine with political discussion mixed back in with the investing? Why would you want that?

At least with the separate section, we have a shot at the investing section sticking to investing.

[Maddy]

I don't understand. The whole point of the politics subforum was to keep politics separate from the rest of the site's content. As far as I can see it's been very successful so far. If you don't like the political content, then just don't browse this area?

Well, that's the obvious solution, isn't it? If you don't want to read posts about politics, then don't go to the Politics forum! Ironically, pmward has been one of the most prolific, persistent posters on the Politics forum in recent weeks. He's not only voluntarily participated in discussions of highly incendiary topics, he's started a good many of them.

The forum was specifically set up recently for the express purpose of creating a segregated area, separate from the investment subforums, in which political discussions could occur. Xan made clear at the time the Politics forum was set up that members are free to opt out of notifications--meaning that any member can make the Politics forum and all of its content disappear--100 percent--from sight. There is a "sticky" at the top of the forum that reminds members of this opt-out feature.

But it's obviously not good enough for pmward that he has the ability to opt out. And it never will be good enough until each and every other member is prevented from hearing the posts he finds so disagreeable.

This really takes the cake. What better example of the consummately authoritarian type of thinking that is emblematic of the Progressive Left. It's not enough that they have the freedom to live their lives in an echo chamber. They want to control what YOU hear. That's the whole point.

[Smith1776]

Regarding people who get riled up and angry about the political discussions. I think it's important to remember one thing: it doesn't matter if someone on the internet disagrees with you. It just doesn't matter. Why even bother caring? There will always be people in the world who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. That will never change. So just accept that and move on with your life.

If I get into a disagreement with someone on this forum (or any forum) I generally reply twice. If it's not resolved by then I usually just stop replying. It's usually an indicator that nothing will get resolved by that point, so why bother? Make your position known and move on. There's no need to bother getting the last jab in. Be a bigger person and just move on to more important and productive things that create positive momentum in your life.

[Mountaineer]

Regarding people who get riled up and angry about the political discussions. I think it's important to remember one thing: it doesn't matter if someone on the internet disagrees with you. It just doesn't matter. Why even bother caring? There will always be people in the world who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. That will never change. So just accept that and move on with your life.

If I get into a disagreement with someone on this forum (or any forum) I generally reply twice. If it's not resolved by then I usually just stop replying. It's usually an indicator that nothing will get resolved by that point, so why bother? Make your position known and move on. There's no need to bother getting the last jab in. Be a bigger person and just move on to more important and productive things that create positive momentum in your life.

Great advice. But, Smithers, I just want you to know this is my second response to you, I think. After this, I'm going to call in a drone strike (equipped with a butt load of dull last jabbers) by (pick your forum diaetrically opposed person) for good measure to just end this positive advice - enough is enough, we need to get back to some high powered toxicity. This is my firm and final position, at least for the next 30 seconds.