It also would still have been allowed under the current rules. We aren't trying to kill levity, only trolling and party bashing.

Um, well no.

There's nothing wrong with generalizations as a concept, as in "Republicans, as a party, tend to oppose abortion and gay rights, which is why they do better in the South and Midwest", or "As a rule, the major left-wing parties in Western Europe are much more socialist in ideology than the major left-wing parties in North America or Oceania." Both statements attempt to encapsulate a large amount of data into a simple, easy to explain and understand way. <i>They are also value-neutral.</i> Neither sentence states explicitly, nor implies, that Republicans are "more evil" or that Western European left-wing parties are "more stupid". They are nothing more than rules-of-thumb to facilitate understanding and/or discussion. They aren't "cheap shots". This is the primary difference.

You can name-drop Habermas as much as you like, but it doesn't make what you say any more correct.

There's a difference between:

<i>Republicans are always such pathetic losers.</i>

and

<i>Republicans are always thrifty spenders</i>

I think any generalizations which are opinionated and derogatory are the problem. Not the more harmless generalizations which have a source in the truth.

If you're going to try and remove partisanship (even rank partisanship) from the Politics Forum, you just as well do away with the forum altogether.

That is the backbone of any discussion of politics.

Another point: Does anyone, except apparently for the moderators, believe the posts I made which brought about my exile are anything but levity?

"Partisanship" is "calling names and trolling"?

To say that partisanship is the 'backbone' of the politics evidences your personal viewpoint, ie, that partisanship rules above all. There are some out there who can find agreement with members of other parties on certain issues.

A generalization, like a stereotype, is or was originally based somewhat in truth, and as such, isn't inherently good or bad, as long as one realizes there are exceptions to every stereotype, which some apparently cannot. Saying "The African-American vote has historically gone predominately Democrat" is a factual generalization, that most would probably agree with.
Even V_Inds's comment that ""Left-wing policies have produced little economic growth, huge unemployment, and most damaging, a society that views economic life as an estamental rather than a rational activity. Thus, left-wing policies should be condemned and avoided by any society that values economic growth, freshness and inventiveness" is similar, because one assumes they are based in fact, at least according to the poster. The same idea/opinion can be pitched in an inflammatory way, which I think the rules are trying to do away with, which I support.
Sort of like the difference between these:

"I disagree, I feel the discussion of politics is not served at all with rank partisanship and blind faith to ideology."

Disagreement with respect and reason.

Or

"You're full of shit, you blindly partisan leftist wacko."

One of those examples might be allowed and can serve to foster discussion; the other pretty much calls it to a close.

Partisans (Bushites) have an entirely different view from partisans (non-Bushites) on a multitude of things - the latest CIA leak fiasco is an example.

You can rationally discuss the issue all you want. Nothing will change. The Bushites are going to defend Bush no matter what and the non-Bushites are going to be critical of him no matter what. That's now politics work.

The absolutely certainty of how I know people (the frequent posters on the Politics Forum) are going to respond is the most enjoyable aspect of this forum for me.

But again, I don't don't take this forum as seriously as some seem to.

One can, of course, but not everyone shares the same values. For some, higher taxation might be acceptable as long as it means low infant mortality or universal health coverage. For others, the concurrent disencentive to save, invest, etc. would make it less palatable.
The first part of your statement is descriptive, and can easily be demonstrated as true or false with a simple examination of data (it's false, BTW). The problem is that you included it with the normative second half of your sentence, which is where you really got into trouble.
The thing is, some statements or generalizations are so ludicrous or insulting that they really don't deserve a response at all.

As one who often knowingly takes classicman's libertarian-bait it has to be more substantive than those two posts. And I'm never "offended" by him.

BTW, I was wondering where c-man was in the political forum. I only just now tracked this down. I can be out of touch.

C-man, certainly you can't let that last line just sit there?

Or

"Hogwash!"

Which one is this closer to?

Hogwash is the perfect response to some of the non-sensical crap that is spouted on this forum.

Another one - it seems to be o.k. to call someone a liar on the politics forum; but, it's an absolute no-no to call someone a right-winger. Makes perfect sense to me.

As I said earlier, if a post is really that bad, don't give them the satisfaction of the response.

No point in showing disagreement if you aren't going to elaborate on why, and again if it's not worth elaborating on, it's not worth responding to in the first place. :notrolls:

Maybe the liar posts just aren't reported to the mods? Or the person really was lying? Any examples?

If you follow it up w/ the reason as to why you think it is "non-sensical crap" I would agree. Frankly if all you have to offer is "hogwash" though you might as well leave the comment to yourself IMHO.

What I want to know is, if you have such a negative opinion of what we are doing w/ the forum, why do you keep coming back?

What I want to know is why this rush to change? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. The Politics Forum is not broken.

BTW: Do you agree with my suggestion that a little bit more political idealogical balance among the moderators (the ones who actually moderate - a couple of the more liberal moderators don't moderate any longer) might be a good thing for the forum?

I think the moderating is fine, but it couldn't hurt to add a couple liberal moderators. But who's going to volunteer?

Typical c-man... never answers direct questions but expects everyone else to answer his

According to the reports/complaints we were getting people did consider the forum to be broken so steps were taken to try and correct that.

Because eventually you end with with a politics forum that consists of only of people saying "Bush is a terrorist and Republicans are dumb bigots", "liberals are commie whackos" and C-man calling all of it "hogwash"?


While the rest of us bail from the forum altogether, disgusted with the blind partisanship and its morass of pointless, useless waste-of-time-to-read-it crap like "liberals are terrorists" and "it's all Bush's fault"...

Or, of course, you could just not frequent that forum.

Define intelligent? Who gets to say which poster(s) is posting intelligent stuff and who's not? This sounds like more and more an elitist club. If people on the left or right don't think your post is intelligent to their standards, you should not allow to post or refreain from posting? I kept on seeing people who posted over and over "Bush fault" "Bush lied" "impeach Bush" "Bush is a fascist" follow by a lengthy and wordly post. Yet, the entire lengthy post reflects back to "Bush lied". Does that conclude intelligent?
In reality, the left will view pro-Bushies as retards and vice versa. Neither side will accept the other side is intelligent.

1. You simply don't like the answer.

2. It seems to me that your own poll doesn't support your conclusions.

How many reports and how many complaints?

Are those reports and complaints from regulars or semi-regulars or just drop in once in a while folks?

That's exactly my point.

In addition I think many people seem to believe that a short, terse response can't be an intelligent response - and post length is necessary for it to be an intelligent response.

I have an answer for those - 'hogwash.'

1) No you simply don't answer. Take this example... I asked why do you continue to come back if you have such a negative opinion of the place, and you responded about "the rush to change" (even though the forum has been going on for years and we've only started making changes these last couple of months). That's not an answer to the question I asked and this is not the first time you've dodged questions you didn't want to answer, for whatever reason.

2) The way I read the poll is on avg most people think the forum is about the same as it was before and the main thing that is desired is better enforcement of the rules. In light of that we developed the 3 strikes/political exile rule so everyone knew the standard we were going to be moderating by.

Personally I don't track complaints, after they are dealt w/ they are deleted from the inbox. Maybe one of the other mods is collecting stats but I kind of doubt it.

There is such a thing as a short intelligent response. A flip phrase or a curt blow off doesn't qualify though. We aren't expecting people to write dissertations in their responses, since as mentioned previously you can have lengthy responses that say nothing, what we are trying to do is get people to post THOUGHTFUL responses. Canned phrases, talking points and partisan rhetoric are what we are trying to eliminate. Again though if that is the level of discussion you want to participate in there are plenty of other I'net forums out there to accomodate you. If you don't like the rules/what we are trying to do here don't post, it's as simple as that.

And you & others who wish to change this forum into a 'vanilla type' forum might heed the old advice - if you can't stand the heat............................

Apparently you're experiencing some trouble with the heat.