Political discussion vs. Political rhetoric

[Busjamin]

Disclaimer: I want this to be received as a genuine effort to improve the site, but I am not unbiased. I have personally been guilty of overt 'political' statements here in reaction to certain subjects I find hard to ignore. I am willing, and in some cases compelled to engage with these subjects, but not at the expense of the forum at large... I have received modmail before, 'discouraging further political engagement'. I doubt I'm the only one here who would appreciate some clarity on what that means.
_

Bit of meta-gaming here. I've picked up on a pattern here since I joined earlier this year. It's hardly unique to this forum, but I care about this one so I'm speaking up.


If the subject of a thread could be considered 'political' at all, there are inevitably comments that drag the conversation into rhetorical territory.

I personally see this as the enforcement moment to solve the problem before it starts.


From the forum rules sticky:

Do not take every opportunity to express your disagreement, incite argument, insult each other, or fan flames. Voice your opinion respectfully and then let it go.

Of all the lines in the rules section, I think this is the most relevant to this issue. The 'politics', by my observation, has only arisen as the result of someone crossing this line (rhetoric). If anything, it seems like the political backlash from other members is the only outcome and it just crops up again a few threads later. I say rhetorical territory because most often this turn in the conversation is described as 'political' even when the subject is something scientific or otherwise only debatable in a 'political' sense. It's also usually coming from a single comment, an obvious catalyst for an expanding argument that later catches the mods attention.

I truly believe what the moderator team wants to avoid is actually political rhetoric. This could be distinguished from political discussion, or even political debate.

Rhetoric is used in bad faith to push a 'political' agenda and influence people to choose sides on any given issue (even facts, as it seems these days). "[X Political Party] hates freedom" is political rhetoric.

Discussion and debate are used expand our collective understanding of the issue at hand, seeking to get closer to the truth of the matter. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me," is political discussion. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me, and I don't think that's the right direction for our government," is political debate.

For example; a thread about Tariffs is inevitably going to involve some political opinion on the matter. Tariffs are fundamentally a political tool. It also very directly affects our Skoolie builds and is a valid topic of conversation, so a blanket ban on political subjects doesn't really go far enough in my opinion. We need to be able to talk about the practical effects of political decisions without letting a few bad-faith comments get the thread closed by mods. I also don't think it's fair to ask the rest of us to all 'be the bigger person' when someone is clearly participating in a bad-faith manner.

At this point I genuinely know nothing about the people on the mod team so I do not presume to understand their perspective or opinion on the matter. That is what I am hoping to better understand. I guess in terms of practical outcomes, I'd like to see the rules section expanded to address this distinction between rhetoric and legitimate discussion. If the "Ignore" button is our only recourse against the trolls, I'd just like to know that for sure.

 

[Rwnielsen]

At this point I genuinely know nothing

 

[TaliaDPerkins]

At this point I genuinely know nothing

You're Sergeant Schultz ?

 

[nikitis]

So in my years of being here, I've gathered that the mods only care if people are getting overly heated in the discussion. The rule is to help prevent that, but ultimately they don't want people yelling at each other and leaving the site over topics discussed.

They also know that it's impossible to avoid completely. EPA Diesel laws, emissions, etc all are related to skoolie's and will come up often. It's understood that some people are for emissions, and some are holistically against emissions. This would inevitably spark a political debate about how it affects climate change, yada yada. We all know how this works.

I don't think the mods get too upset as long as you A.) Don't get upset in your reply to anothers due to your values being 180 from the original poster. B.) it's fine to rebuttle, but do not bring emotion into it. You can state why you believe Y, same way I believe X, but you are not allowed to get angry over it, name call, or be derogatory towards another.

"To speak is to offend". This means to offend ones ideals via language. When we communicate we clash always, but the point of communicating is to come to an agreement, or an agreement to disagree and end the conversation. No one has the right on here to call others names etc or treat people like trash for their beliefs. This is where the mods really step in and the issue they have with political debating on a forum. Keep your emotions in check, display your belief in a constructive manner, and let the war of ideals win out and be civil about it and I don't think the mods would care so much.

 

[desrtdog]

If you’re listening to understand, rather than listening to respond, then you are less likely to offend when you speak…

 

[Rucker]

At this point I genuinely know nothing about the people on the mod team so I do not presume to understand their perspective or opinion on the matter. That is what I am hoping to better understand. I guess in terms of practical outcomes, I'd like to see the rules section expanded to address this distinction between rhetoric and legitimate discussion. If the "Ignore" button is our only recourse against the trolls, I'd just like to know that for sure.

There have been a few kerfuffles around opinions, but fortunately our fearless moderators tend to root out the offenders.

I directly engage the behavior with a post and try to redirect the conversation back to the topic at hand. If the poster is a dick, which I get to personally determine, I put them on ignore. One can never get rid of opinions, or dicks, it turns out.

I have a background in Scouting, and like this forum, Scouting is a volunteer-led effort. When we ran into volunteers with opinions, or volunteers who were dicks, we simply tried to remind them the focus should be on raising young boys to be exceptional men, and not on the opinions of adults who are dicks.

Similarly here in this forum, the mission is to support any and all who join with the mission of achieving their best version of a skoolie. For many of us (based on what I've seen) it starts with meeting them where they are at, and providing what help is needed. It is not too difficult to see when a conversation is drifting from that purpose and we all respond as best we can.

 

[Cheezewhiz]

I think you're on the money with the discussion vs rhetoric.

There's a whole lot of discussion pertaining to skoolies we could have that's definitely political, but a whole lot of media isn't in it for discussion.

Modern 'effective' political bullshit insinuates enough for the viewer to 'figure out' the rest, and thus convince themselves it was their own thought to begin with.
Unfortunately, the 'solution' to the puzzle they generally present is antagonistic and one dimensional.

And just for clarification, when I say one dimensional, I mean a line with two ends. Binary. Zero or one. Red or blue. Male or female. Us or them.

There's literally nothing on earth or within human experience that is actually that simple. Sure, we can reduce it to that for a thought experiment, but nothing is ever actually that stark.

Even that one dimensional line has an infinite number of gradients between the ends, and that's not counting all the other dimensions in play.

 

[nikitis]

A point is 1 dimension, a line is 2 dimensions

 

[Janet H]

At this point I genuinely know nothing about the people on the mod team so I do not presume to understand their perspective or opinion on the matter. That is what I am hoping to better understand. I guess in terms of practical outcomes, I'd like to see the rules section expanded to address this distinction between rhetoric and legitimate discussion. If the "Ignore" button is our only recourse against the trolls, I'd just like to know that for sure.

Adding more rules will not solve the trolling issue.

Some folks just can't back away from a topic, even when common sense dictates otherwise. The need to have the last or best word is a powerful driver for some posters.

Simply by starting this thread, you have revived topics that have been closed.

Rules exist because, over time, there has been a demonstrated need. That said, they are already sufficiently long, and frankly, few bother to read before posting. As noted earlier, here are some salient bits (plucked out of the rules):

Be Courteous!

• Do not take every opportunity to express your disagreement, incite argument, insult each other, or fan flames. Voice your opinion respectfully and then let it go.

• Trolling and cyberstalking are NOT allowed and are grounds for account restriction or removal. Trolling on this board includes posting controversial and often irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of (or anticipated result of) baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal, harmonious on-topic discussion, especially when a pattern of such posting is apparent.

• General discussions, statements and images that are political in nature or that reference general government policies, weaponry, gun rights and religion are not allowed in ANY areas of the forum. Discussions about current or pending legislation or regulations, weapons and religion that directly pertain to RVing are acceptable but will be closed or removed if they wander off topic or become disruptive.
• We take the "be nice" rule VERY seriously! We do not tolerate any rudeness.

It's time to let this go. Please stop baiting members. Avoid political topics, taking swipes at the site team. let it go.


Thread closed.