Political Threads / Religious Threads

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Political Threads / Religious Threads

  • Yes, Allow them.

  • No, Do not allow them.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see no reason there should not be a dedicated pace for political/religous debate. We are all adults, and I enjoy testing my opinions against others. That is how opinions are evolved.

I also find it encouraging that both the threads that are often cited as being recently the most inflammatory (The Global warming and tax threads) were both started by a moderator. Given that a person in authority on this forum initiated the debates, it is natural that people felt perfectly comfortable in continuin the debates. I enjoyed both those threads, and thought that for the most part they were handled with reasonable decorum.

While I appreciate the fact that this is a brewing forum, I see no reason why we should not discuss other matters that reflect our own personalities. This forum does include an "adult" section. Is it reasonable that tis material should enjoy a higher moral ground in the society of this forum than politics and religion?
 
I find this to be a very interesting aspect of this discussion.

The "bring in on" crowd is largely willing to compromise and move their discussions into the back room where they can easily be avoided.. In contrast, the "beer only" crowd is largely unwilling to compromise and seeks to have these topics forbidden everywhere.

Thoughts?

I see no reason there should not be a dedicated pace for political/religous debate. We are all adults, and I enjoy testing my opinions against others. That is how opinions are evolved.

+1 OhioBrit and I have sparred vigorously before, yet I consider him to be a friend. There's no reason people can't engage in a battle of wits (even if it's gets heated) and still remain friends.
 
In contrast, the "beer only" crowd is largely unwilling to compromise and seeks to have these topics forbidden everywhere.

Thoughts?

If this forum could be compared to a real life social situation, then I think it could be best related as a shared brew day between friends. In that situation I don't believe that these friends would spend the entire 6-7 hours talking solely about beer. They would cover a wide spectrum of topics mixing beer knowledge with trivial nonsense and every aspect of life. This is also how I use and enjoy this forum.
 
The quote above is an example of why I voted no.

Rick


I've been told that religion is based on faith. Belief in the absense of proof. My intent was not to insult or degrade a particular position, but rather to present it in the same fashion that its been presented to me. If I'm wrong and a sound argument that doesn't rely on faith can be presented, I'd likely go ahead and engage in a debate on the topic despite what I said earlier.

In any event this thread isn't the place for it so if the new area for politics and religion is created, I hope you'll make an exception and join me in a debate on that particular item, Rick. We'll likely never change each other's minds, but I think we'd have a lively civil discussion. :mug:
 
The quote above is an example of why I voted no.

Preface: I'm not taking either position. Just examining the thought processes involved in a religious debate that has started to break out in the middle of this thread.

Queston: If he had posted the opposing opinion (i.e. pro-religion), would you have made the same post (above)? If the answer is no, how do you intellectually reconcile that a religious statement you support is acceptable to post but one you oppose is so unacceptable as to provide support for banning religious discussions.
 
I voted against them, but would have done otherwise if the threads were more often worth reading. Several have mentioned a separate forum that I could filter out of my "new posts" results, and I'd be happy with that.
 
Maybe we should have a Political forum with two sub links. One called the right wing, the other the left wing, and have a no troll policy. EX. me going into the Left wing area just to cause trouble.
 
If I'm wrong and a sound argument that doesn't rely on faith can be presented, I'd likely go ahead and engage in a debate on the topic despite what I said earlier.

(Got long-winded; sorry.)

You're right, this isn't the place, but my point was that you dismissed the other side of an argument as not being based on sound reasoning. Of course, any conclusion different from your (or my) own is likely to be considered unsound from your (or my) view; if we considered the other view a reasoned and sound viewpoint, why would we hold the one we do?

But the tone of your statement (in my opinion) was that the differing view was not a reasoned viewpoint; i.e., it was taken without thought or logical processing. On any subject, there is a tendency to assume that given the same information a person of reasonable intelligence will come to the same conclusion we hold our self; if they don't, then obviously they are either missing pertinent information, not thinking logically, or lack the mental capacity to see the issue clearly. That's how I took the tone of your comment and it's also how I see a lot of these "debates" here go -- and it's why I see them continuing to explode.

To have civil discussion requires a respect for the other view -- not just that he/she has a right to the view, but that he/she intelligently came to their conclusion with reasoned logic and, further more, may well be right in their view and we be mistaken.

As an aside, I've had interesting debates on other forums where all sides did respect the viewpoint of others; unfortunately that respect is clearly missing by some here on HBT, it isn't held in check by the moderators, and I doubt it will change.

Rick
 
If he had posted the opposing opinion (i.e. pro-religion), would you have made the same post (above)?
Can't say for sure, but if made in the same way, I'd have felt the same. By the way, I'm not sure why a religious discussion is "breaking out." My point wasn't meant to have anything to do with religion, but was to the subject at hand.

My problem with these debates is not what a person's opinion might be, it's the oft-seen inability to recognize that another can have the same intelligence, reasoning ability, and information, yet still come to a different conclusion. In my mind -- perhaps incorrectly -- the post highlighted that tendency.

Rick
 
I didn't arrive at my present belief system yesterday. I have not found ANY statements/arguments in any forums here sufficiently compelling to change my positions one way or the other (only perhaps to strengthen those I already hold.) I have found sport here on some of the non-beer threads and I find some I agree with but I find it mostly innocuous having heard it all before.

Much of it sounds like me 25-35 yrs ago. I guess there is a soft spot in me for people who's ideas I find so profoundly misguided/undeveloped. That is why in most cases I don't bother getting involved.

I visit this forum mostly for brewing information but if a substantial number of "customers" want to to come to these areas bare their insights or lack thereof-so what; it isn't a bad exercise. At least they are coming here and spending more here time to do it and, hopefully, will get back to the brewing threads.

JW
 
As an aside, I've had interesting debates on other forums where all sides did respect the viewpoint of others; unfortunately that respect is clearly missing by some here on HBT, it isn't held in check by the moderators, and I doubt it will change.

Rick

So as not to continue debating a topic we've both agreed doesn't need to be started here, I'll only comment only on this part of your post because it's relevant to the original post.

I love intelligent, reasoned debates with those who hold differing opinions. You're right in stating that there are those who are incapable. For example, I believe that ALL drugs should be legalized. You wouldn't believe how many people extrapolate that statement to mean that I think drugs should be sold to children, or syringes of heroine distributed in corner stores, or some other ridiculous leap of logic that was never inferred or implied. I just calmly wait why they rant and postulate and then carefully articulate my position. I don't know if I've ever convinced anyone, but I've certainly made a lot of people think twice. I find it very satisfying when I see the understanding of a concept they'd never even entertained before then. Every once in a while someone does the same thing to me. Not agreement, but understanding.
 
...The "bring in on" crowd is largely willing to compromise and move their discussions into the back room where they can easily be avoided.. In contrast, the "beer only" crowd is largely unwilling to compromise and seeks to have these topics forbidden everywhere.

Thoughts?

Check the URL. "homebrewtalk.com"
 
Maybe we should have a Political forum with two sub links. One called the right wing, the other the left wing, and have a no troll policy. EX. me going into the Left wing area just to cause trouble.

Oh, yes, that's a tremendous idea. Let's reinforce the false dichotomy that has been foisted on us by the republocrats. :rolleyes: Maybe the sublinks should be called "Giant ******" and "Turd Sandwich".

Here's to hoping you were joking...:mug:
 
Not only does the poll indicate that non-brew discussions are popular, the site stats seem to back it up:


Forum......................Threads......Views

General Chit Chat.......4,770.........88,011
Drunken Ramblings......2,282.........45,984

Top 25 Prosted thread (8/25)
6 How to Roast a Whole Pig
10 &^$% code enforcement
12 SWMBO
14 1000 Posts
16 Posters
17 Kittay thread
23 Work
25 Women
 
Check out the poll - 2:1

In general, the majority of people tend not to favor censorship, so the poll numbers don't surprise me one bit. Unfortunately, I find that much of the time (not always, of course), those who do favor censorship do so because they're too lazy to self-censor. It's more about convenience than anything else---they don't want to have to scroll through a bunch of OT links on the new posts page, so they think OT talk should be banned. It reminds me of lazy parents who don't want to have to program their V-chip or actually pay attention to the video games their kids are watching, they'd rather have them banned altogether. Now, I'm not equating this to a first amendment issue---Tx has the right under the law to do whatever he wants, as it's his forum. I'm just saying that those who favor censorship tend to think (erroneously, in my opinion) that blanket censorship is an easier solution since it does their own job for them. I, on the other hand, tend to think that one-size-fits-all censorship of this kind is far too heavy-handed, like using a wrecking ball to squish some flies. The problem is, that wrecking ball not only gets the flies, it wrecks the building too. So why not use a fly swatter on the flies, and let the building remain standing?
 
The topic is
Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.

There is no need to campaign either way.
 
The topic is
Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.

There is no need to campaign either way.

Then Tx should have said "no comments, just vote" from the outset if that's what he had in mind.
 
Unfortunately, I find that much of the time (not always, of course), those who do favor censorship do so because they're too lazy to self-censor.
However, another valid rational for a "no" vote are those who can't self-censor their own comments, and with any highly-polarizing topic quickly degenerate into name calling.

I voted no because, in general, this site is more civil than most. That changes when religion or politics is the subject. That there is no regard or respect for another's opinion is already apparent with many even when religion or politics isn't particularly the subject; there are those whose posts clearly indicate they have no sensitivity to what others think or believe. I'm not sure the usefulness of a discussion in which one side has disdain and disregard for the other person's opinion, even if they keep it civil.

Rick
 
I voted to allow them only for the sake of not censoring anyones thoughts/opions. That being said this is a beer forum, so as long as they're posted in the right place then ehhh what the hell?:mug:
 
In general, the majority of people tend not to favor censorship, so the poll numbers don't surprise me one bit. Unfortunately, I find that much of the time (not always, of course), those who do favor censorship do so because they're too lazy to self-censor. It's more about convenience than anything else---they don't want to have to scroll through a bunch of OT links on the new posts page, so they think OT talk should be banned. It reminds me of lazy parents who don't want to have to program their V-chip or actually pay attention to the video games their kids are watching, they'd rather have them banned altogether. Now, I'm not equating this to a first amendment issue---Tx has the right under the law to do whatever he wants, as it's his forum. I'm just saying that those who favor censorship tend to think (erroneously, in my opinion) that blanket censorship is an easier solution since it does their own job for them. I, on the other hand, tend to think that one-size-fits-all censorship of this kind is far too heavy-handed, like using a wrecking ball to squish some flies. The problem is, that wrecking ball not only gets the flies, it wrecks the building too. So why not use a fly swatter on the flies, and let the building remain standing?

A huge +1 on that!

By and large we tend to think of eachother as friends here. This is a very civilised forum by any standards of the interweb. By limiting our scope of conversation I feel that any sense of friendship would be deminished, even if we disagree at times. There are plenty of people that I like in the real world too that I disagree with all the time. The diversity in our opinions is what often keeps us talking to each other. There are people at work that I only talk to about work matters, (Relate that analogy to brewing) I call these people "colleagues".....Colleagues are fine, and a useful resource, but I always have room for a new friend, whether they are right wing, left wing, religous, gay, straight.....etc etc.

In summary, is this forum intended to be simply a brewing resource? Or a brewing resource where people with a shared interest can also shoot the breeze with other brewers hat they cannot find in the real world because of the lack of local homebrewers? If it is intended to be the former, then I can just download the entire catalogue of Jamil podcasts.
 
However, another valid rational for a "no" vote are those who can't self-censor their own comments, and with any highly-polarizing topic quickly degenerate into name calling.

No, that's a valid rationale for A) leaving the thread quickly if you don't care to witness said name-calling, or B) a moderator to step in and either warn the involved parties or just close the thread if it's too far out of control. A few bad apples with poor self-control should not spoil the fun for everyone else who wishes to discuss political matters in a civil manner.

I voted no because, in general, this site is more civil than most. That changes when religion or politics is the subject. That there is no regard or respect for another's opinion is already apparent with many even when religion or politics isn't particularly the subject; there are those whose posts clearly indicate they have no sensitivity to what others think or believe. I'm not sure the usefulness of a discussion in which one side has disdain and disregard for the other person's opinion, even if they keep it civil.

First off, the "religion" issue is nothing but a red herring here. As I said earlier, there's a religious discussion with traction maybe once every 4-6 months. Secondly, there are surely those people who don't have "sensitivity" to what others believe, but again, I don't see that as a valid reason to ban all political discussion simply because you don't find it "useful". How "useful" is it to have a thread about f*ckin' LOLcats or parody motivational posters or music-match or **********?

Again, I favor less regulation and more moderation, because it puts the responsibility in one's own hands. This is true in life and in these forums. Seeing people bicker bitterly or even get nasty doesn't bother me---I just try to stay out of it---but even if it did bother me, I'd have the effin' self-control to steer clear of political threads. It is little surprise to me that most of the people who favor a ban are the ones who don't usually participate in the first place---but it does strike me as curious why none of those people feel like they have enough self-control to just stay the hell away from that which bothers them.
 
I don't like football, so I don't go to football games.

I like s*ccer, so I log in to my computer and listen to my s*ccer team's games.

I make decisions based on my own preferences,not someone else's.

I really don't understand how this issue even arose.
 
I don't like football, so I don't go to football games.

I like s*ccer, so I log in to my computer and listen to my s*ccer team's games.

I make decisions based on my own preferences,not someone else's.

I really don't understand how this issue even arose.

Honestly, if you ask me (and remember this is JUST my OPINION), it probably has to do with $$. As this site grows and grows, I think that Tx might be concerned that people who are brand new to the site might stumble across a political thread and not realize that even heated arguments are usually under control, and be scared off...and thus Tx loses a potential member.
 
Honestly, if you ask me (and remember this is JUST my OPINION), it probably has to do with $$. As this site grows and grows, I think that Tx might be concerned that people who are brand new to the site might stumble across a political thread and not realize that even heated arguments are usually under control, and be scared off...and thus Tx loses a potential member.

Then make it available to subscribers only? That would give the noobs a year at least to grow accustomed. ;)
 
Then make it available to subscribers only? That would give the noobs a year at least to grow accustomed. ;)

I wouldn't mind putting it behind the wall...sounds like a compromise to me. That way, at least the people involved in the conversations have at least a bit of incentive to behave, as they've actually paid to be there and don't want to either alienate their fellow members or get themselves banned.
 
The problem is, political threads *need* to be babysat. You can argue that we as a group have been too quick to pull the trigger and close a few threads down; I'm not going to disagree. You can argue that we've gotten involved in a few discussions that we should not have; again, I won't disagree, and I think you'll see less of that going forward.

The problem is that the political discussions, even when they don't go over the line get real freakin' close more often that not. It's one thing to say "just walk away!" - but it's still the case that they need to be babysat. We *do* have jobs and families and responsibilities above and beyond HBT. Babysitting political threads and the related stuff probably consumes 90% of our "mod time."

Those of us who have agreed to become moderators take a tremendous amount of pride in this place. This isn't just a homebrew forum; this is a place that I've met a lot of really great people, a place where I've had countless wonderful discussions with people all over the world, where I've shot the **** with hundred and hundreds of folks. I know that pretty much wherever I may go, there's an HBT'er that'll sit down and have a pint and a few laughs with me.

This is the single most welcoming community I've ever found on the web. I defy you to name me another place that is more open and friendly. That's why it's so important to me that this place stay, well... different from every other community.

The political stuff, when it gets out of hand, does spill over. You can't help it. If we're going to continue allowing political discussions (which ultimately, I am in favor of), I'm of the opinion that two things need to happen.

1. It's got to be contained in its own forum
2. We're going to have to be more strict in making sure that discussions remain civil and respectful. Those who can't play nice won't be allowed in the sandbox.
 
By campaigning I was refering to the tactic of expanding the issue beyond the question in an effort to get more support.

As an example: Characterizing this as an effort to "ban" all off-topic discussion.
This kind of scaremongering is poor form.
 
No, that's a valid rationale . . . .
It is a valid rationale for a "no" vote, just one with which you may disagree.

A few bad apples with poor self-control should not spoil the fun for everyone else who wishes to discuss political matters in a civil manner.
I would agree. I also think the government shouldn't tax me a lot and then waste my money. 1) Not talking "should" here, and 2) my analogy wold be a political discussion; sorry.

It is little surprise to me that most of the people who favor a ban are the ones who don't usually participate in the first place---but it does strike me as curious why none of those people feel like they have enough self-control to just stay the hell away from that which bothers them.
Regarding lack of self control, you pointed out in the first half of the above quote that you think most who voted no are not participants in such threads; apparently they have the self control to avoid them. It isn't about staying away, it's about the overall affect such threads have on the general community, which affects us even if we do stay away.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a civil, reasoned discussion on politics or religion. I just don't think it's possible here and the net result of the fallout on the community is negative. I may be wrong, but it's my opinion and why I voted "no."

Rick
 
My "no" vote was a simple way of saying that we discuss brewing well and politics badly here. It's really that simple. I'm not lazy and I'm not afraid of thinking. I read and think about politics all the time. In real life, I'm a theologian. I make it my business to discuss religion in a highly rigorous and extremely critical way. I can easily enough skip the political threads (and I generally do), but my preference is that they just not happen here, because they don't seem to help the community and it's not what this group of people does best. I know I'm in the minority, and that's fine. I'll stick around, and when I have a little cash, I'll buy a membership and keep skipping the political threads. Sometimes opinions don't have to be right or wrong.
 
It is a valid rationale for a "no" vote, just one with which you may disagree.

I'll grant you that :)


Regarding lack of self control, you pointed out in the first half of the above quote that you think most who voted no are not participants in such threads; apparently they have the self control to avoid them.

They may not be participating in them, but it doesn't mean they're not observing them (and ostensibly peeing their pants anytime anyone is mean to another person).

It isn't about staying away, it's about the overall affect such threads have on the general community, which affects us even if we do stay away.

I addressed this earlier. If someone isn't mature and civilized enough to have a political discussion with someone with whom they disagree and still be friendly with that person outside of that discussion, then what business do they have in a community like this in the first place? I've had some heated discussions with people in some threads to the point where I was getting really annoyed with them---but I'm a goddamned grown-up and I have the wherewithal to leave it on the field, so to speak. And if you ask me, most people here are the same way. Many people (you included) act as if this is a big problem, but I just don't see it (and I spend plenty of time around here ;)). You act as if all of our beer threads are getting polluted with bad feelings, but I would request that you show me specific examples to support this theory. I think you're basing your decision on hypotheticals, not reality.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a civil, reasoned discussion on politics or religion. I just don't think it's possible here and the net result of the fallout on the community is negative. I may be wrong, but it's my opinion and why I voted "no."

It IS possible, as has been proven time and again with long-lasting (hundreds or thousands of pages) political threads. If it wasn't possible, then how did they continue for so long without getting locked? Again, I think you and others are blowing this way out of proportion.

But I respect your right to your opinion, as always :mug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top