Political Threads / Religious Threads

[bethlehembrewer]

You have confused my point? or I am confused. I am saying that the owner of a site has the right (As long as it's not funded by tax money) to censor what ever they want.

I know what you were going for. My thought is reaching yours by extension of the fact that he didn't like being told what he was saying needed to be toned down. I was just throwing it out there because it was on my mind when I read your post.

 

[Philip1993]

The unofficial unmoderated area is the PM. There is even an ignore feature.

Yes it is one-one-one but that's what these thread devolve into. If people self-moderated and used the PM appropriatly, there may not be an issue.

That goes against normal group dynamics. If you're at a bar or other social outlet, people start discussions, join discussions, leave discussions, change discussions, and participate in multiple discussions, all in a very dynamic and fluid manner.

What you are suggesting is that as soon as two people get engaged in a discussion that they are passionate about, the both leave the bar and go to a private booth. That would leave behind a pretty boring bar with a lot of empty seats. Kind of like drinking at the public library...

 

[BigKahuna]

I know what you were going for. My thought is reaching yours by extension of the fact that he didn't like being told what he was saying needed to be toned down. I was just throwing it out there because it was on my mind when I read your post.

Gotcha!...and good point.
I think that is the heart of this whole thing. Nobody hates censorship more than those that are being censored.
Just as I agree that if you don't want to read or partake in the political / Religious threads you should walk away....I also believe that if you don't like that you have gotten out of hand and been censored you also have the freedom to post rhetoric elsewhere.

This is ultimately Tx Decision, and I for one thank him for allowing us to have input on the decision...even if I am getting out voted here.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

I voted yes on this one. I primarily come here for information about beer, but I appreciate the political/religious banter as well. I think the mods do a good job of closing threads when they get out of hand, and that just keeps everything civil. Some have complained about the mods being too quick on the draw when closing threads, but IMHO it's been done fairly.

That being said, if the mods feel like too much of their time is being spent closing these types of threads let's make a specific area for them. I'd rather see effort going towards making this site a better "homebrew" site, than a better chit-chat forum. If I had to choose between the two...I care more about brewing than politics or religion.

 

[olllllo]

That goes against normal group dynamics. If you're at a bar or other social outlet, people start discussions, join discussions, leave discussions, change discussions, and participate in multiple discussions, all in a very dynamic and fluid manner.

What you are suggesting is that as soon as two people get engaged in a discussion that they are passionate about, the both leave the bar and go to a private booth. That would leave behind a pretty boring bar with a lot of empty seats. Kind of like drinking at the public library...

If you are at a bar, people have the option of walking away en-mass continuing the discussion and leaving the bickering two.

Unrelated to the above:
I think that there is a misconception about moderation- that it occurs in some sort of vacuum... decided upon in-the-momement by a single moderator. I'd venture to guess that I have more complaint PMS about threads than some of the people here have posts. We discuss and act when appropriate before office meetings and obligations, crying babies and life in general.

 

[BlindLemonLars]

That would leave behind a pretty boring bar with a lot of empty seats. Kind of like drinking at the public library...

Or it might leave a bar full of friendly people, laughing and enjoying the camaraderie of friends with common interests. A good bar should be like a party, not a booze fueled argument.

I stay out of hostile bars. If I did like hostile bars, I'd find one, rather than stir up trouble in friendly ones.

I'm also not opposed to having a drink or two at the library.

 

[BierMuncher]

...What you are suggesting is that as soon as two people get engaged in a discussion that they are passionate about, the both leave the bar and go to a private booth...

A civil, passionate discussion and personal attacks are two different things.

 

[EdWort]

How much sympathy can you really have for someone who is easily offended that voluntarily ventures into a thread about, say, taxation or global warming.

Must....not.....click....reply.....to......taxes & global warming.......

Ummmmmm, 1,2,3,. take deep breaths, now release...

OK, my answer is..... none. :cross:

 

[JustDave]

The problem isn't the subject of the discussions themselves, but the inability of people in the discussions to control themselves and respect that others have a different viewpoint. Instead, they get hostile, make personal attacks, the thread goes out of control and is locked. When I was younger, I had a "black and white" view of the world. This is how it is, I'm right, you're wrong. Then I went off to college and my world was expanded. I came to realize that people have different beliefs than me, and that's OK!

We've seen threads that started off about the long lines at Walmart go off on a wild tangent and eventually get locked. Another thread started about the high price of hops and ended up in a heated discussion of the merits of capitalism.

These threads weren't "political" from the start, but some people get passionate about their beliefs and just can't let things go, regardless of the topic. And while I don't have stats to back it up, it seems like these are the more common threads versus the ones that are obviously political from the start.

And if people get so heated about anything that they forget that this is just an internet forum and they aren't going to change anyone's mind ... well then maybe they need to take some time off from the internet as a whole and come back when they've matured a bit.

 

[fat x nub]

when i took human geography my teahcer taugt me to never discuss two things at work on in an interview 1) politics 2) religion. The reason is because everybody has their opinions on those two topics and it will just turn into a huge argument. I could argue politics and religion til the day i die...but i don't want to. I remeber a website i use to be a member at and it had a debate forum. I say start a debate forum so people who want to debate can debate...and people who don't want to don't have to go to that part of HBT

 

[Philip1993]

If you are at a bar, people have the option of walking away en-mass continuing the discussion and leaving the bickering two.

As they do here also. In fact, quite often you will see two people engaged in a private battle while the rest of the group carries on around them as if their posts did not exist. Just like in a real bar. And sometimes, the whole group will take sides and become engaged in the battle. Just like in a real bar.

My point was that continuing the discussion in a PM is an unnatural mode of conversation for random social banter. Now, if this were a chat room where people could say "For anyone interested, we're moving this to room 'FlameWar113'..." then your suggestion is a perfectly valid one. OT discussions can continue, but not in the main room.

A civil, passionate discussion and personal attacks are two different things.

True, but when you engage in public political and religious discussions, the definition of "personal attacks" in defined differently by every person reading the thread. So to say that two people should exit to a PM setting whenever it changes from "passionate" to "personal" would require a pre-emptive move anytime the discussion became merely "passionate". Talks about an mess...

All that said, I voted against banning it.

I also I vote for a private free-for-all. If wild haymakers in the backroom is going to create mortal enemies, there is nothing stopping that from happening now in PM's or offline. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting we get rid of PM's because of all the enemies it's creating.

If you can ignore a PM, you can just as easily ignore a back room argument.

 

[Philip1993]

well then maybe they need to take some time off {...} and come back when they've matured a bit.

speaking of people making it personal....

 

[JustDave]

speaking of people making it personal....

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

It's a simple fact -- if someone can't remain civil in a discussion where others have different viewpoints, then that person is immature. We're all adults here, people need to start acting like that.

But I agreed with everything else in your post

 

[Philip1993]

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

It's a simple fact -- if someone can't remain civil in a discussion where others have different viewpoints, then that person is immature. We're all adults here, people need to start acting like that.

But I agreed with everything else in your post

I know it wasn't, but I was setting up to make a point. Suppose the next guy thinks you were replying to HIS post. And he responds in kind. Now it IS personal. And in his opinion you started it... Who's wrong?

That was my point earlier. In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.

 

[BierMuncher]

...In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.

You're convincing me to change my vote to "No".

HBT is my "happy place".

I say go elsewhere to argue, fight, spit and name call.

While I'm here, talk to me about what you're brewing. That's why I joined in the first place.

 

[sause]

I voted no because it was better when HBT had a no politics policy I basically preferred it. I know it wasn't "official" but when a political thread would start it was beaten down so that it would never start getting bad. I'm just an easy going guy so I feel that the less fighting we have hear the better this place can be.

 

[Evan!]

I know it wasn't, but I was setting up to make a point. Suppose the next guy thinks you were replying to HIS post. And he responds in kind. Now it IS personal. And in his opinion you started it... Who's wrong?

That was my point earlier. In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.

Really? I find most of the political discussions to be pretty damn civil around here. I swear, some people are making this out to be more than it really is. A couple people (like yesterday with you and 2heads) get in a tussle and all of a sudden it's extrapolated into a full-blown epidemic that threatens to turn HBT into 4chan. If you ask me, that's a bunch of crap, plain and simple. These guys around here, save for a few immature mofo's with too little self control, are some of the most civil, humane, chilled-out people I know...which is exactly why I prefer to talk politics (IF I'm going to talk politics) with the people here...rather than with some rabid hate-spewing ********* on redstate.org or some crap.

You can wax on all day about the tendency of a "high volume text based discussion" to turn nasty, but I find that that tends not to be case most of the time around here. Sure, there are spats here and there, and those threads typically get closed quickly, but on the whole, I defy you to find a more civil crowd when it comes to things that are typically as divisive as global warming.

 

[bethlehembrewer]

I know it wasn't, but I was setting up to make a point. Suppose the next guy thinks you were replying to HIS post. And he responds in kind. Now it IS personal. And in his opinion you started it... Who's wrong?

That was my point earlier. In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.

I can see where your coming from. But, I think in a text based discussion with time stamps it should be easier to see who started it. Granted it is difficult to convey real communication through text because you of course loose the element of body language which provides the reciever with more (needed) communication. However this point is somewhat nixed by the fact we can use the smiley faces:cross: to help convey some of that lost body language.

I think there are people who have thick skin and people who have thin skin. We all have our opinion and are entitled to it. However, if you click on a political/religous chat and then are offended by it and don't leave, there is no one else to blame but you (Im not saying you to refer to you).

 

[OregonNative]

Everyone here should be adults and should be able to talk about things calmly. I will say though.. these topics can cause some pretty big arguements. The way I figure it is.. if you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to post in the threads. I don't want to see lots of arguments over it though.

 

[Philip1993]

Really? I find most of the political discussions to be pretty damn civil around here.

You can wax on all day about the tendency of a "high volume text based discussion" to turn nasty, but I find that that tends not to be case most of the time around here. Sure, there are spats here and there, and those threads typically get closed quickly, but on the whole, I defy you to find a more civil crowd when it comes to things that are typically as divisive as global warming.

You and I agree on what you just said, so I think you misunderstood my post. I was just making the point that even between civil adults, arguments are going to break out occasionally as a result of the flaws inherent in an impersonal medium.

Ultimately, it comes down to what keeps the most people visiting HBT. IMHO, an invitation by request back room (for the more opinionated) accomplishes that well. The "beer only" types don't have to tolerate the never ending battles. The "bring it on" crowd gets to spar with other like minded partners.

 

[Rick_R]

. . . well then it's just the same as a religious discussion to me. I have no interest in debating opinions that aren't based on sound reasoning

The quote above is an example of why I voted no.

Rick

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

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?

 

[Philip1993]

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.

 

[c.n.budz]

As much as they can sometimes piss me off, absolutely allow them.

EDIT: I haven't read any of this thread, I'm just answering the poll.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Allow them in a separate place.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

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.

 

[Fingers]

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.

 

[Philip1993]

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.

 

[elkdog]

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.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I'm with Yooper on this one.