Plus Politics

[temporal1]

I would be curious as to the reasons three people voted against it so far.

Always a mystery.
(i believe) polls are open to all registered members. Many read-only. i wonder how often read-only members vote.
Unless members volunteer voting info, it’s not possible to know. (Admin+mods may know who voted?)

i often post without voting. making choices can be hard for me.

[Soloist]

I would be curious as to the reasons three people voted against it so far.

Always a mystery.
(i believe) polls are open to all registered members. Many read-only. i wonder how often read-only members vote.
Unless members volunteer voting info, it’s not possible to know. (Admin+mods may know who voted?)

i often post without voting. making choices can be hard for me.

I don’t think that information is available to even the admin without some sort of modification to the base system.
You certainly can take some educated guesses based off of who chose not to post and on activity

[Bootstrap]

I don’t think that information is available to even the admin without some sort of modification to the base system.
You certainly can take some educated guesses based off of who chose not to post and on activity

But really, those educated guesses are often wrong and unhelpful. For instance, people may choose not to enter into what may turn into yet another argument. Then someone says something like this - "I didn't see you post anything to say XXX, so here's what that means about you", and they are called out in an argument they were trying to stay out of.

Really, that's a kind of trolling. If people choose not to get involved in a discussion that might get hot, we should let them make that choice. And I think the forum would be a LOT better if we enforced the rules to avoid telling people what someone else thinks or what to think about that other person. Not just when we discuss politics.

[JohnL]

I voted ‘opt in’ because I think it allows others to avoid the frothing partisanship that is always a part of any discussion in politics. I blame MSM and social media but I also recognize that the push for Roman sexual hedonism onto our society and culture is offensive to those trying to live a life of obedience to God.

[JohnH]

But really, those educated guesses are often wrong and unhelpful. For instance, people may choose not to enter into what may turn into yet another argument. Then someone says something like this - "I didn't see you post anything to say XXX, so here's what that means about you", and they are called out in an argument they were trying to stay out of.

Really, that's a kind of trolling.

I don't think it is. I've often said this when someone complains bitterly about what President X does, but was completely silent about President Y when it came to essentially the same matter. I usually don't say "here's what that means about you", though; I simply ask them "What was your opinion on President Y when he did or didn't do Z?"

Interestingly, I rarely, if ever, get answers to those questions. (I've noticed you'll answer them, but other participants here on this forum will simply not answer any questions that don't bolster their position.) It feels like arguing in bad faith.

[Bootstrap]

But really, those educated guesses are often wrong and unhelpful. For instance, people may choose not to enter into what may turn into yet another argument. Then someone says something like this - "I didn't see you post anything to say XXX, so here's what that means about you", and they are called out in an argument they were trying to stay out of.

Really, that's a kind of trolling.

I don't think it is. I've often said this when someone complains bitterly about what President X does, but was completely silent about President Y when it came to essentially the same matter. I usually don't say "here's what that means about you", though; I simply ask them "What was your opinion on President Y when he did or didn't do Z?"

Interestingly, I rarely, if ever, get answers to those questions. (I've noticed you'll answer them, but other participants here on this forum will simply not answer any questions that don't bolster their position.) It feels like arguing in bad faith.

I think there are great reasons to avoid answering those questions.

1. It changes the subject from whatever we are discussing.
2. It puts the other person personally on trial, asking them to prove, to your satisfaction, that they have been consistent. Which almost always turns it into a fight.
3. The person who puts the other person on trial is rarely fair about these things, and often has a bad memory and a desire to portray the other person in a bad light.
4. It's actually a logical fallacy - if I say 2+2=4, do I have to prove that I said 2+2=4 during the last Administration?
5. I don't think the people who ask others to prove this are any more consistent themselves.
6. This is usually a way to avoid discussing the subject. It is a way of arguing in bad faith.

Whenever the subject turns from the subject to portraying the other person negatively, we're doing the wrong thing.

[JohnH]

I think there are great reasons to avoid answering those questions.

1. It changes the subject from whatever we are discussing.
2. It puts the other person personally on trial, asking them to prove, to your satisfaction, that they have been consistent. Which almost always turns it into a fight.
3. The person who puts the other person on trial is rarely fair about these things, and often has a bad memory and a desire to portray the other person in a bad light.
4. It's actually a logical fallacy - if I say 2+2=4, do I have to prove that I said 2+2=4 during the last Administration?
5. I don't think the people who ask others to prove this are any more consistent themselves.
6. This is usually a way to avoid discussing the subject. It is a way of arguing in bad faith.

Whenever the subject turns from the subject to portraying the other person negatively, we're doing the wrong thing.

I think it's worth bringing up. If I'm talking to someone who (to use a recent example) apparently thinks President Trump can do no wrong, yet is complaining a lot about what Democrats do, it's worth asking if the thing they are upset about Democrats doing... they ever spoke up against when Trump or the Republicans was doing it.

Part of my motivation, though, is that I don't think partisan politics has much value for discussion here. If someone wants to do that, there are better forums elsewhere. (Or just go get involved in political campaigning.) I think it's quite worthwhile to point out blatant partisanship.

[Bootstrap]

I think there are great reasons to avoid answering those questions.

1. It changes the subject from whatever we are discussing.
2. It puts the other person personally on trial, asking them to prove, to your satisfaction, that they have been consistent. Which almost always turns it into a fight.
3. The person who puts the other person on trial is rarely fair about these things, and often has a bad memory and a desire to portray the other person in a bad light.
4. It's actually a logical fallacy - if I say 2+2=4, do I have to prove that I said 2+2=4 during the last Administration?
5. I don't think the people who ask others to prove this are any more consistent themselves.
6. This is usually a way to avoid discussing the subject. It is a way of arguing in bad faith.

Whenever the subject turns from the subject to portraying the other person negatively, we're doing the wrong thing.

I think it's worth bringing up. If I'm talking to someone who (to use a recent example) apparently thinks President Trump can do no wrong, yet is complaining a lot about what Democrats do, it's worth asking if the thing they are upset about Democrats doing... they ever spoke up against when Trump or the Republicans was doing it.

Part of my motivation, though, is that I don't think partisan politics has much value for discussion here. If someone wants to do that, there are better forums elsewhere. (Or just go get involved in political campaigning.) I think it's quite worthwhile to point out blatant partisanship.

I think the net effect is to introduce partisan politics into whatever the subject is. Instead of discussing whether 2+2=4, it introduces the partisan political positions on arithmetic, and puts the other person on trial using partisan political standards. And it turns it into a fight.

Why not just discuss whether 2+2=4 is true?

Now I notice that several other people in this thread have not said whether they believe 2+2=4 ... (just kidding)

[Soloist]

I don’t think that information is available to even the admin without some sort of modification to the base system.
You certainly can take some educated guesses based off of who chose not to post and on activity

But really, those educated guesses are often wrong and unhelpful. For instance, people may choose not to enter into what may turn into yet another argument. Then someone says something like this - "I didn't see you post anything to say XXX, so here's what that means about you", and they are called out in an argument they were trying to stay out of.

Really, that's a kind of trolling. If people choose not to get involved in a discussion that might get hot, we should let them make that choice. And I think the forum would be a LOT better if we enforced the rules to avoid telling people what someone else thinks or what to think about that other person. Not just when we discuss politics.

You are perfectly welcome to assume my comment is "trolling"...
None of it matters and it certainly wasn't meant as trolling. Just idle speculation as Temporal was wondering.

We could actually avoid politics for one when we are trying to take a vote on avoiding politics in every possible conversation here... Case in point...
You and John both seem to have trouble not taking each other's "bait" Bait intended or not.

[Bootstrap]

I don’t think that information is available to even the admin without some sort of modification to the base system.
You certainly can take some educated guesses based off of who chose not to post and on activity

But really, those educated guesses are often wrong and unhelpful. For instance, people may choose not to enter into what may turn into yet another argument. Then someone says something like this - "I didn't see you post anything to say XXX, so here's what that means about you", and they are called out in an argument they were trying to stay out of.

Really, that's a kind of trolling. If people choose not to get involved in a discussion that might get hot, we should let them make that choice. And I think the forum would be a LOT better if we enforced the rules to avoid telling people what someone else thinks or what to think about that other person. Not just when we discuss politics.

You are perfectly welcome to assume my comment is "trolling"...
None of it matters and it certainly wasn't meant as trolling. Just idle speculation as Temporal was wondering.

I didn't think your comment was trolling. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I felt some of the others were trolling based on silence, and I do think it's a problem when even saying nothing becomes an offense.

We could actually avoid politics for one when we are trying to take a vote on avoiding politics in every possible conversation here... Case in point...
You and John both seem to have trouble not taking each other's "bait" Bait intended or not.

Yeah, and honestly, it might be helpful if I simply take a break on responding to his posts for a week or so. For precisely that reason.