What Kind of Posts Should Go in "Politics"

[ken_sylvania]

I would really appreciate if you would save your politics for the Politics section.

Brother, I hear you. I also want to honor the effort to keep this section free of political division—that’s part of why I don’t participate in the Politics section myself. I’m guessing you probably don’t either? I have no idea who does and who does not.

What I wrestle with is how we decide what counts as politics. In this thread we’ve had “ham sandwich” jokes that downplay serious issues, and a video about deportations to prisons in countries with poor human rights records. Those are political too, but they seem to be fine.

So when a Trump parody isn’t OK here, but other political humor is, I’m left unsure what the standard really is. We can each think the other doesn’t have a sense of humor or can’t take a joke, but I suspect the difference is more about what we think should be taken seriously in politics, and how we use humor to express that.

I’m not asking for more politics here—quite the opposite. That's why I have never joined the politics forum. I’d just like us to be consistent and fair so the focus can stay on building up the Kingdom of God. And I do think we need ways to ask how we, as the Kingdom of God, respond to what happens in the world around us. Probably not by throwing sandwiches.

Maybe we could talk together about what the shared expectation should be?

In my opinion, my OP didn't mock anybody or make any political statements. It was intended simply as a play on the old saying about being able to get a ham sandwich to indict a ham sandwich. It wasn't a political expression. If you were either a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent, would you have found it obnoxious? I didn't think it would have been.

On the other hand, your parody of Trump, while kind of funny, is obviously mocking him and very clearly expresses a political opinion. That is why I don't appreciate it in my thread.

I try to avoid posting political opinions on Mennonet, in part because the existence of a "Politics" subforum makes it clear that political opinions ought to be there rather than in the rest of Mennonet. I figure if I want to make political statements I should join that group and put them there, not rub them in the noses of people who have made a choice not to participate in the political opinions slop.

[Soloist]

I think humor is going to end up with edge cases. Perhaps discussing those edge cases should be done in the political forum.

People perhaps perceive things that may or may not be intended.

[temporal1]

I think humor is going to end up with edge cases. Perhaps discussing those edge cases should be done in the political forum.

People perhaps perceive things that may or may not be intended.

There will be category overlaps. i’m happy to rely on admin-mods to decide.
Trying to be too much of a purist typically doesn’t go well.

Racing to judge, esp unmercifully, is the current bread+butter of the outside world. i hope it passes.
Unfortunately, it lands on MN, too.

[Bootstrap]

In my opinion, my OP didn't mock anybody or make any political statements. It was intended simply as a play on the old saying about being able to get a ham sandwich to indict a ham sandwich.

That part was quite funny.

But you also pointed to a serious article. My concern isn’t your intent (I can’t see that from the inside), but the practical effect. When something like this is framed in a “Mennolight” way, it can soften what is really a display of power into a joke, and make serious engagement with the article feel “out of bounds” because it sounds political.

It wasn't a political expression. If you were either a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent, would you have found it obnoxious? I didn't think it would have been.

I hadn't see this when I posted the following:

I’m not making any claim about Ken’s intent — I can’t see that from the inside.

What I’m pointing out is the practical effect. In practice, framing something like this as “Mennolight” has the effect of softening a display of power into a joke, and then treating serious engagement with the issue as if it’s out of bounds because it’s “political.” My concern is about how it functions, not about what Ken meant.

I think you were probably surprised by my response, and I don’t think you meant it that way.

I was more concerned about the "Leaving On An Airplane" video, in response to a post that talked about deporting people without due process. Political humor threads inevitably seem to drift in that direction.

On the other hand, your parody of Trump, while kind of funny, is obviously mocking him and very clearly expresses a political opinion. That is why I don't appreciate it in my thread.

You’re right that parody can be read as mocking and political — but honestly, it’s hard to make political jokes that don’t imply political beliefs. The ham sandwich bit was funny, but linking it to the WSJ article inevitably gives it more weight.

I try to avoid posting political opinions on Mennonet, in part because the existence of a "Politics" subforum makes it clear that political opinions ought to be there rather than in the rest of Mennonet. I figure if I want to make political statements I should join that group and put them there, not rub them in the noses of people who have made a choice not to participate in the political opinions slop.

Like you, I’ve chosen not to join the Politics subforum for the same reasons. And I agree the public-facing MennoNet has improved since that separation.

But that leaves me wondering: what do we mean by “political statements”? If I say “Jesus is Lord,” that was a deeply political statement in the first century. What do you think should be in bounds, and what should be out of bounds?

[Bootstrap]

I think humor is going to end up with edge cases. Perhaps discussing those edge cases should be done in the political forum.

People perhaps perceive things that may or may not be intended.

If something belongs only in the political forum, then it should stay there, whether it’s raised seriously or jokingly.

And I most seriously do not belong in the political forum (I think that's a joke ...)

[ken_sylvania]

You’re right that parody can be read as mocking and political — but honestly, it’s hard to make political jokes that don’t imply political beliefs. The ham sandwich bit was funny, but linking it to the WSJ article inevitably gives it more weight.

I really think you read way more into things than people intend. It just so happens that the WSJ is where I read the story, and I figured a link to a story about the incident would be be helpful to understand what I was referring to. Without knowing about the incident the joke doesn't make any sense.

I try to avoid posting political opinions on Mennonet, in part because the existence of a "Politics" subforum makes it clear that political opinions ought to be there rather than in the rest of Mennonet. I figure if I want to make political statements I should join that group and put them there, not rub them in the noses of people who have made a choice not to participate in the political opinions slop.

Like you, I’ve chosen not to join the Politics subforum for the same reasons. And I agree the public-facing MennoNet has improved since that separation.

But that leaves me wondering: what do we mean by “political statements”? If I say “Jesus is Lord,” that was a deeply political statement in the first century. What do you think should be in bounds, and what should be out of bounds?

You seem to be suggesting that I think political statements are wrong or something like that. That's not the case.
If you want to criticize the actions of controversial politicians, I suggest you do so in the designated subforum.
If you are asking me what should be "in bounds" vs. "out of bounds" for political commentary on the non-political part of Mennonet, my recommendation would be "If in doubt, put it in Politics."

[Bootstrap]

You’re right that parody can be read as mocking and political — but honestly, it’s hard to make political jokes that don’t imply political beliefs. The ham sandwich bit was funny, but linking it to the WSJ article inevitably gives it more weight.

I really think you read way more into things than people intend. It just so happens that the WSJ is where I read the story, and I figured a link to a story about the incident would be be helpful to understand what I was referring to. Without knowing about the incident the joke doesn't make any sense.

Right. The joke doesn't make sense unless it is linked to a serious event that people have strong opinions on. And in the thread that followed, those opinions came up. From several people. Predictably.

After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre in 1865, people used this joke to make the same basic point that I am making:

“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

It's a way of pointing out when someone overlooks the biggest, most obvious problem in a situation and treats it as incidental. In the same way, we can’t really have a lighthearted discussion of the joke without raising the larger issues it’s connected to.

[Bootstrap]

If you are asking me what should be "in bounds" vs. "out of bounds" for political commentary on the non-political part of Mennonet, my recommendation would be "If in doubt, put it in Politics."

I agree, and I would apply that whether or not humor is involved.

But here’s the question I wrestle with: in a world where almost everything is labeled “political,” how do we leave room to talk about the world we live in from a Kingdom of God perspective?

We need to do that. Politics has become the dominant worldview for many, but for us the Kingdom is the greater reality. And ruling certain topics “out of bounds” doesn’t help us learn how to see them biblically.

For example, should Christians stop thinking about justice and injustice, or what the Bible says about refugees, or about marriage and adultery, just because partisan politics has its own take on these things? If we retreat from these topics, we risk letting political frameworks define the conversation instead of Scripture.

I’m not suggesting we turn every discussion into a political debate. I am suggesting that we need space to engage real issues of life and faith from a Kingdom perspective, in a way that’s deeper and richer than left vs. right.

[ken_sylvania]

In the same way, we can’t really have a lighthearted discussion of the joke without raising the larger issues it’s connected to.

"We" can't? That's fine, but if you want to discuss the connected political issues, go do it in Politics.

[Bootstrap]

In the same way, we can’t really have a lighthearted discussion of the joke without raising the larger issues it’s connected to.

"We" can't? That's fine, but if you want to discuss the connected political issues, go do it in Politics.

So … if the joke only works because it’s tied to a serious event or issue, but then people aren’t allowed to discuss that connection, what does it mean to make the joke in the first place? Isn’t that a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln if she enjoyed the play, while insisting no one mention what happened at Ford’s Theatre?

At the same time, don’t we need some place where we can talk about things like Lincoln’s assassination — or today’s equally weighty events — from a Kingdom of God perspective? If our only options are either silence or partisan political debate, then we lose the chance to ask the deeper questions: Where was God in this? What does Scripture say about justice, violence, leadership, or forgiveness? How should we live faithfully in light of it?