What Kind of Posts Should Go in "Politics"

[Robert]

Would it be better to make Mennolight section opt in too?

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

[JohnL]

So if it's okay if it's a bunch of nudge-nudge-wink-wink oblique references to Schrump and Schemocratic Party?

Red Alert!

I’ve seen very successful posts on the forum discussing today’s issues without a single mention (hinted or otherwise) of politicians or political parties. It can be done and has been done by posters who don’t obsess over politics or politicians. The political blame games don’t work for Average Joe anymore. Average Joe wants his dollar to grow and less government including the discussions of government, not more. At least that’s what my friends, neighbors and family want.

John beat me to it, but I was about to say that this is a deeply political comment, even though it doesn't mention a particular party or politician. It's definitely an example of nudge-nudge-wink-wink "we're not being political except we are" type of discussion.

Then you should look at the thread title again. There’s no way to avoid referencing the p word without defining what it is in order to avoid it. I’m not the one who is signed on to the politics section of the forum. I’m not the one always playing the blame game and snarking about politicians and political parties.

I am the one saying I’ve seen very successful posts on the forum discussing today’s issues without a single mention (hinted or otherwise) of politicians or political parties. It can be done and has been done by posters who don’t obsess over politics or politicians.

So for those threads that aren’t in politics I answer this thread’s post to stop mentioning parties and people involved in politics. The issues facing us as a society such as co-habitation; homosexuality; trafficking of children and the vulnerable; disaster response; and any of the other sins and miseries we see on a daily basis has been discussed here successfully as to what the Bible says and guides us to do and how we as Christians can implement that guidance. Only those who focus less on the Bible turn the conversation to politics.

[JohnH]

Would it be better to make Mennolight section opt in too?

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

We could have a political humor section you opt in to.

Also a non-political humor section you can opt in to, but first you must affirm you have a sense of humor and aren’t easily offended.

[ohio jones]

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.

If that's an old saying, it's one I haven't heard before.

Seems I need to clarify. The old saying is that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The sandwiches don't generally indict each other. They are too well bread to do that.

[Szdfan]

Red Alert!

I’ve seen very successful posts on the forum discussing today’s issues without a single mention (hinted or otherwise) of politicians or political parties. It can be done and has been done by posters who don’t obsess over politics or politicians. The political blame games don’t work for Average Joe anymore. Average Joe wants his dollar to grow and less government including the discussions of government, not more. At least that’s what my friends, neighbors and family want.

John beat me to it, but I was about to say that this is a deeply political comment, even though it doesn't mention a particular party or politician. It's definitely an example of nudge-nudge-wink-wink "we're not being political except we are" type of discussion.

Then you should look at the thread title again. There’s no way to avoid referencing the p word without defining what it is in order to avoid it. I’m not the one who is signed on to the politics section of the forum. I’m not the one always playing the blame game and snarking about politicians and political parties.

I am the one saying I’ve seen very successful posts on the forum discussing today’s issues without a single mention (hinted or otherwise) of politicians or political parties. It can be done and has been done by posters who don’t obsess over politics or politicians.

So for those threads that aren’t in politics I answer this thread’s post to stop mentioning parties and people involved in politics. The issues facing us as a society such as co-habitation; homosexuality; trafficking of children and the vulnerable; disaster response; and any of the other sins and miseries we see on a daily basis has been discussed here successfully as to what the Bible says and guides us to do and how we as Christians can implement that guidance. Only those who focus less on the Bible turn the conversation to politics.

Ok. Nudge-nudge-nudge-wink-wink-wink.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

If that's an old saying, it's one I haven't heard before.

It's an old Irish proverb, I'm surprised you never heard it before.



Considering the ruckus caused by the OP I figured I better not mention the grand jury again....










Ok, ok, you're right. I need to learn to proofread.

[temporal1]

Would it be better to make Mennolight section opt in too?
Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

We could have a political humor section you opt in to.
Also a non-political humor section you can opt in to, but first you must affirm you have a sense of humor and aren’t easily offended.

i hope it doesn’t come to this. i presume this is joking.
the political subforum seems to be serving a good purpose. (understanding no decision, no policy or rule is perfect.)

for the sake of new members, and read-only folks, it seems best to have a general, if not perfect, subforum for politics.

i like to think of introduction posts.
since MD, i’m impressed with the consistency of new members’ interest in this forum!
when will it be 20 years?

i don’t recall 1 new member, including myself, even mentioning an interest in politics. i think it’s significant.

also, political contest often involves members who know each other, if not IRL, then over time virtually.
that doesn’t seem ok for new members to be pushed into. esp when they arrived looking for Truth.
Family Feud?

i was bothered by former subforums, as i feared they might be hiding “the best” of the forum from others.
(i think) “the best” of Anabaptists and Christians needs more visibility, not less!

as Hopenafuture once said, “My 2 cents.”

[Bootstrap]

Would it be better to make Mennolight section opt in too?

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

No, but I think keeping political humor out of it is important if you want to keep it light and non-political.

If you can joke about a serious matter but you can't discuss it, I think that's a problem. If feelings are strong enough that we ban these things to a political forum, then feelings just might be strong when people joke about the same things.

People's sense of humor often aligns with their politics when the subject is political. And that's because political humor is often making a political point. I don't think Ken was trying to do that, but the responses to it obviously showed that his post did raise those issues.

[Bootstrap]

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

Always. For example, when someone makes a dirty joke, I don’t find it funny. A joke about my mother or my wife that’s unkind won’t strike me as funny either.

We usually laugh when humor resonates with something we believe is true, or when it pokes fun at things we’re comfortable questioning. But when humor undercuts values like respect, dignity, kindness, compassion, or moral integrity, it’s harder to laugh. Jokes told just for shock value, or ones that tear people down, usually fall flat.

What’s interesting about political jokes is that in this forum, people aren’t allowed to say exactly what they find offensive. To explain the reaction, they’d have to move over to the Politics forum — which means the joke can be made here, but the discussion it provokes is not allowed here. And there's a reason I don't join the Politics forum ...

[temporal1]

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

Always. For example, when someone makes a dirty joke, I don’t find it funny. A joke about my mother or my wife that’s unkind won’t strike me as funny either.

We usually laugh when humor resonates with something we believe is true, or when it pokes fun at things we’re comfortable questioning. But when humor undercuts values like respect, dignity, kindness, compassion, or moral integrity, it’s harder to laugh. Jokes told just for shock value, or ones that tear people down, usually fall flat.

What’s interesting about political jokes is that in this forum, people aren’t allowed to say exactly what they find offensive. To explain the reaction, they’d have to move over to the Politics forum — which means the joke can be made here, but the discussion it provokes is not allowed here. And there's a reason I don't join the Politics forum ...

The forum remedies for this are effective, 1) start a new topic, 2) bunny trails.
It happens to all of us, why would jokes be different? No one is better than you wrt spin-off topics.

Members are free to take themselves to bunny trails. i’ve done it a number of times.
i appreciate a brief note when posts are moved. To help locate them. Or, a note like, “i’m responding over here”.
Why should jokes be different?