Should RF Keep its Political Forums?

[Shadow Wolf]

It was meant as a joke, but the old rules apply. If you have to explain some or all of it, then it was not very funny.

Sometimes when you step out on the comedy limb, it breaks under you.

I am not at all a good indication of what to expect from a "normal" audience, but really I didn't see a joke, just text speak stuff.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not at all a good indication of what to expect from a "normal" audience, but really I didn't see a joke, just text speak stuff.

It was built around the acronym AOC and then I just fleshed it out from there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, but for sites that I want to support and am too cheap to pay, I leave them on.

Sadly more and more news sites have found a way to prevent seeing content unless one turns off their adblocker.

Often if a site asks politely I will shut them off, but after I was on what I do believe was "Food networks" when I turned off the adblock I was taken to a site that tried to shut me out of my computer. Who would think that a recipe site would be as bad as porn sites used to be?

I'll never turn off my ad blocker.

I absolutely despise advertising. Not as much as the product or service itself but the intrusive manner by which its put in your face not to mention all the spyware and malware that comes with it.

A lot of free access websites get carried away with it to the point where the website itself becomes a horrible laggy and glitchy mess down the road and people just leave and stop using it for no other reason that has become a virtual cesspool of advertising that outdoes even the content of the website itself making navigating almost an impossible task

 

[gnomon]

Given the amount of animosity, anger, gratuitous anger, and other negative emotions and behavior associated with RF's political forums, do you think RF would be a better place without political forums? What say you?

I would say yes. I was just allowed back and I don't know what the pressure the Mod's are under but the other forums I had been on...not naming....such restriction resulted in the entire forum turning into nothing but a sounding board for a handful of people.

The one reason I have liked this forum is it's openness for all viewpoints.

But I've been gone a long time so I might have missed something.

 

[Shia Islam]

Given the amount of animosity, anger, gratuitous anger, and other negative emotions and behavior associated with RF's political forums, do you think RF would be a better place without political forums? What say you?

For many, Politics is very mixed with religion..
This is one point..

Another Point, is that knowing about the different views of our fellow members, enables us to better understand what they write in the religious forums..

Then, RF is an open platform for interaction among its members..

For all of the above reasons i think that the political forums should be kept..

And I know that, moderating these forums is a challenge!

May God Help you!

 

[PureX]

*Tribalist circle jerk. There are conservatives and Republicans capable and willing to discuss issues in a polite and reasoned manner. There are liberals who aren't. "My side, right or wrong" types are the problem, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

By definition, a "liberal" is someone who is open to new, alternative, and hopefully more positively effecting ideas. While by definition, a "conservative" is someone who seeks to maintain the status quo, regardless of the value or effectiveness (though he believes the status quo is the better and more effective methodology). Which is why those who hold the greater wealth and power in society are traditionally conservative: they want to "conserve" the mechanisms that have enabled their access to greater wealth and power.

By definition, then, liberals are more concerned for the well-being of society as a whole, while conservatives are more concerned with their own well-being. So as to who "listens" to whom, I think it would be far more likely that a liberal would listen to and consider the value of a conservative's wish to conserve the status quo than a conservative will be to listen to and consider the value of a liberal's wish to make changes for the betterment of all.

Don't you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By definition, a "liberal" is someone who is open to new, alternative, and hopefully more positively effecting ideas. While by definition, a "conservative" is someone who seeks to maintain the status quo, regardless of the value or effectiveness (though he believes the status quo is the better and more effective methodology). Which is why those who hold the greater wealth and power in society are traditionally conservative: they want to "conserve" the mechanisms that have enabled their access to greater wealth and power.

By definition, then, liberals are more concerned for the well-being of society as a whole, while conservatives are more concerned with their own well-being. So as to who "listens" to whom, I think it would be far more likely that a liberal would listen to and consider the value of a conservative's wish to conserve the status quo than a conservative will be to listen to and consider the value of a liberal's wish to make changes for the betterment of all.

Don't you?

LOL! Non sequitur much?

From what I have seen, anyone at the extremes is selfish and only concerned with what they want, whether liberal or conservative.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

By definition, a "liberal" is someone who is open to new, alternative, and hopefully more positively effecting ideas. While by definition, a "conservative" is someone who seeks to maintain the status quo, regardless of the value or effectiveness (though he believes the status quo is the better and more effective methodology). Which is why those who hold the greater wealth and power in society are traditionally conservative: they want to "conserve" the mechanisms that have enabled their access to greater wealth and power.

By definition, then, liberals are more concerned for the well-being of society as a whole, while conservatives are more concerned with their own well-being. So as to who "listens" to whom, I think it would be far more likely that a liberal would listen to and consider the value of a conservative's wish to conserve the status quo than a conservative will be to listen to and consider the value of a liberal's wish to make changes for the betterment of all.

Don't you?

I'm not interested in arguing semantics to spite reality, thanks though.

 

[Cooky]

Ah, you mean a conservative republican circle-jerk.

Real mature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Real mature.

Besides, that is socialism. Keeping the means of production in the hands of the people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would say yes. I was just allowed back and I don't know what the pressure the Mod's are under but the other forums I had been on...not naming....such restriction resulted in the entire forum turning into nothing but a sounding board for a handful of people.

The one reason I have liked this forum is it's openness for all viewpoints.

But I've been gone a long time so I might have missed something.

Welcome back. I missed you, man.

 

[gnomon]

Welcome back. I missed you, man.

Thank you.

I'm going to try to behave.

edit: I hope you are doing well.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going to try to behave.

Don't overdo it.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No matter where you go everyone always says, 'I don't talk about politics or religion'. Well, those are the two most important things we should be talking about.

So, I voted yes.

Does it create heated debates? You bet. Things of importance usually do.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Cooky]

For many, Politics is very mixed with religion..

Some more than others.

(Sharia)