Guideline number 2 for the site reads:

"2. Please don't start discussions about politics and religion."

Admittedly, this appears to be vague. Let me reveal my intention: I used the phrase "please don't start discussions about", because I am aware that the political is ubiquitous in daily life, and there is no topic we might discuss which doesn't have some kind of political angle. What I meant to request was that people did not start discussions specifically about political topics, whether it be the Presidential election, the war in Iraq, the state of the Union or whatever.

But there was something I didn't foresee. I guess this would be happening anyway, but maybe the U.S. elections, the war, and other hot topics make it more likely: members are regularly posting little jokes, or comments, or digs at political leaders and parties. What then happens is that members who see things differently then complain to me and Orik. This happens about once a day, but it could easily become more frequent. We then have to read the post, PM whoever posted it, respond to whoever complained, etc, etc.

I admit that when I posted guideline number 2, I didn't have political jokes in mind. I was concerned about sixty page political debates, not passing quips. However, I can see the point of view that says - a joke starts a political discussion if someone on the other side of the fence responds in kind, or challenges the basis of the joke.

So we have to decide which way to go, because otherwise the Administrators are going to get sore fingers. I think it's in the original spirit of guideline number 2 to say: no political (and you know I mean partisan, party political) jokes, comments, digs, asides, slogans or campaigning. And we should all stick to that, and not complain if an Administrator has to wipe some dead flies off the windscreen from time to time.

But as I have always said, the rules are a matter for the members. If anyone thinks there is a better way - which is not time-consuming and tricky for the Administrators, here's the chance to say so. Remember, whatever we do decide must be applied even-handedly across the political spectrum.

This thread is not to be used to make political points. That would waste everyone's time. I am thinking the discussion should be closed some time on Friday, and we'll go forward with whatever we decide.

Thank you.

Huh.

Hello, Wilfrid.

Having only just got here, I will leave my opinion out of this discussion. Or try to.

Would it be possible to have an example or two of something that prompted a complaint?

I agree with Wilf. I was getting a little uncomfortable at the digs about Jehovah's Witnesses, as an example a religion-based dig. I also think we need to self-police when we can, and not leave it all up to Wilf. I didn't complain about it, but I thought about saying something.

my personal take on this:

There is a sharp imbalance in right/left wing opinions among membership. This imbalance would make it difficult for a member who supports the right wing to make jokes or comments similar to those made by the left, for fear of alienating him or herself to the majority of members.

I need to think about how the guideline should be changed (if it should).

I would also like clarification - for example, a discussion of openly gay celebrities quickly came to the point where religion and politics would have to enter the discussion, but not in a partisan manner. Would that be ok?

Personally, I think it's not okay. I don't want anyone to get offended or alienated.

There were examples over the last couple of days which members kindly took down at our request - typically they were one-liners about Bush (I didn't keep them). I can just see that happening every day.

Right now, I am focussing on something hard to define precisely - but party politics, and big ticket party political issues (the war, the economy, foreign policy). I'd hate to think we couldn't discuss things like health, sexuality, and moral issues (the foetus thread, for example), even though they are clearly political.

We aren't going to find a perfect solution: but it would be better for whoever is moderating to have to make a difficult judgment call once a week or so rather than every day.

but then members express their opinion that sexual tendencies are not all that clear cut and that there's some (possibly continuous) scale of where a person's preferences lie. Surely this opinion can be highly offensive to members who would say that homosexuality is a disease/sin/disorder or that it can be unlearned. Should it be permitted?

I think we just have to be sensitive and careful. And remind each other if something seems to cross a line.

It's very difficult. One person's joke is another's offensive remark. While I agree that we have to be sensitive, I think we also have to be flexible. A flip remark, made in passing, about a politician is probably not meant as, nor should it be taken as, an insult to another poster.

Well that raises a question - should the interpretation of the comment by a reader be enough to call it "offensive," if the reader is offended?

I think such a member would have a very unhappy time on this board because, wherever the membership might be on an economic left-right scale, they are overwhelmingly socially liberal. In other words, I don't think we need worry until someone does become offended by Johnboy's underpants. Then we can ridicule them until they leave.

That's what makes it difficult. If there is a pattern -- if several people complain about one post or one poster's pattern, that's fairly clear, but if one person is doing all the complaining, then it might that person's problem. That is not to say that the complaint might not be justified.

The underpants?

I think it is the sacred duty of every Administrator to get sore fingers.

I understand the board mgmt's position, but I think there are some problems with the proposed/current approach. One, it is impossible to avoid offending people. The example was given of a hypothetical member who might be offended by statements normalising homosexuality, because they themselves believed it a treatable disorder and a sin. (I understand this was given as an example of the problem of drawing the line between politics and 'other' topics, on which more in a second.)

I myself would take exception to such a view, but I would take a much graver exception to the instruction to try to respect it by not making statements that normalised homosexuality. (Once again, I understand nobody was suggesting this.) Nor, however, would I be likely to PM Wilfrid if the hypothetical member posted something I didn't like. I would much rather we both had the freedom to say what we thought, and stopped pretending we liked each other just because we both liked our meat cooked rare. Pussyfooting around the opinions of others when you find them deeply offensive might give the appearance of a more civilised environment, but it will be no more enjoyable.

Of course, you might argue that if we're careful enough we'll never twig what views other members even have that we don't like. But in that case the board would be extremely boring.

As to the hope that we can discuss, for example, 'health, sexuality, and moral issues' without getting into politics, this is a category error. These issues (all areas of life) are utterly embedded in the political. The fact that there are three hundred branded products competing to soothe your cold while treatable diseases are killing millions in Africa; the Hollywood closet; etc etc etc are phenomena that to discuss outside a political context would be meaningless. People are passionate about politics and religion not because they're peculiar subjects, or peculiarly emotive ones, but because they matter -- fundamentally. People who don't have opinions on these subjects are failing as citizens. 'Welcome to Mouthfuls: please leave anything of real importance at the door' is not a slogan I want to see.

The solution proposed ('don't mention politics or religion') is the traditional formula for talking to strangers, or people you don't really like.

A bit like not mentioning the war :D

Kiku, I understand your point. Yet if we say whatever we feel like saying, what's to stop it from getting contentious, from disintegrating, from creating real animus and hostility? I hope we've all learned something from the evolution of other boards in which we've participated. I know that something might be sacrificed, but it doesn't have to be black and white, does it?

We will never have a board with which everybody who engages with it remains happy forever. However much people might want it.

Of course not. But we could avoid some potential heartache by giving up some things.

Sure. The difficulty might be agreeing what to give up. I don't see the suggestions so far working but I'm open to ideas :)

Pussyfooting can be fun, if done well.

"The difficulty might be agreeing what to give up. I don't see the suggestions so far working but I'm open to ideas

How about politics and religion?

winking guy

(my emoticons aren't working)

I agree it's unlikely that mentions of political or otherwise controversial subjects can be avoided. Hand in glove with this will come objections to such mentions. Actual threads on such topics are guaranteed to be offensive to someone. On either level, the moderators will have work.

The thing that has bothered me most about past political and religious threads - beyond overt bigotry - is that these have not been discussions populated by qualified scholars of religion or political philosophy. It's been mostly people, some intelligent and moderate, some just outright stupid, expressing opinions that are very thinly dressed with facts. It doesn't make interesting reading, let alone a learning experience.

So I'm against political or religious threads per se. I have no objection to seeing how it goes as far as comments that may pop up, jokey or otherwise. Hopefully, the overall tone of the board will influence those. If the mods find that even this is too much for them, then full proscription would be the way.

Most of us know one another online right now. This, and innate good manners, should keep things from getting contentious for now. But the numbers are against us as we grow.

Yes, but to be quite blunt, who cares about reading your opinions on this? If you do feel that it's necessary for you to be able to express them, you can open your own board :D

As I said, I was responding to Wilfrid's clearly expressed hope that we can discuss 'health, sexuality, and moral issues ... even though they are clearly political'. If you think you can discuss things that 'are clearly political' without getting into politics then, to be quite blunt, you have problems thinking.

I am also in total agreement with Robert on the tendency for the long politics threads to be tediously uninformed.

I don't think you can do that, this was my original point.

In any event, I would much rather have a thriving "things that are of no real importance" community with some degree of longevity than a faux-free speech zone that deteriorates into senseless arguments about Mel Gibson. I know that the latter would quickly cause me to lose interest and that the chances that it'll teach me anything new or change my opinions are slim.

OK, that makes sense, but it sounds like you and Wilfrid don't agree (because as far as I understand he wants to be able to talk about such things and you don't). Will be interested to see what decision you end up taking. If the '"things that are of no real importance" community' wins, that rather neatly demonstrates the truth of my earlier post anyway.

Meanwhile, good night ...

I'm sure we can reach an agreement. Mind you, this isn't a question of wanting to speak about such things (of course I do), but of finding a way to do so that does not undermine the goals of this community as we see them or agreeing that we can't find such a way.

True, but we can hope that most people will be happy for a while.

Good night.

edit: to clarify, in the long term I agree with you (and have suggested to Wilfrid a "no moderation except as required by law" policy), but I think that we need to establish a (virtual version of a) democracy before freedom of speech can be practiced constructively. Also, I venture to guess that if you were to stray outside what has already been legitimized by our "overwhelmingly socially liberal" crowd, you would find that very few will play along while some may avoid you.

I like the limits on this board. I think they've brought out my kinder, gentler self.

I knew there had to be a reason I liked Kiku, even if he refuses to respond to my Apple/Mac threads.

There is an onus on all of us that goes both ways:

- to make the effort not to post in such a way as to cause offence

- to make the effort not to make complaints at each and every comment which might cause offence to the reader

v

V is correct on both points

There are people ( not necessarily on this site )who would get in a car and drive 30 miles out of their way to find a reason to be offended..

On the other hand, as for offending others, I think it easier if I just apologise in advance.

for clarification. Will I still be able to say that Wilf has hideous dress sense? it may be offensive but so rooted in fact as to be undeniable.

S

I find that offensive because I do that 3 days a week. It's called a "commute to work."

Thank goodness I wasn't dumb enough to commit it.

Wilfrid: "I'd hate to think we couldn't discuss things like health, sexuality, and moral issues (the foetus thread, for example), even though they are clearly political." Edit: Ah, I see that was recognized subsequently.

Just to say that I agree with Orik on what is to me the most important point, which is that if we have no restrictions here, and threads about politics and religion run out of control (as we know they will), I will lose interest in the board. And something I said in the early days of the board (I think it's still in the guidelines) - we don't have to cover every topic under the sun. It's okay to be a food/lifestyle board. Any fule kno that what we eat and how we live are political subjects, but it doesn't follow that we have to lift all restrictions on political (and religious) discussion.

Now I know who you remind me of

"Hello Birds, Hello trees"

S

I like pie.

Sorry to be silly, but I remember a time when that line used to work and be understood on a deep level by many of the participants on this board. I can be a simple bastard, but sometimes less really is more.

Just a couple of pennies. I'm with V.

carry on.

I am so immodestly comfortable with my mode of dress and delicacy of manners, that I only welcome such comments.

I agree with Vanessa and Wilf. I find the board a welcome respite from religion and politics. At the same time, I recognize that some stray comments will pop up now and then. That's what I was trying to comment on when I posted, above: One person's joke is another's offensive remark. While I agree that we have to be sensitive, I think we also have to be flexible. A flip remark, made in passing, about a politician is probably not meant as, nor should it be taken as, an insult to another poster.