Politics. Or Not please

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatman61

No Deal.. No Deal.. Brexit..
Just for balance..

Oh yes, Brexit, the war between the Remoaners and the Brexiteers. Might set a new record and surpass the 100 years war.

[Singularity]

Suppose you actually formally studied the relationship of drinking alcohol and horse riding accidents.

Suppose one guy warned of the dangers of allowing horsemen to drink alcohol stating that all manner of injuries will increase, and that people should drink his Kool-aid instead. Suppose he was logical about the alcohol-causes-accident thing, but that his Kool-aid ideas were just nutty/crazy.

Suppose indeed people start drinking alcohol and riding horses and the number of alcohol-horse injuries increases.

Suppose, in turn, that many horse people go into a forum to discuss this phenomenon of increased accidents.

Suppose you find this forum and see people discussing this or that discussion of the best horseshoe to prevent accidents, debating the "horse height vs injury" metric, and so on.

Are you to just not contribute anything on the subject? Imagine that you try to point out that alcohol isn't per se bad, that horseriding isn't per se bad, but suppose you try to articulate that riding while drunk increases injuries.

Now suppose that when you try to bring up the alcohol-accident nexus, people with apparently little formal/autodidactic study of the subject (and/or an agenda) immediately accuse you of being a Kool-aid salesman and that you admire the worse mass-murderers in history. Who indeed is "out of line?" If Kool-aid discussion are (correctly perhaps) not to occur...who is the one who actually brings up Kool-aid?

If the purpose of the forum is to understand things and reduce accidents, people need to have the wherewithall to accept what sunlight on a subject shows. As Mike articulates...when the underlying issue cannot be addressed, a tension is created. This phenomenon is noted in multiple academic disciplines (as well as how, curiously, humor works).

As a general principle of human nature...people who deeply, deeply engage in one subject matter ordinarily deeply engage in multiple subject matters. If the purpose of the forum is to infinitely talk about injuries...then it stands to reason that people who have committed much effort to prevent injuries will find something better to do with their time.

[scallowayuk]

The only politics on a boat are its not a democracy.the skipper is boss.if you dont accept that get off.at least it is on my boat.probably why ive been singlehanded for 30 years

[taxwizz]

Those of us who were in the military will remember the 3 topics banned from discussion in the mess.

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Specific women.

They all tend to cause fights.

[Dave22q]

I do not access CF for political opinions that I agree or disagree with. If I want political opinions there are many "news" outlets to tune into. It is much harder to find a source of unbiased news but that seems to be the world we live in. Bravo to the moderators who strive to keep this garbage out of CF.

[grantmc]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... many threads segue off into ...

Sincere thanks Mike, I have learnt a new word: segue. I thought that the word was segway. Yet another homonym.

[S/V Illusion]

This is silly. If you don’t want to read certain comments, don’t! Complaining about a self-inflicted problem just makes you look ridiculous.

[iyamwhatiyam]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Anything that causes dissection in the ranks if you will is heavily discouraged, and politics, religion, weaponry etc often do and as such those threads are usually short lived.

THAT'S gotta hurt!!!

[artisanmach]

ReallyMan?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is silly. If you don’t want to read certain comments, don’t! Complaining about a self-inflicted problem just makes you look ridiculous.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Suppose you actually formally studied the relationship of drinking alcohol and horse riding accidents.

Suppose one guy warned of the dangers of allowing horsemen to drink alcohol stating that all manner of injuries will increase, and that people should drink his Kool-aid instead. Suppose he was logical about the alcohol-causes-accident thing, but that his Kool-aid ideas were just nutty/crazy.

Suppose indeed people start drinking alcohol and riding horses and the number of alcohol-horse injuries increases.

Suppose, in turn, that many horse people go into a forum to discuss this phenomenon of increased accidents.

Suppose you find this forum and see people discussing this or that discussion of the best horseshoe to prevent accidents, debating the "horse height vs injury" metric, and so on.

Are you to just not contribute anything on the subject? Imagine that you try to point out that alcohol isn't per se bad, that horseriding isn't per se bad, but suppose you try to articulate that riding while drunk increases injuries.

Now suppose that when you try to bring up the alcohol-accident nexus, people with apparently little formal/autodidactic study of the subject (and/or an agenda) immediately accuse you of being a Kool-aid salesman and that you admire the worse mass-murderers in history. Who indeed is "out of line?" If Kool-aid discussion are (correctly perhaps) not to occur...who is the one who actually brings up Kool-aid?

If the purpose of the forum is to understand things and reduce accidents, people need to have the wherewithall to accept what sunlight on a subject shows. As Mike articulates...when the underlying issue cannot be addressed, a tension is created. This phenomenon is noted in multiple academic disciplines (as well as how, curiously, humor works).

As a general principle of human nature...people who deeply, deeply engage in one subject matter ordinarily deeply engage in multiple subject matters. If the purpose of the forum is to infinitely talk about injuries...then it stands to reason that people who have committed much effort to prevent injuries will find something better to do with their time.

That's OK, since the poster who accused you of being a Kool-aid salesman, etc. has already lost the underlying debate over the nexus between drinking alcohol & riding a horse. That poster either has some sort of personal bias or is just trying to be disruptive. Either way, the poster is not using logic & reason, but rather emotion & personalization to respond.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by rallyman1122

Lately I have noticed a trend on CF that many threads turn into little flame wars about politics or there are snide comments about people’s beliefs, attitudes or political positions.

There are no snide comments on CF, it's in the rules.

BTW - Politics
Poli - meaning many
tics - meaning blood sucking pests

[iyamwhatiyam]

What about plagiarizing an avatar? I confess my sin, sailorboy1.


There.

[Pelagic]

You can't please everyone so this thread is just an exercise in (repectfully) venting a bit .

Have been on CF for many years, learned a lot, had fun and my respect for some regular posters that I've never met, has grown immensely.

So its natural to hear them out if they feel the need to vent, but we all know its just recreational complaining.... (that we all indulge in)

Now, I think the Moderators on here do a great job!

Think of it like sailing your boat:

If you are going hard to wind and beating up in the discussion, they'll remind us to ease off a bit.

When a discussion turns off subject and heads downwind, they just let us run with it.

The Mods on here have a light touch, different styles, but ultimately effective on keeping CF a positive experience.

My hats off to them, but as I said at the beginning.....
...You can't please everyone!

[gwbull]

Don’t like it? Don’t read it.
Moving on...