Politics on forums, especially this one

[Aaron62]

I have seen the rules and I understand the policy here being a member and all, but I just don't get it. I don't want to start a flame war and call any members out because I want this to be a healthy conversation between the all of us.

Can someone please explain to me wtf the policy here is about political discussion?

I feel that we cannot exclude it completely because so many issues with dtv and hdtv are tied to it.

Is it ok to tie politics to a discussion? It's not like someone's posting "Obama sucks as a president" or "Bush was a terrible preisdent". Those kinds of posts are usually not allowed in other forums where politics is discussed, but I have seen where you're atleast allowed to voice some opinion of political nature.

:duh:

 

[Aaron62]

Rereading my post, it looks like a 5 year old typed it so I apologize in advance for my grammar. It's kind of tough to make sense when typing while I'm acting like I'm working.

 

[EscapeVelocity]

Well, dont ask me.

Im a news and politics junkie.

 

[Don_M]

The policy is as written, and what you're talking about is certainly well within bounds. Please try not to be swayed by those who think they know better than everybody else, because they don't.
(This ain't you, EV! I'd rather not see this thread turn into a :flamewar: , too.)

 

[Orrymain]

I think it's okay when it stays within the bounds of the actual discussion. However, I do believe and have seen some folks turn just about anything into a political topic, and that's just not appropriate. However, I'm a mere member. Ultimately, it's up to Jay.

 

[Piggie]

I have seen the rules and I understand the policy here being a member and all, but I just don't get it. I don't want to start a flame war and call any members out because I want this to be a healthy conversation between the all of us.

Is it ok to tie politics to a discussion? It's not like someone's posting "Obama sucks as a president" or "Bush was a terrible preisdent". Those kinds of posts are usually not allowed in other forums where politics is discussed, but I have seen where you're atleast allowed to voice some opinion of political nature.

Well Jay, Don and I have discussed this between us. And the key is healthy conversation.

The clue here is if you have an opinion that something in TV is tied to the economy or politics, not to speak of it would be the same as a Gag Rule. Like don't speak of this because.........

I not only have trouble with things like bashing Obama and Bush, but when I hear things typed that word for word the talking points of a political party.

Now that does in fact lend to my bias that both current political parties are changing the country from a democracy into a oligarchy. But I see no doubt it's true and might be the biggest conviction I have as a citizen for the rest of my life, as I don't see it ending abruptly.

------

Then to me there is a feeling amongst some that if economics is discussed that means politics. Well sure political parties have stated economic platforms, but they don't follow them, so that alone makes that moot.

But it again lends itself to being able to discuss things in a healthy non-partisan manner. If something someone states sounds (but not nearly a direct sound bite) something of a party, that is ok, if they explain how they see it affecting the situation. Just a little bit of thought why someone feels that way is needed. After all the 2 political parties never explain why they believe in their platforms, because if they did they would violate their own voting records.

A good example would be saying something works or doesn't work because it works in Europe. Right there is a give away as a reworded talking point. First of all Europe is not one country and they don't all think alike. Additionally that leaves them open to challenge to explain why or why it doesn't work. Just keep it civil and healthy.

 

[Don_M]

Amen. Politics and economics are just about unavoidable when discussing the allocation of scarce resources. Sharp discussions and heated deliberations are a natural consequence of a shrinking resource like the radio spectrum. To paraphrase the old cliche about land: "They ain't makin' any more spectrum."

Still, there's a big difference between:

"The FCC goofed big time by allowing white-space devices to operate within TV channels"

and

"Obama (or whoever the current incumbent is) s*cks because he allowed the FCC to allocate TV channels to white-space devices",

for two fairly obvious reasons:

• In all but a very few instances, the president doesn't make these decisions, so bringing him (or her... someday) up is really off-topic. (However, saying "Julius Genachowski s*cks..." would be a lot closer to such a discussion, even if this would be a rather harsh assessment, because he's FCC chairman.)

• Given the size of the federal government, there's absolutely no way any president could possibly be aware of each and every decision made by the hundreds of regulatory agencies that report to the Executive Office or to the Cabinet secretaries. Not in real time, anyway.

That's a long, convoluted way of saying that I would respectfully amend Piggie's "civil and healthy" standard to "civil, healthy... and relevant."

 

[Jason Fritz]

One thing is clear from this thread (and many others), we need a clear policy of what's ok and what isn't. I'm closing this thread and starting a new one. Will post a link here to that thread after I have it finished.