Political Discussion - Round 1 - (Yes or No)

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#1
Please use this thread to answer the following question.

Should political discussion be allowed at DTVUSAForum?




Please answer yes or no first. Optional: Then add your opinion if you'd like.

Depending on the outcome of this thread, I'll be posting 2-4 more follow up questions on what is going to dictate our political discussion policy.

Why?

I feel that our current policy of NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION needs to be adjusted or clarified. If you've already posted thoughts in this thread: http://www.dtvusaforum.com/forum-help-zone/15906-politics-forums-especially-one.html, then you may copy / paste or post a link to your thoughts into this thread.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#2
Yes, it should be allowed. I can post a link to http://www.dtvusaforum.com/forum-help-zone/15906-politics-forums-especially-one.html#post41391 in the other thread, but I have had even more time to think about this, so the previous post is limited describing how I feel.

First let me ask what are politics? Is it a discussion between citizens as to what they feel might be best for the country? Or are they touting and aping the party line?

Well to me it a discussion between citizens how they feel about a topic. The topic must be fluid and not rigid. This is why I don't like hearing things stated I could have turned on either cable news channel and heard. Or have gone to a rally or meeting of either of the two big parties and heard the same lines. I don't believe in you are either with me or against me until you actually prove you are that way via a healthy discussion. Still then most people that really think things through find a compromise. I was told in some recent discussions that I say I compromise but don't, which to me is the perfect end all argument of a discussion. Just as one liners end a discussion from touting a parties rhetoric.

An example here would be saying all Republicans are war mongers, they aren't. Or all Democrats are tree huggers or against guns, and they aren't.

Those type of stereotypes end discussion and draw a line before any real comprise or discussion can ever occur. To me this is unneeded and instantly starts a flame war.

But to not be able to state your opinion with it being your opinion and why you believe that way, not why someone taught or told you think that way would be a limiting factor that would end conversation on topics like the future of OTA.

I believe I will hold back other thoughts and let this conversation develop before stating them as they may become moot or be off topic.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#3
Politics is inevitable. However, I am a politics and news junkie....but I try to stay out of politics.

FoxTV takes an advocacy position. Which is fine with me. Bicker seems to be more of a Cable and Satellite guy, which is also fine by me. Having a discussion these disagreements is good, because it helps everyone learn more nuances and add information to their position making process, to deepen ones understanding and refine ones policy prescriptions and positions.

However, politics often involves heated discussion...because peoples livelyhoods and broader well being are tied up in it.

One has to understand these things and let some stuff roll off your back, if you are going to participate in discussions of this nature. Its still worth having the discussions....for the good of yourself, others, communities, societies, democracies, and states.

Whether you want to have them here is another question all together.

I can see this site as being a hotbed of OTA TV broadcast advocacy...but allowances for others viewpoints should be made.

Bicker makes a lot of good points about spectrum usage, IMO. Im no fan of his broader politics. And he is very knowledgable about cable and satellite and TIVO like devices, and industry news.

Ive learned my lesson to keep out of the politics, at least on this board. For community cohesion purposes.

One last thing, generalizations must be made when having meaningful discussion, otherwise you arent having a meaningful discussion. While it is certainly good to explore the minutiae of those generalizations....they are necessary to reach broader understanding of larger macro issues.

My 2 cents.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#4
Politics is inevitable.

However, politics often involves heated discussion...because peoples livelihoods and broader well being are tied up in it.

One last thing, generalizations must be made when having meaningful discussion, otherwise you arent having a meaningful discussion. While it is certainly good to explore the minutiae of those generalizations....they are necessary to reach broader understanding of larger macro issues.

My 2 cents.
EV, I edited out parts to reply, I hope it doesn't change your meaning.

Politics is inevitable. We are a society that the population votes, so everyone has an opinion. Just about everything we do anymore is regulated by the government. It's really hard to have a conversation about anything these days without there being something the government is doing that affects it. So again I can't really see avoiding it when it affects so much of all our lives anymore.

I see a problem in letting politics get too heated. That is when discussion ends. We as a society have reduced so much of the political discussion into you are either with me or against me. I see it happen to me on other forums. Because didn't like the hard right rhetoric I was immediately labeled by some as being far left. That about as far from the truth as you can get. And I have had the reverse happen, but frankly not as often. But both parties are doing their best to drive a wedge between the people that I see how easy it is beat the drum of the parties. After all if you listen to cable news, either channel, then you are feed hour after hour of what I now call hate think.

I used to be a news and political junkie, I haven't watched news except World Focus and sometimes the News Hour. No I don't think they are left wing sources. If you read above, this falls into if you are not hard right, then every other opinion is far left. I find myself drifting farther and farther away from the political scene here in the US, as to me there isn't a angstrom of daylight between them.

Yes the country has changed from what the founding fathers believed. They envisioned a republic where most of the candidates were from educated wealthy backgrounds. There is however a populist uprising in the country that sees bigger threats to our democracy than the petty differences driven by the 24 hour news cycle.

To me it really is time to turn off the cable news channels and start talking with your neighbors. Find their real concerns, what makes them not sleep at night caring for the family. What do they have to accomplish tomorrow to keep a roof and food on the table. Soon the rhetoric of the 24 hour news machines will fade from the conversations. Those that though they were so different will find they live next door to another American.

Once you feel you have to get personal, or label someone's position, I think it's time to post that tomorrow. Then see if you still feel that way.

----

But I have to disagree that generalizations must be made. To me they are exactly what destroys the meaningful discussion if I didn't make my stance clear above.

Generalizations are a nice word for prejudice. Just like too big to fail is a nice word for monopoly. Just like collateral damage is a nice word for dead civilians.

Generalizations like all Jews are stingy. Or all Moslems are dangerous. All blacks are stupid. All Italians or Irish were lower form of life. That just because someone is Hispanic makes them illegal or against the US.

Now if you mean trends in a population they exist. Like most Christians believe in Jesus, would certainly be true.
 

Thomas G

Contributor
#5
Yes, it should be allowed. I can post a link to http://www.dtvusaforum.com/forum-help-zone/15906-politics-forums-especially-one.html#post41391 in the other thread, but I have had even more time to think about this, so the previous post is limited describing how I feel.

First let me ask what are politics? Is it a discussion between citizens as to what they feel might be best for the country? Or are they touting and aping the party line?

Well to me it a discussion between citizens how they feel about a topic. The topic must be fluid and not rigid. This is why I don't like hearing things stated I could have turned on either cable news channel and heard. Or have gone to a rally or meeting of either of the two big parties and heard the same lines. I don't believe in you are either with me or against me until you actually prove you are that way via a healthy discussion. Still then most people that really think things through find a compromise. I was told in some recent discussions that I say I compromise but don't, which to me is the perfect end all argument of a discussion. Just as one liners end a discussion from touting a parties rhetoric.

An example here would be saying all Republicans are war mongers, they aren't. Or all Democrats are tree huggers or against guns, and they aren't.

Those type of stereotypes end discussion and draw a line before any real comprise or discussion can ever occur. To me this is unneeded and instantly starts a flame war.

But to not be able to state your opinion with it being your opinion and why you believe that way, not why someone taught or told you think that way would be a limiting factor that would end conversation on topics like the future of OTA.

I believe I will hold back other thoughts and let this conversation develop before stating them as they may become moot or be off topic.
Well said.

Politics is inevitable. However, I am a politics and news junkie....but I try to stay out of politics.

FoxTV takes an advocacy position. Which is fine with me. Bicker seems to be more of a Cable and Satellite guy, which is also fine by me. Having a discussion these disagreements is good, because it helps everyone learn more nuances and add information to their position making process, to deepen ones understanding and refine ones policy prescriptions and positions.

However, politics often involves heated discussion...because peoples livelyhoods and broader well being are tied up in it.

One has to understand these things and let some stuff roll off your back, if you are going to participate in discussions of this nature. Its still worth having the discussions....for the good of yourself, others, communities, societies, democracies, and states.

Whether you want to have them here is another question all together.

I can see this site as being a hotbed of OTA TV broadcast advocacy...but allowances for others viewpoints should be made.

Bicker makes a lot of good points about spectrum usage, IMO. Im no fan of his broader politics. And he is very knowledgable about cable and satellite and TIVO like devices, and industry news.

Ive learned my lesson to keep out of the politics, at least on this board. For community cohesion purposes.

One last thing, generalizations must be made when having meaningful discussion, otherwise you arent having a meaningful discussion. While it is certainly good to explore the minutiae of those generalizations....they are necessary to reach broader understanding of larger macro issues.

My 2 cents.
Another well said opinion.

--------------

I say Yes, politics should be allowed but only if it's related to a discussion about what this board is about.

So if someone wants to discuss cable companies, and states their opinion, that's fine in my book.

5-6 months ago I wanted to post something about how the FCC was taking a step in the wrong direction but I held back because we've had so many problems lately and that's just not right.

Now if it's a post about the president in the Off Topic area, then I say no, don't allow it.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#6
Listers, YES is my vote.

I don't see the people here I have communicated with, as a representation of the average citizen and odds are we are better educated and more aware of political changes that too often have unintended results. My Dear old Dad used to say: "Everytime a new law is passed, it takes away someone's rights". Quite worthy of discussion and I don't know of a better group to mutually share opinions, experiences and our knowledge.

I would be pleased to participate in such a forum even if at times it seems off-topic regarding electronics/television assuming a respect for others' opinions is maintained. It could provide opportunities to alter points of view/perspection.

Example: My girlfriend works with a woman (teacher) who emigrated from Russia and her Father is a Geophysics. In a beautiful Russian accented English, she told Julie "Global Warming is Bullsh.." . AND then referred to the sunspot cycle and Sol's output, etc, which DOES go back to OTA RF reception.

I have strong opinions: politics and religion ARE facinating topics as long as they are discussed by mature individuals who work on keeping inflamatory responses under control. Nuff said ... I'll get off my catbox. :yell:
Jim
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#7
No is my vote.

I don't come here for politics; I come here for electronic information or TV chat, which I enjoy a great deal. I am continually disheartened when a thread about some TV show or electronic device turns into a politic forum. If I want politics, there are a lot of political sites out there.

That said, I wouldn't object to a separate political topic for politics relative to TVs and such, but I would want it separated from regular topics and monitored. Actually, isn't that how it's supposed to be here? I just don't want a topic on Kermit the frog turned into a political discussion of whether or not PBS should be regulated, or something like that.

That's my 2 cents.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#8
I just don't want a topic on Kermit the frog turned into a political discussion of whether or not PBS should be regulated, or something like that.

That's my 2 cents.
Orry, good point. And your example is not esoteric, as I have seen it happen here.

I know I keep repeating this over and over, but HTNut very very very first sentence in the opening post was this was tied to the government's decision and would involve politics.

Being that if we loose all UHF OTA it will be an act of Congress and the FCC, so I just can't see how that topic can be none political. Well I can but follow my logic.

Lets say we just discuss the benefits of using those frequencies by either private or public use (OTA). This would be fine and dandy and I guess everyone can go then to their Congressman and send them a message.

But it's not that simple, at least to me. It's not a logical decision on the future of OTA. It's not simply just who could make better use of the frequencies. Just like the 700 MHz auction changed from it's conception in the 1990's to it's outcome now of which frequencies went to whom.

It's all about money and power, not the technical fasts that will be spun anyway those with the money want us to believe. So to not include this aspect of the decision which in the end is more powerful than the technical aspects seems to be myopic.

But not to get off your point, I agree, if we are discussing Kermit's role, we should not then call PBS a government supported political machine. I would think it would be ok to start a thread called "Do you think PBS is just a political machine?"

Orry, do you follow my logic and see the difference? I am not saying I am right, just the way I see it. Your input back would be valuable even if you tell me you don't agree! :mad:)
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#10
As I wrote in the other thread, either "no" or every side gets to present their perspective without being accused of it being a personal attack or otherwise inappropriate because someone doesn't like what the "other" side said.

In another forum I participate in there is one rule for the one forum there that permits political discussions: "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen." It means that everyone reading a political thread must have a thick skin or they simply don't belong there. To preclude the appearance of unfairness, the only postings that are prohibited are those that are illegal (threats of physical violence, pornography, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Tim58hsv

DTVUSA Member
#11
Doesn't matter one way or the other to me. If it happens I'd rarley perticipate in the discussions there anyway, other than maybe starting a 9/11 thread that would have folks on both sides of the isle calling for my banning here. :)

One thing you can be sure of, Jay, if you do start a political forum tempers are gonna flare and things are going to get ugly. Posters will turn on posters and people will be banned. That's just the nature of the beast when it comes to political discussions.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#12
Maybe its just me, but I cut my internet teeth on political boards....that had little to no moderation....though the posters generally had above average education and were well informed. Im still friends with many of those people that have called me the most vile names and insinuated the most vile things about me and vice versa. I actually think that helps one to understand the human side that can get lost with just biased propaganda and isolation.

I dont think being isolated with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity nor Bill Moyers and Keith Olbermann is good for a person.

And if you cant talk about politics in polite company, at work, at play, then that is what happens.

Granted you can go to political talk boards, which is what I do.

I think there is space for political talk here, FoxTV straight up sees this site as a platform for OTA political advocacy. I dont see anything wrong with that. The flip side is, you shouldnt censor opinions that dont fall lockstep into that advocacy.

Note: I have not read the thread in question. Dont know who said what. And frankly I have no desire to.
 

O-O

DTVUSA Member
#13
Yeah I really don't care. I don't get my feelings hurt if someone posts their opinion one way or another. If I start seeing too much opinion, I'll totally skip over the post.
 

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#14
Thank you everyone for your response so far.

I'm of the opinion that starting a completely separate forum section for politics is a bad idea. I wouldn't mind seeing debate on issues related to politics only if it's about dtv, hdtv, or on topic content related to the theme of this forum (not including the off topic section). Is this a likely scenario? What do you think?
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#15
That makes sense Jay....confining it to the broad scope of the board.

I will note however that that can get out of hand, as positions on these issues do draw from wider philosophical and ideological underpinnings.

Myself I like contentious debate. That is why I frequent political boards. I see it as a learning tool....to better myself as a democratic citizen and not only to broaden my horizons and understand my bigotries and biases, but to refine positions. Furthermore, debate helps one understand others positions and biases and motives and bigotries, and how to counter arguments against your positions effectively.

But I always have the political boards for more philosophical ponderings, as opposed to technical.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#16
Sometimes when talking politics with people Ive known for a period of time whose broad ideological positions are different from mine (the classic Western Conservative vs Western Leftist)

After a long day of disagreement and point counterpoint...this graphic seems to cover the general atmosphere...

See you tommorrow Sam...

 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#17
Jay, et al:

Politics and religion have always been two topics that can quickly mutate from a heated discussion to a communication meltdown in an instant (or a typestroke). Avalanche Breakdown of a single transistor comes to my mind.

Per my prior post on this topic, I think an area should be allocated here for the discussion of any and all 'new' legislation that could affect any OTA 'client', be it HDTV, Ham Radio or whatever 'service'. If there is legistration involved, it is political and we have the opportunity to keep each other up to date in a dedicated forum string.

Off topic example: Regarding the banning/scrapping/crushing of classic cars; because of other groups I belong to, if there is a new crush-them plan proposed in any State, thousands across the Country know about it and we spread the word through our Car Club newsletters and e-mailings to non-club owners as well. We have (so far) kept plenty of Chevy Nomads from being crushed. ........... OH oh ...... saving wonderful old cars that are rarely driven more than 150 miles per year (average) is now politically incorrect! So... ---> :ban: me? Yes, I am opinionated!

Jim
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#18
Jim, that is a very interesting concept!

1) Groups like ours have to be aware of politics that involve us. Many a group that ignored politics found their "hobby" gone through legislation. Hams, Hunters, and I see Auto Collectors also.

2) If a topic like the one that started this "Future of OTA" is CLEARLY political. The future is more threatened by laws than economics, though both could do it in.

If a topic such as the OTA had been in a that section, or had it been moved to that section things would have been better.

Ignoring politics to me is like ignoring the constant vigilance required to sustain a democracy.

But even the tv related political section has to have limits. Once something is personal, then it can't stand. Picking at twisting words to another posters whim to discredit another poster can't stand.

This would mean, any mod that decides to jump in the fray, can't mod, short of very blatantly obvious flames.

If I were in the discussion, and someone on an opposite side were to do something that was obvious blatant I could comment as a Mod that that is a blatant flame. But if some here that use subtle twists to bait a flame, then how could I say, hey, you are trying to bait someone into a flame war, I could easily be called biased. And I might be, as something that looks like a spin or twist might honestly be the other person's point, and I either missed or didn't follow their explanation of why that was said.

So moreover, if someone does that too you, meaning takes something you say that makes you think they are using it out of context or in a way you didn't intent. Then you need to ask the person, how do you mean that? Before assuming you totally understand what they mean, even if there is no doubt you understand what they mean. The simple affect of bringing that point out and asking for more explanation will stop the flame and make someone defend their position in clearer terms which may make you eat your words doubting their intent.

If we can't do this type of discussion then it's all moot.

Hope that long verbose babbling made sense.
 

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#19
All great posts (and PMs) in here from everybody. Great, great, great, input.

Question. I'm thinking about adding a whole prefix system for our threads which will allow the OP to designate his post with a "Political Discussion" prefix. With that prefix, moderators will know not to touch the thread if political debate ensues.

On the other end, all topics/threads not labeled with the political discussion prefix must stay on topic and not include posts of political nature.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#20
I can see getting banned when I read something.. Oh my................

That is probably a good way to do it. There are some topics that are so tied to both DTV and Poly Ticks, you can't separate them. In particular if Congress and Uncle Charlie are involved.
 
Top