the thread is gone, but the story stays?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2007 2:49 PM EDT |
the thread is gone, but the story stays? |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 07, 2007 2:55 PM EDT |
Please read our TOS, ...Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site. The thread was not related to the article but was a political discussion. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
?? I am at a loss as to how a vote in congress isn't of a political nature, but ok. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 07, 2007 3:09 PM EDT |
The discussion was not about the article, it was a political viewpoint discussion. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2007 7:49 PM EDT |
>The discussion was not about the article, it was a political viewpoint discussion. First and foremost, the posts that I saw were quite civil. Second, the discussion was a reasonable outgrowth from the article. Face it -- FOSS and some political issues are deeply intertwined. A heavy hand tends to squash more than its intended target, and I think you are being heavy-handed here. If you do not want any politics, you should not run political articles. Frankly, I think that would be a poor move, as it would pretty much eliminate any coverage of the FSF, coverage which properly has a place on a free software site. Keep it civil, that's fine. Herd the cats when politics is a completely arbitrary branch from the discussion, fine. Otherwise? Relax. It'll extend your life. This, I'm afraid, is looking more than a little peevish. |
| gus3 Dec 08, 2007 12:17 AM EDT |
With all due respect to dinotrac, I must disagree with his conclusion. Yes, the article is political in nature, but trotting out Ron Paul as the primary topic of a thread borders on political endorsement. I could tell after reading the thread for half a minute, that it would be deleted. Frankly, I'm glad it happened while I was at work. No hard feelings, dino? |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2007 4:46 AM EDT |
>Yes, the article is political in nature, but trotting out Ron Paul as the primary topic of a thread borders on political endorsement. What a great statement to prove the idiocy of the action. >I could tell after reading the thread for half a minute, And then reinforce the point. If you can tell so quickly, then the thread is a non-problem as it won't waste anybody's time. If you understand the article at all, you will understand that it's value is let us know what the legislature is doing to us. In that context, illuminating the fact that somebody voted our way is not out of line. Hard feelings? No. Sadness over stupidity? Yes. Lxer used to be a good site. Seems determined to spiral its way into irrelevance. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2007 7:41 AM EDT |
Dino, after a night of reflection, I must agree. I made it _partisan_. It's not merely the "political" that annoys, it's especially partisanship. We need to celebrate these two brave souls who bucked the entire rest of the legislature, as well as to make sure people know that this purely political bit of legislation goes down in flames for its own idiocy. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
Bob -- Unfortunately, the thread is gone, so I can't recall how partisan it was. A little bit of civil partisanship on political matters is almost a necessity, however, unless you're going to reduce topics to pure pap. |
| jdixon Dec 08, 2007 11:47 AM EDT |
FWIW, I agree with Dino. The thread contained useful, factual information about the US political system. The last few comments (mine among them) could reasonably have been deleted, but the fact that one of the current presidential candidates voted against the bill is important information to those who support the free sharing of code. It's a small step from banning images to banning code. Think how those same Representatives would react to Hot-Babe (http://dindinx.net/hotbabe/). |
| azerthoth Dec 08, 2007 9:21 PM EDT |
Just to toss it out there, politically my leanings are with Bob and jd, my thoughts on if LXer is the proper forum to engage in those conversations?? I have to go with Scott on this one. Over the last few months it has become decidedly political around here. Which is fine if restraint is exercised and kept to F/OSS, but discussion of the political landscape in general ... truly does belong elsewhere, IMHO. |
| thenixedreport Dec 08, 2007 11:38 PM EDT |
I never saw the thread, but I will provide a warning to everyone here. Whether you like it or not, you will encounter politics, period! Whether you like it or not, because sooner or later, they will come to you, even if you decide not to directly address it. That is my two cents on the subject matter. I would say mentioning said political candidate may have been related to the article itself (in which said candidate was opposed to said bill, and hence voted against it). Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 2:45 AM EDT |
>Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in. Human nature makes it even worse than that. There is a tendency not to recognize politics in those things that you agree with. They're not political, they are just the facts, things that any sensible person ought to be able to see. Counter something that was said, and suddenly you hear, "We have a no-politics rule" or some such thing. "No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like". |
| tracyanne Dec 09, 2007 3:53 AM EDT |
I'm trying to find anyone who lives in San Antonio. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 09, 2007 5:58 AM EDT |
Dino, I have no desire to get into a confrontational discussion with you, but you and others have made several comments that are worth addressing. In your posts in this thread, you say "illuminating the fact that somebody voted our way is not out of line.", ""No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like"." and "Lxer used to be a good site. Seems determined to spiral its way into irrelevance." I totally agree that bringing attention to the fact that Ron Paul voted like many people who visit LXer(including me) would have voted on that issue but that was not all that was being discussed in the thread. If the statement "Its harder to see politics in things I agree with" is contained inside your statement, then yes most of the time "No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like". The problem is that if it were true here at LXer then why would I delete a thread about that article? Especially if I agree with that particular politician's actions reported on in that article? Your statement fails to hold water with regards to LXer. As for your statement about LXer's spiral into irrelevance, I respectfully disagree. I will not waste your time trying to convince you otherwise. No one makes you visit LXer, it is your choice too. To Everyone, Is it a two edged sword that we do not allow discussions of a political nature yet report on political issues when they concern FOSS? Of course. I will admit that "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." most certainly could be expanded and clarified but then just how? Making that statement more specific would no doubt lead to even more trouble than its current ambiguity does. So it comes down to a judgment call, made by me, based on what I see people saying in the threads and how I interpret the intentions of the people writing it. I cannot apologize for my decision, I was doing my job. I swear to all who can hear I am doing my best to uphold the TOS as fairly as I know how. I am trying my best to keep LXer a place where people come to get the news on FOSS and talk to others about it. Am I perfect, or ever going to be? of course not, but as I said I am doing my best. If that equates to 'Politicaphobia' in your mind, there is nothing I can do or say that will change your opinion. It was said in this thread and has been said to me more than once recently that it has gotten very political around here at times and the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me. As a result I have tried to be more vigilant in taking action on it. As Editor-in-Chief I have to be the 'heavy' around here when need be, it's my job. I am more than open to constructive input on this. If you really do care about making LXer better and I think you do because of the of emotions this issue has evoked, then try and help me. Even if you disagree with my actions regarding it. If there is a way to make the TOS more clear on this issue or anything that can help those who visit LXer to understand what is allowed and not allowed in the forums, I am all ears. |
| montezuma Dec 09, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
Keep up the good work Scott. I personally think it is blindingly obvious when inappropriate political content is introduced into a thread: The thread is usually derailed and the lack of respect (on both sides) palpable. Politics and FOSS are intertwined so cannot be entirely avoided. Commonsense however tells us when deliberate partisanship is introduced. Examples: 1) Liberals/Conservatives are morons because they cannot understand why Michael Moore/Ann Coulter is dreadful 2) Support by politician X for ensuring public schools deploy FOSS in country Y is noteworthy and admirable. Guess which politics is appropriate and which is not? It seems to me that there is a degree of the disingenuous going on about all of this.... |
| Abe Dec 09, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in. I believe it was Aristotle who said "Engage in politics, otherwise risk being ruled by inferiors", or something like that. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 8:51 AM EDT |
Montezuma - Bingo. You got it right. And did you notice the difference has nothing to do with party/leaning/view/etc? It has everything to do with uncivil and abusive discourse. I might disagree with you if, for example, you said that Bush administration policies slow the uptake of FOSS. I would not object to you saying that -- I would probably ask you to elaborate. Not so in the case of a statement that FOSS can't possibly flourish in a country with a chimp in the White House. |
| montezuma Dec 09, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
>Not so in the case of a statement that FOSS can't possibly flourish in a country with a chimp in the White House. Right. Or on the other side: "Venezuela could not possibly be doing anything sane with FOSS since it is ruled by that loudmouth lunatic Marxist Hugo Chavez" All pretty obvious really...... |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
Scott - Part of the problem is in seeing "confrontational" things every time you see differing viewpoints. Look how you started this out: >Dino, I have no desire to get into a confrontational discussion with you, Why would you need to? Maybe you're feeling a bit jumpy here. There's not need. As I said, sometimes the best thing is simply to relax. US Constitutional law -- though it doesn't apply here -- has addressed similar issues wrt speech restrictions in public spaces and/or by agents of the government. As an example, imagine a pro-life group that wishes to picket a public hospital. The hospital has every right to place reasonable restrictions on how close those people can come and when they can picket -- so long as the restrictions are properly scoped (ie no pickets in the emergency room, not pickets within 100 yards of the hospital, nobody after certain hours or whatever) and are content-neutral. In other words, any restrictions applied to pro-life protesters would also be applied to cottage cheese protesters or Hannah Montana fans. The beauty of that approach is that it keeps the government out of the business of deciding what is or is not political, religious, appropriate, inappriate, etc. You can do x for y hours in z location so long as you're not so loud you wake babies two towns over. Or whatever. >the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me. Anyone who would say that to you is being incredibly unfair. As an editor of a site that permits outside comments, you can't force the direction of a conversation the way the editor of a paid staff can. You can nudge it, you can keep it civil, or you can delete it. It's like being a surgeon whose only tools are aspirin and a chain saw. You have to hope the patient responds to the inadequate treatment because the other one is brutal and has unwelcome consequences. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
> that loudmouth lunatic Marxist Hugo Chavez Hey, come on! It's still within the species! |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 09, 2007 9:40 AM EDT |
Dino, just the act of writing my post did wonders to relax and center me. I had to preface my statement because I would rather you think I am jumpy than to misinterpret the comments that followed. I do understand what you mean when you say "relax", unfortunately conversations can get out of hand while I try to relax about it. I am not patronizing you, please understand that sometimes I cannot relax and wait for the dust to settle, so to speak. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
>that sometimes I cannot relax and wait for the dust to settle, so to speak. When all you've got is aspirin and a chain saw, one hopes for those times to be few and far between. |
| montezuma Dec 09, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
> Hey, come on! It's still within the species! Yes but recent evidence from Japan suggests chimps have significantly superior memory to humans.... |
| jdixon Dec 09, 2007 11:47 AM EDT |
Scott: No one's blaming you for taking action as an editor. I think we all realize that's necessary. I'm only questioning whether it was necessary in this case, and in the final analysis, that's a judgment you have to make, no me. The ideal is that the feedback will help you get a better handle on exactly when deletion is necessary and when it isn't. Of course, deciding when we have a legitimate point and when we're just carping for no reason is yet another judgment call. :) |
| jdixon Dec 09, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
> Yes but recent evidence from Japan suggests chimps have significantly superior memory to humans Caveat: Young chimps have superior memory to adult humans. Young humans have superior memory to adult humans too. It's questionable whether their tests revealed differences between species or were merely an indication of age. |
| montezuma Dec 09, 2007 11:56 AM EDT |
jdixon, I saw the test on TV. It wasn't even close. Chimps were vastly superior. More so than my 3 year old daughter I'm sure. Edit: The interpretation I saw was that humans had given up memory in order to gain language skills. |
| jdixon Dec 09, 2007 2:01 PM EDT |
> Chimps were vastly superior. More so than my 3 year old daughter I'm sure. You're probably underestimating your 3 year old daughter, but I'll take your word for it. |
| NoDough Dec 09, 2007 2:12 PM EDT |
Scott, I personally think you do a great job and appreciate you for it. Everyone Else, One thing that gets under my skin is what I like to call drive-by TOS violations. I hate it when I see a post like this... Quoting:Blah blah blah relevant on-topic discussion blah blah blah.Then, if anyone calls the poster on the OBVIOUS TOS violation, he/she gets all preachy about how their post was on-topic. Puh-lease! If you're going to commit TOS violations (and, please don't,) then at least show a little humility when you are called on it. My 2 cents. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
>is what I like to call drive-by TOS violations I think you will find that many of those, certainly not all, but many, follow a so-called "non-political" statement of the "I don't think it's political because it's something I agree with so it must be plain and simple fact" variety. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!