# General > The Literature Network >  Why No Politics?

## Taliesin

I thought that it would be good if we had a politics and religion sub-forum. The subjects can cause anger and stuff like that, but maybe we could avoid them; or all at least just keep them in the politics/religion forum.

I think that people'd like to discuss politics and religion.

----------


## amuse

and i guarantee that your idea won't work. because there's already a section for religion, and discussion of politics is banned. as much as many of us agree on political matters, someone won't, and it'll be just as upsetting as when someone offends in the religious section.

----------


## trismegistus

Personally I think a politics forum would be a great addition. I understand the thinking that politics breeds arguments and therefore might be a threat to the board's growth, but I disagree with the premise of that thinking. Some of the most spectacularly "attended" boards on the web are either directly or indirectly related to politics. There are any number of special interest boards with political forums that have ten times the membership this board has. Clearly the discussion of politics isn't hurting them. For myself personally, one of the reasons I stop in here only once every couple of days is that politics aren't discussed; I go elsewhere for that because I must.

If you want people to talk on your board, let them talk about what they wish. Accept that things will get ugly sometimes and that you'll lose some people. Trust that the majority of educated people (exactly the kind this board draws) understand how to respectfully disagree, that your mods can discipline those who do not understand "courtesy," and that more opportunities to talk about more subjects will allow you to _easily_ replace those who opt to leave.

----------


## amuse

i still wonder what admin's other forums are-?

----------


## Miranda

I have mixed feelings about this. I think Logos is very strict in the way that he applies this rule, but maybe he needs to be. I would have loved to have discussed the topic I broached yesterday, but respect Logos for the way he runs his own message board. 

This is one of the most friendly message boards I have found on the internet. Sometimes it gets very quiet and a bit boring and its true some controversy would wake it up a little at times like these. On the other hand it would be a shame to spoil the friendliness. But I think that there is something special here too and maybe a political discussion wouldn't degenerate into nastiness where people get upset with one another and leave etc...maybe. But I dont know if it would be worth the risk. It's great here. 

I am a Christian and have belonged to quite a few Christian message boards, but not now - for exactly this reason. It seems that people just want to beat each other over the heads with their views and not listen or take on board the fact that other people have a right to hold their views too. I find it quite amazing that on a Christian message board there is so much nastiness and yet here I can have a civilized and friendly discussion even with people who arn't religious.Perhaps it would work with politics too, who knows without trying it? I suppose I'm not being loyal to other Christians talking like this, but this is the way I found it. So this is why I think this message board is special..and why I have mixed feelings as to whether politics should be allowed. But on the other hand, it's for Logos to decide isnt it, and he says no.

----------


## Logos

Thank you Miranda, trismegistus , amuse, Taliesin (and others) who are at least tolerant of the rules around here and can live with them. 

Something that some people might not be aware of is the fact that some members here are 13 or under, hence, strict rules regarding swearing and flaming and any other age-inappropriate content. 

I need to point out that I am merely a moderator here. Chris, or the site Administrator, is the boss here who has the final say on the rules. I just check in to oversee that they are followed. 

`tis is a fair and noble suggestion that politics are a worthy realm of discussion since they permeate every part of our world and hard to ignore.  :Wink:  and I'm sure most here are civil and mature enough to engage in such discussion, but, because of past issues and the general purpose of this site and the fact that this site is used by people of all ages, they just aren't allowed.

----------


## Miranda

Well, I think this is a great site, politics or no politics and I'm really glad I found it one day as I wandered around the internet. It must be hard sometimes being a moderator but I think you are doing a good job Logos and others must think so too or they wouldnt stay around here. As Abraham Lincoln said..you can't please all the people all of the time. 

Miranda

----------


## Truth>Reason

Why are we not allowed to discuss politics on the General Chat forum? It just seems a little strange, you know.

----------


## Logos

The rule applies to anywhere on the site, not just General Chat. It's not 'strange' to us mods who get to deal with all the acrimony and nastiness in the forums, as well as behind-the-scenes complaints via private message and email that usually results from current political discussion  :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

> Why are we not allowed to discuss politics on the General Chat forum? It just seems a little strange, you know.


Trust me, it's for the best. We would never discuss literature (and that's why I and most come here) and we would be at each other's throats.  :FRlol:

----------


## Bakiryu

People would start getting in each others throats and the litnet wouldn't be homey anymore.

----------


## Shurtugal

i have to agree with baki

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Why are we not allowed to discuss politics on the General Chat forum? It just seems a little strange, you know.


Politics is the Art of the Possible and only attracts second class minds ;-)

----------


## Virgil

> Politics is the Art of the Possible and only attracts second class minds ;-)


Hey I like that Lote. Did you come up with that or is that a quote from someone?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Hey I like that Lote. Did you come up with that or is that a quote from someone?


I think it is one of Arthur C Clarke's quotes.

----------


## jon1jt

> Why are we not allowed to discuss politics on the General Chat forum? It just seems a little strange, you know.



when the forum says no politics i take it they mean no discussion of contemporary politics. but it's kind of silly because everyone has a political axe to grind most of the time in discussions from literature to philosophy. surely it's couched in the right speak, but it doesn't take much to figure out who say Virgil voted for in the last US presidential election.  :Biggrin:  and i'm sure he knows that i'm on the green side of the political isle, which doesn't mean the democrats.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> when the forum says no politics i take it they mean no discussion of contemporary politics. but it's kind of silly because everyone has a political axe to grind most of the time in discussions from literature to philosophy. surely it's couched in the right speak, but it doesn't take much to figure out who say Virgil voted for in the last US presidential election.  and i'm sure he knows that i'm on the green side of the political isle, which doesn't mean the democrats.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Yes, we all have political sides to us. But you know if we concentrated on the politics we would never experience the many sides of our personalities and appreciate other thoughts and creativities.

----------


## jon1jt

> Yes, we all have political sides to us. But you know if we concentrated on the politics we would never experience the many sides of our personalities and appreciate other thoughts and creativities.



if i have a bad day before going to the polls election day i could end up voting for Rudy Giuliani--because that Hillary will never ever get my vote. hey i'm not talking politics, i'm just stating a little fact _about_ politics.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Il Penseroso

You know it is funny that there is a Barack Obama campaign advertisement stuck right smack in the middle of this discussion. Just goes to show that despite striving for a politics free website, reality proves otherwise. (Not that I'm complaining)

----------


## Nossa

I think politics can never be avoided these days, so a place with no politics is really a catch. We all, I guess, follow certain ideology, or at least have a point of view concerning what's going on in the world, but if we start dicussing it on board, as Virgil says, we won't even be able to discuss the only thing we're here for, that is literature, which is for me and escapist from the frustrating conditions of the world. People don't like to be proven wrong when it comes to politics, I've seen that first hand, and so it'll be hard to even talk to each other about anything else, if we discussed politics at any point in our staying on this forum.

----------


## jon1jt

> You know it is funny that there is a Barack Obama campaign advertisement stuck right smack in the middle of this discussion. Just goes to show that despite striving for a politics free website, reality proves otherwise. (Not that I'm complaining)


that's an interesting observation, Il pen--- :Thumbs Up:  that reminds me of Orwell's 1984. just keep hitting us with the images but don't say anything, don't write.  :Alien:  

that barack obama will never get my vote, ever.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Scheherazade

Just a reminder:

*Discussion of current politics is not allowed!* 

Oh, the irony of this!  :Wink:

----------


## kitten

personally, i am thrilled the discussion of politics is not allowed. another forum i am in, most of the threads are political and it ends up hostile and angry and with someone's feelings being hurt. since this forum is for all things literature, it's nice to keep it that way.  :Smile:

----------


## Walter

Religion, sex and politics have been the big three to avoid in polite conversation for about 100 years now. The wheel also is still round, and does not need to be reinvented either.

----------


## Virgil

> Religion, sex and politics have been the big three to avoid in polite conversation for about 100 years now. The wheel also is still round, and does not need to be reinvented either.


Well, I agree about the religion and politics, but sex? No way.  :Tongue:   :Tongue:   :Wink:

----------


## Walter

> Well, I agree about the religion and politics, but sex? No way.


Point taken. But then again I guess nobody ever said the Internet was the home of polite conversation either.  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

Now that we have a serious subjects forum, it seems that it might be time to revisit the politics arena.

If political discussions are kept to a specific forum, and the rules of other forums still apply - no baiting, flaming, etc. - would there be any harm in having at least a trial of allowing political discussions in that area?

I'd gladly offer to lend a hand keeping the straight & narrow, if that's of any use to you, because there are times when being able to move into the political area would add to some discussions.

Thoughts?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Politics could be no worse than religious discussion. And how can you really discuss books like1984 without talking about politics?

----------


## subterranean

I've had this thought since the first days I joined the forum, of why politics is not allowed yet there's open sub forum for religious texts, which most of the time, end up not discussing the texts themselves. But as seen in the religious texts threads, baiting, flaming, etc., are very easy to spark. It's not an issue for me anymore whether we can talk about politics or not in the forum, I'm quite happy with the way things are here. After all, politics can ruins the characters.  :Wink:

----------


## Stargazer86

I completely agree about the religious thread argument. Some of those posts got pretty heated and I doubt a political discussion would be any worse. There have been a few times that I've wanted to bring up politics (in a polite discussion way) but refrained because of forum rules. I'm sure others on here feel the same way. At least give it a trial period. I think most of the people on the forum can be respectful and objective in a controlled thread

----------


## Michael T

> Now that we have a serious subjects forum, it seems that it might be time to revisit the politics arena.
> 
> If political discussions are kept to a specific forum, and the rules of other forums still apply - no baiting, flaming, etc. - would there be any harm in having at least a trial of allowing political discussions in that area?
> 
> I'd gladly offer to lend a hand keeping the straight & narrow, if that's of any use to you, because there are times when being able to move into the political area would add to some discussions.
> 
> Thoughts?



Good idea Atheist,  :Thumbs Up:  ...although watching the news in the UK this week makes me wonder if any politicians think politics is a serious topic!  :Wink:

----------


## Mrs. Dalloway

I want to discuss about politics!  :Bawling:

----------


## subterranean

> Good idea Atheist,  ...although watching the news in the UK this week makes me wonder if any politicians think politics is a serious topic!


No, it's actually a bad joke and they know that.

----------


## Virgil

From my experience elsewhere, this would be a mistake. This is what makes Lit Net different. I can go to the other forums, even supposed literature forums, and get into all sorts of political debates. And they turn angry and the politics takes over the central purpose of the forum. The forum ultimately becomes 75% politics and 20% chat and 5% literature. I can almost assure you this will happen. Politics is always on people's minds and that becomes the discussion of the day. And it becomes no different than the political fighting one sees on news talking head shows, in other words, food fights. If this happens this is will probably mean the end of lit net for me. In fact you probably wouldn't want me on here. I will not stand for any American bashing.

----------


## Nightshade

I personally dont like the idea, the point with the religious text forum is that the litnet provides a copy of the text of the bible, and will one day provide the KOran, it is meant to discuss the text not the politics and such surrounding the text.

Now politics, as far as I can see coming out of one of my addiction phases where I was addicted to BBc parliment and priminsters question time, is nothing but a shouting blaming point fingers game. There isnt any literatuer etoi discuss , what we would effeftivley be doing is moving completly into the RL relm, and I come to the litnet to get away from all that. If I want to discuss politics ther is always someone in RL willing to argue, or like Virgil says I could hunt up oyther threads.
Politics turns people nasty its a fact of life, I dont really want that!

----------


## Uberzensch

At first I thought it was silly to not allow political discussions. However, I've changed my mind. 

It seems to me that we _do_ actually discuss politics in many of these forums, especially the religious and philosophical sections. However, because these discussions are ostensible tied to some text, it seems to help control the conversation. I get the feeling that we are all a little bit more careful about how we discuss these issues.

A political section, divorced from any text, would just break down into a bunch of people screaming at each other.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

I would agree that politics can turn nasty. Well, then, check out the religious threads. It seems that there are some that get very nasty and stomp all over people's religious beliefs...and they get away with it. I am much more passionate about my religious beliefs and sometimes just have to bite my tongue...er...finger tips. Sometimes I don't and I should. But if we do no have a political discussion forum, should we really have a religious texts forum? There are just as many literature texts that are focused on politics as there are text on religious matters. ...and people are just as passionate about both...maybe more passionate about religion. I just think that this forum ought to be consistent.

----------


## The Atheist

Thanks for the replies, and I've dealt with a few individually, but one thing is important - by political discussion, I don't mean:

"Party X is good, Party J is bad!" politicising.

I can see no place for that, but I'd like to sometimes be able to discuss aspects of political intrigue with easily the most intelligent and throughtful bunch of people on the internet.

________________________________________________





> Politics could be no worse than religious discussion. And how can you really discuss books like1984 without talking about politics?


Grrr. That's the one I think of every day. 




> ..At least give it a trial period. I think most of the people on the forum can be respectful and objective in a controlled thread


I'd hope so.




> From my experience elsewhere, this would be a mistake. This is what makes Lit Net different. I can go to the other forums, even supposed literature forums, and get into all sorts of political debates. And they turn angry and the politics takes over the central purpose of the forum. The forum ultimately becomes 75% politics and 20% chat and 5% literature. I can almost assure you this will happen. Politics is always on people's minds and that becomes the discussion of the day. And it becomes no different than the political fighting one sees on news talking head shows, in other words, food fights. If this happens this is will probably mean the end of lit net for me. In fact you probably wouldn't want me on here. I will not stand for any American bashing.


I don't see American- or America-bashing as politics, but just flame-baiting, so it wouldn't be allowed anyway.

Plus, also very important that I'm not proposing any relaxation of the No Politics rule - except for the ability to raise political subjects of world interest in Serious Discussion, so it couldn't take over and would be easy to avoid.

What I'm suggesting is really only an extension of the News thread in there anyway. What part of today's news is not the result of politics?




> I personally dont like the idea, the point with the religious text forum is that the litnet provides a copy of the text of the bible, and will one day provide the KOran, it is meant to discuss the text not the politics and such surrounding the text.


Nope.

I can't accept that, because while the forum was originally meant to discuss religious texts, it doesn't really. Presently, of the 25 threads on the front page, a mere six are discussing texts, and the forum doesn't require textual discussion.




> Now politics, as far as I can see coming out of one of my addiction phases where I was addicted to BBc parliment and priminsters question time, is nothing but a shouting blaming point fingers game.


No, that's Parliament - often compared badly to an unsupervised kindergarten playground.

Politics is what makes the world go around, starts wars and causes famines. Some of the time it enables good things to happen, like the ............. right now. 




> There isnt any literatuer etoi discuss , what we would effeftivley be doing is moving completly into the RL relm, and I come to the litnet to get away from all that.


Ok; that's you, but with general chat being the busiest forum, it seems that the heart of Litnet is actually talking about not-books.

And no literature to discus? (you need to give yourself no marx for that answer)

Harumph!

 :Biggrin: 




> If I want to discuss politics ther is always someone in RL willing to argue, or like Virgil says I could hunt up oyther threads.


I'm not interested in finding people to argue with - I belong to flame war forums for that.

As I said above, I am interested in talking to people internationally - especially when those people are a sane and orderly bunch.




> Politics turns people nasty its a fact of life, I dont really want that!


It doesn't have to, and we wouldn't let it




> At first I thought it was silly to not allow political discussions. However, I've changed my mind. 
> 
> It seems to me that we _do_ actually discuss politics in many of these forums, especially the religious and philosophical sections. However, because these discussions are ostensible tied to some text, it seems to help control the conversation. I get the feeling that we are all a little bit more careful about how we discuss these issues.
> 
> A political section, divorced from any text, would just break down into a bunch of people screaming at each other.


I disagree, but if you turned out to be right, it'd be pretty simple to shut it down again.

----------


## Nightshade

> I don't see American- or America-bashing as politics, but just flame-baiting, so it wouldn't be allowed anyway.
> .


Ok I take what your saying, but I just want to focus on this one bit and point out that as part of the forum rules we would have to respect EVERY political stand , and there are perfectly valid political opinions that are based almost solely on the bashing of a group of people or other political entity. 

and obviously there is Marx and Rousseau and even Lincoln to discuss, but do you honestly believe for one second that if that particular can of worms was opened it could ever ever be contained again? Maybe I should use the box analogy rather than can. 

In theory at least religion in most cases is meant to breed tolerance and unity. Politics is about struggle its about war heck its about famine. disease death. lots of death and misery. poverty. I could go on. but I'm betting you are getting my drift by now?  :Biggrin:  

Politics turns normally sane reasonable people into idiots. There is no nicer way of saying it. We have Israeli members we have palestinian members and for the most part they get on really well. Now introduce politics... and watch the forum go south. Personally I don't believe religious hatred exists its just another word for politics. 

The Root of all evil isn't money, its politics.
 :Biggrin:

----------


## The Atheist

> Ok I take what your saying, but I just want to focus on this one bit and point out that as part of the forum rules we would have to respect EVERY political stand , and there are perfectly valid political opinions that are based almost solely on the bashing of a group of people or other political entity.


I'm not sure that's the case. For example - "I hate ******s" [/insert race/gender/species, etc.] isn't currently allowed, and that seems to be the kind of thing you're worried about.

I am sure that suitable moderation could overcome that issue.




> and obviously there is Marx and Rousseau and even Lincoln to discuss, but do you honestly believe for one second that if that particular can of worms was opened it could ever ever be contained again? Maybe I should use the box analogy rather than can.


Yeah, I do.

There are few posters in Serious Discussions, Religion and Philosophy.

One topic in one forum wouldn't amount to a can or box of worms. No Pandora.




> In theory at least religion in most cases is meant to breed tolerance and unity. Politics is about struggle its about war heck its about famine. disease death. lots of death and misery. poverty. I could go on. but I'm betting you are getting my drift by now?


I could equally say the same of religion...

Without politicising by default, there is a sizeable section of Earth c 2009 that believes that tolerance and understanding can only be achieved by education, and part of that is understanding what's happening in other places.




> Politics turns normally sane reasonable people into idiots. There is no nicer way of saying it. We have Israeli members we have palestinian members and for the most part they get on really well. Now introduce politics... and watch the forum go south. Personally I don't believe religious hatred exists its just another word for politics. 
> 
> The Root of all evil isn't money, its politics.


Well, I'd be more inclined to say that the root of all evil is human emotion, but that's another story.

As to your analogy, I think that again, you've chosen a good one. All Israelis do not hate all Palestinians, and vice-versa. I'd bet that a huge majority of people in both countries are "live and let live" kind of people, and maybe this is an opportunity for LitNet to show that people from "opposing" sides can indeed discuss the world rationally.

Heck, it might be wrong, but wouldn't it be worth a try?

----------


## Emil Miller

> I'm not sure that's the case. For example - "I hate ******s" [/insert race/gender/species, etc.] isn't currently allowed, and that seems to be the kind of thing you're worried about.
> 
> I am sure that suitable moderation could overcome that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do.
> 
> There are few posters in Serious Discussions, Religion and Philosophy.
> ...


With regard to this thread I am with Virgil. I am very much a political animal and would dearly love to take on the liberal/left members of LitNet who obviously outnumber their oponents. 
However, even using my most innocuous euphamisms would get me banned, quite rightly, from what is primarily a website dedicated to literature. 
Yes, I do find it irksome to tailor my comments on certain issues but the alternative is to indulge in verbal fisticuffs which are ultimately pointless and possibly of little interest to a majority of LitNet members.

----------


## Virgil

> A political section, divorced from any text, would just break down into a bunch of people screaming at each other.


That has been my experience in a couple of forums.




> Thanks for the replies, and I've dealt with a few individually, but one thing is important - by political discussion, I don't mean:
> 
> "Party X is good, Party J is bad!" politicising.
> 
> I can see no place for that, but I'd like to sometimes be able to discuss aspects of political intrigue with easily the most intelligent and throughtful bunch of people on the internet.


Hmm, couldn't you just squeeze that into the serious thread? 




> I don't see American- or America-bashing as politics, but just flame-baiting, so it wouldn't be allowed anyway.


Well, that would make me happy, but I've just got too many bad experiences. Not here but a few other places.




> Plus, also very important that I'm not proposing any relaxation of the No Politics rule - except for the ability to raise political subjects of world interest in Serious Discussion, so it couldn't take over and would be easy to avoid.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is really only an extension of the News thread in there anyway. What part of today's news is not the result of politics?


If it's news around a serious issue that is specific I can go with it, but there is some sort of internet rule that says that any political fight will after ten exchanges or so evolve to Hitler and the halocaust. That's a paraphrase. If anyone knows the exact rule, let me know. But the point is that after a few heated exchanges the conversation will undoubtly devolve to bare knuckle issues. If it's news on a serious subject, I think it would fit in the serious thread guidelines.




> I can't accept that, because while the forum was originally meant to discuss religious texts, it doesn't really. Presently, of the 25 threads on the front page, a mere six are discussing texts, and the forum doesn't require textual discussion.


I agree, but my opinion is that they should be shut down, not expanded. 




> Politics is what makes the world go around, starts wars and causes famines. Some of the time it enables good things to happen, like the ............. right now.


There's an inherent problem with that and I'll get to it at the bottom of this post.




> and obviously there is Marx and Rousseau and even Lincoln to discuss, but do you honestly believe for one second that if that particular can of worms was opened it could ever ever be contained again? Maybe I should use the box analogy rather than can.


It has not been my experience for it to be contained, not without anger and people leaving the forum.




> In theory at least religion in most cases is meant to breed tolerance and unity. Politics is about struggle its about war heck its about famine. disease death. lots of death and misery. poverty. I could go on. but I'm betting you are getting my drift by now?


Good point. It has not been my experience that anyone ever changes an opinion of any note. None. People just argue to get their points in. No one ever persuades anyone. It's all fruitless.




> Politics turns normally sane reasonable people into idiots. There is no nicer way of saying it. We have Israeli members we have palestinian members and for the most part they get on really well. Now introduce politics... and watch the forum go south. Personally I don't believe religious hatred exists its just another word for politics.


Absolutely right!!! It's not the religious differences that strain those arguments, it's a political issue around the religious differences. 




> The Root of all evil isn't money, its politics.


Outstanding!! Nightie, you've never been more profound.  :Smile: 




> With regard to this thread I am with Virgil. I am very much a political animal and would dearly love to take on the liberal/left members of LitNet who obviously outnumber their oponents. 
> However, even using my most innocuous euphamisms would get me banned, quite rightly, from what is primarily a website dedicated to literature. 
> Yes, I do find it irksome to tailor my comments on certain issues but the alternative is to indulge in verbal fisticuffs which are ultimately pointless and possibly of little interest to a majority of LitNet members.


Completely agree. And here is the problem. Real politics are local issues and no one can truly have an understanding of other people's local situation. No one truly knows what it's like to live here unless you have in the relative recent past. I frankly don't have a solid feel for what it means to live in Los Angeles, and that's in my own country, albeit on the other side of the country. How in the world does one really understand what it means to live in the US without being here? I haven't clue as to what it means to live and be part of the culture of London, or Paris, or Rome, or Sidney. Atheist's New Zealand is another world which I can't even begin to conceptualize. Oh yes, one sees movies and reads newspapers, but that's a farce. A delusion. You can't really know unless you live there.

And so, that's why Brian is right. Given one doesn't know what the real hands on problems are of any given place, given that one isn't part of the cultural legacies and institutions of a place, given that one doesn't converse with the population of a particular locale, the arguments break down to the right/left fisticuffs. Free market versus socialism; tough on crime versus reeducation; pro-life versus pro-abortion; military action versus pacifism; patriotism versus anti nationality.  :Crash:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Could we resolve to have a Closed social group that was closely supervised. Those who do not want to take part will never see it then. Would this be acceptable?

----------


## LostPrincess13

> Now that we have a serious subjects forum, it seems that it might be time to revisit the politics arena.
> 
> If political discussions are kept to a specific forum, and the rules of other forums still apply - no baiting, flaming, etc. - would there be any harm in having at least a trial of allowing political discussions in that area?
> 
> I'd gladly offer to lend a hand keeping the straight & narrow, if that's of any use to you, because there are times when being able to move into the political area would add to some discussions.
> 
> Thoughts?


Personally, I would just love that. Politics is a very complex and fascinating topic, and discussing it with people from different parts of the world would be a very enriching experience.




> Politics could be no worse than religious discussion. And how can you really discuss books like1984 without talking about politics?


Very true. A lot of literature is chunk full of politics. Avoiding this area would make the discussion of the work rather incomplete, wouldn't it?




> I personally dont like the idea, the point with the religious text forum is that the litnet provides a copy of the text of the bible, and will one day provide the KOran, it is meant to discuss the text not the politics and such surrounding the text.
> 
> Now politics, as far as I can see coming out of one of my addiction phases where I was addicted to BBc parliment and priminsters question time, is nothing but a shouting blaming point fingers game. There isnt any literatuer etoi discuss , what we would effeftivley be doing is moving completly into the RL relm, and I come to the litnet to get away from all that. If I want to discuss politics ther is always someone in RL willing to argue, or like Virgil says I could hunt up oyther threads.
> Politics turns people nasty its a fact of life, I dont really want that!


There's more to politics than petty arguments and mudslinging. Politics is all around you whether you like it or not. The mere discussion of who takes out the trash or who gets to take care of the kids involves politics. To quote a teacher of mine, "There is politics even in sex." I concede that people can turn nasty when they don't see eye to eye, but the pursuit of power is inherent in human nature. Politics is not confined to government affairs or to politicians. There's more to politics that meets the eye. As a political science student, we were taught always to look into the motives of people's action, the history or background of a people, the psychology of the individual, the influence of society. It is through Politics that we get to understand why the world is as it is today, and predict what might happen in the future because of what is happening now. Politics covers a much broader scope, not just who's opinion is louder.




> I would agree that politics can turn nasty. Well, then, check out the religious threads. It seems that there are some that get very nasty and stomp all over people's religious beliefs...and they get away with it. I am much more passionate about my religious beliefs and sometimes just have to bite my tongue...er...finger tips. Sometimes I don't and I should. But if we do no have a political discussion forum, should we really have a religious texts forum? There are just as many literature texts that are focused on politics as there are text on religious matters. ...and people are just as passionate about both...maybe more passionate about religion. I just think that this forum ought to be consistent.


I've noticed religious threads that don't even concern the religious text. Some just ask if you believe in this and that. 




> Ok I take what your saying, but I just want to focus on this one bit and point out that as part of the forum rules we would have to respect EVERY political stand , and there are perfectly valid political opinions that are based almost solely on the bashing of a group of people or other political entity. 
> 
> and obviously there is Marx and Rousseau and even Lincoln to discuss, but do you honestly believe for one second that if that particular can of worms was opened it could ever ever be contained again? Maybe I should use the box analogy rather than can. 
> 
> In theory at least religion in most cases is meant to breed tolerance and unity. Politics is about struggle its about war heck its about famine. disease death. lots of death and misery. poverty. I could go on. but I'm betting you are getting my drift by now?  
> 
> Politics turns normally sane reasonable people into idiots. There is no nicer way of saying it. We have Israeli members we have palestinian members and for the most part they get on really well. Now introduce politics... and watch the forum go south. Personally I don't believe religious hatred exists its just another word for politics. 
> 
> The Root of all evil isn't money, its politics.


I believe all us here have the decency and consideration to respect others thoughts and opinions. I mean, the religious and philosophical threads have survived this long, haven't they? All it takes is an ample amount of maturity. Although it could not be helped that heated arguments may start and that forum rules might be broken, but isn't that what moderators are for? The Mods here are the best I have ever seen and I'm confident in their ability.

To be honest, based from what I've seen, read, and experienced, it is religion that breeds intolerance and violence. I have seen people kill for their religious convictions. Hatred has been planted in the hearts of many because they cannot respect the people who are different from them. I couldn't help tear up when I see people condemn others because they don't think the way they do. For a more concrete example, one woman condemned a homosexual because she says he is a sinner because of his gender preference. There are atheists who are more decent, moral and humane than those self-righteous church goers. I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I feel so strongly about this. Religious hatred does exist. The Holocaust is proof of it.




> With regard to this thread I am with Virgil. I am very much a political animal and would dearly love to take on the liberal/left members of LitNet who obviously outnumber their oponents. 
> However, even using my most innocuous euphamisms would get me banned, quite rightly, from what is primarily a website dedicated to literature. 
> Yes, I do find it irksome to tailor my comments on certain issues but the alternative is to indulge in verbal fisticuffs which are ultimately pointless and possibly of little interest to a majority of LitNet members.


We'll just have to be more mature and tolerant about it then, won't we? :Wink: 




> Could we resolve to have a Closed social group that was closely supervised. Those who do not want to take part will never see it then. Would this be acceptable?


That would be a good idea. :Biggrin:  Only those who are interested can see it. :Smile:

----------


## bazarov

I don't think religious discussion is comparable with political discussion.

I get the picture that people are much more sensitive on their religious aspects and views because it's mostly their way of looking on life, on their strong beliefs why and how things happen, which is very very important to them and it should be dealt with a respect. Like they say: ''Don't laugh to things you cannot understand.''
On the other side, political aspects is just how would you turn something in society which would make it better for everyones good and besides; normal and smart humans would never rip someones blood just because of right and left, democrats and republicans or any other political fronts. It can just be a normal (actually very strong  :Biggrin: ) and interesting discussion.

So I would say yes. We had more then one political discussion on political base in Orwell subforum, and it always stayed polite and friendly, like discussion between smart adults should be.

Of course, some apolitical Big Brother should always take care of that section, just for precocious.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Mr Endon

Atheist, kudos for having started this discussion.

Virgil, the law you've mentioned is Godwin's law. And yes, there are discussions that degenerate to that. But frankly, and following what a lot of members have said in this thread, I don't see how that can be any worse than discussions like "Does God exist?", "I say yes!", "I say no!", "ah, you hateful satanist!", "ah, you gullible idiot!" (granted, a hyperbole, but I've had the dubious pleasure of following more than one discussion which developed in a not very dissimilar way)

I also agree that it shouldn't be given too much proeminence, that it should be regulated and closed down as soon as it starts getting out of hand. Having a thread on politics in the Serious Discussions section is the least we could do.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Of course, some apolitical Big Brother should always take care of that section, just for precocious.


Wouldn't you be afraid that the Ministry of truth might be enacted that alters all the posts to agree with the viewpoint of the The Forum Party?

 :FRlol:  :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, the law you've mentioned is Godwin's law. And yes, there are discussions that degenerate to that. But frankly, and following what a lot of members have said in this thread, I don't see how that can be any worse than discussions like "Does God exist?", "I say yes!", "I say no!", "ah, you hateful satanist!", "ah, you gullible idiot!" (granted, a hyperbole, but I've had the dubious pleasure of following more than one discussion which developed in a not very dissimilar way)


So why add to it. Right now the religious thread nastiness comprises about 15% of lit net. If we add political nastiness then it will zoom to 50% and lit net will no longer feel like a pleasant place.

----------


## Mr Endon

> So why add to it. Right now the religious thread nastiness comprises about 15% of lit net. If we add political nastiness then it will zoom to 50% and lit net will no longer feel like a pleasant place.


That, I think, could be curbed by, as I said, having it as a thread in the Serious Discussion section, and not as a subforum like the Religious Texts.

I'm not asking politics to be an essential part of the forum, highlighted in the homepage as the General Lit, Religious Texts, Philosophy and General Chat are. I'm just asking for a haven, a little spot where it isn't _prohibited_.

----------


## Janine

> From my experience elsewhere, this would be a mistake. This is what makes Lit Net different. I can go to the other forums, even supposed literature forums, and get into all sorts of political debates. And they turn angry and the politics takes over the central purpose of the forum. The forum ultimately becomes 75% politics and 20% chat and 5% literature. I can almost assure you this will happen. Politics is always on people's minds and that becomes the discussion of the day. And it becomes no different than the political fighting one sees on news talking head shows, in other words, food fights. If this happens this is will probably mean the end of lit net for me. In fact you probably wouldn't want me on here. I will not stand for any American bashing.


Wow, I can't believe this either; and I don't think it's a good idea at all - too confrontational! Of course, I would avoid this area of the forum, concerning politics, like the plague. My advice to you, *Virgil,* is to also avoid coming in any thread that is current politics. Even you and I can agree on those many times; we know well enough just to not broach the subject with each other - otherwise we would never talk to each other again. Just let it go!!! I know you and you will soon be thrown out of here and I would hate to see that happen. I agree with you, that this is entirely the wrong move, for this particular forum; which as you said, is set appart from other forums. For one thing, it may increase the enrollment on this forum; however it will draw many argumentive types, who can't restrain their inner feelings and passions on political views, like you, Virgil :Wink:  :FRlol: . I agree that there are other forums set up specifically for 'current' political debate. I don't think we are barred on here from politics of the past, so I don't see why we have to have the rules changed now. If you ask me, this will only create more stress and work for the poor moderators, who have to break up the fights.

----------


## ClaesGefvenberg

> From my experience elsewhere, this would be a mistake.


I'm with Virgil here: I have not only seen it happen, but also had to deal with it as a moderator and administrator, and it is not something I would like to burden our excellent but oh so few LitNet moderators with. At the time we were ~35 moderators in that forum (comparable in size to the Litnet), and I'll tell you straight that it was a real bind. Otherwise calm and balanced people resorted to flaming, sniping and downright personal vendettas that were in no way contained within the political threads. Others simply left. It also wrestled the focus of the forum in question away from the intended main subjects. 

In the end we banned political discussions and guess what? Calm was restored. I am very interested in politics in general, but I would be grateful if we kept it off these premises. 

That said: Excellent discussion  :Thumbs Up: 

/Claes

----------


## librarius_qui

> Now that we have a serious subjects forum, it seems that it might be time to revisit the politics arena.
> 
> If political discussions are kept to a specific forum, and the rules of other forums still apply - no baiting, flaming, etc. - would there be any harm in having at least a trial of allowing political discussions in that area?
> 
> I'd gladly offer to lend a hand keeping the straight & narrow, if that's of any use to you, because there are times when being able to move into the political area would add to some discussions.
> 
> Thoughts?


My honest thought about it: no Politics.

It lacks a place to talking History.

In Brasil, we have a saying that says, in general words, that "about football, politics and religion there's no talk". Indeed, it's tough to talk about subjects people are passionately partial.

I avoid the Religious Texts forum, because it seldom treats of texts, but mostly of opinion, and it makes me too annoyed, sometimes. Perhaps moderation there should be more strict so as to maintain subjects in a level of literature, not of chaotic subjects about opinion.

This is what I think.~

lq,

----------


## Stargazer86

The more I've read everyone's arguments the more I'm having second thoughts. But I have always felt that compromise is important. Bienvenu's suggestion of a closed social group seems to be a great solution. 

Part of the reason that I would like a political discussion area is because it is virtually impossible to discuss some books without bringing up politics (1984 being frequently mentioned). But I certainly wouldn't want to see a nice group of people who get along to be divided by any kind of conflict...

----------


## librarius_qui

> ...
> Indeed, it's tough *to talk about subjects people are passionately partial*.
> 
> ...


However,
..

if we have a forum to religion, and it's ... bearable to most people, why not a place for politics? (I'm thinking outloud.)

(I myself would rather close the religion forum ...)

I think the problem isn't with the space, but with:

1. moderation (attitude(s))
2. passional parciallity  :Rolleyes: 

But it's easy to speak. Hard to actually implement things, and consequences may always be ... "sad", not to say some other possibly more rational or reasonable word ... (I am a man of passions.)

One problem about opening a place for discussing politics is that there are people here from many, many countries. It goes a little beyond the reach. Literature is an interesting neutral spot, and maybe, just maybe, a forum of this magnitude survives out of some sort of neutrality.

(Even religion is a neutral subject, once there's no (actual two-sided) holy war, nowadays, like in the days of the Crusades. Perhaps because of this religion is bearable here .. at least by moderators/owners.)

Politics is never going to be neutral, if it comes to be about opinion.

And, at last, people are supposed to be allowed to talk about political issues in literture, in the Philosophical Texts area. / So, Stargazer, you can talk about "politics in 1984" in that forum. It's perfectly acceptable.

Theory of politics can be discussed as philosophy. That's one of the ideas of modern philosophy, thinking twice ...

lq, adding his "cents"
Tim, to the friends

----------


## Virgil

> The more I've read everyone's arguments the more I'm having second thoughts. But I have always felt that compromise is important. Bienvenu's suggestion of a closed social group seems to be a great solution. 
> 
> Part of the reason that I would like a political discussion area is because it is virtually impossible to discuss some books without bringing up politics (1984 being frequently mentioned). But I certainly wouldn't want to see a nice group of people who get along to be divided by any kind of conflict...


I think you're more than free to talk about the politics of Orwell's novel. I have seen a fair amount of people who absurdly project the situation in 1984 to current politics.

----------


## Stargazer86

> I think you're more than free to talk about the politics of Orwell's novel. I have seen a fair amount of people who absurdly project the situation in 1984 to current politics.


That's just an example, but not exclusive. 

But it makes me wonder, where are the lines drawn for political discussion? Is the concept of certain politics okay in terms to literature and ideas whereas actual current politics is not okay to discuss openly? While I agree that it would be absurd to project 1984 onto any current political situation, the general ideas are relevent in terms of censorship, what the government chooses to disclose to the public or keep secret, how much power the people truely have in political decision making etc. Although, it depends on where you live and under what kind of government. 

So, that is my next question, Athiest, exactly what kind of discussion would be opened up and what would be okay or not okay (outside of the obvious baiting and bashing of another's ideas) Would topics on which people are commonly passionate be allowed? For example: gay marriage, abortion rights etc

After skimming through the debate on here, I'm very mixed on my feelings about it. But, again, I do agree with Bienvenu that a closed social group, or even the original idea of it being in the serious discussions thread under close monitoring, would be the best solution. And anyone who does not want to take part, or who knows that they may not be able to adequetly control what they say if something bothers them, should have the grace to step aside and not participate. 

I'm very strong in my political convictions, though I have never registered with any party (I do vote though). But I like to consider myself a moderate and if someone has a strong and reasonable enough point, I try my best to open myself to it and accept it in some cases. This is one ofthe reasons that I would like political discussions to be open. I have found the majority of participants on these forums to be very intelligent and kind individuals and would love to learn more from everyone.

Oh, and an aside question, does anyone know how to get rid of the overwrite feature on the keyboard? I don't even know how it got placed on there in the first place but it's aggravating the hell out of me!!

----------


## The Atheist

> I think you're more than free to talk about the politics of Orwell's novel. I have seen a fair amount of people who absurdly project the situation in 1984 to current politics.


Unfortunately, we can't do that, and there's a thread right at the top of the front page of Orwell reminding everyone of just that, and when people try, I just point out that it's not able to be discussed and they go away.

It is a great example, because lots [usually all] of the ideas are simply nonsense.

On the other hand, discussing how Orwell would be feeling as he watched millions of CCTVs being installed in England, his England, would be entertaining.

I really think it could be done without acrimony, especially if there's a core group - which there is - of people who just won't allow any silliness and are going to either suggest it stops or report it to a moderator.

Hey, I'm an idealist occasionally.

Being vBulletin, it's pretty easy to limit entry to 100+ posts or something so as to avoid hit & runs.

__________________________________________________ _____


Here you go:

Virgil - as a compromise, would you accept that a single, well-controlled thread on Politics, *as it relates to literature*, would work?

While religion & philosophy are more generalist, the political section could be limited to literary points and still be worthwhile, and when it comes to Orwell and politics, there won't be any argument, because I'll always be right!

 :FRlol:

----------


## Nightshade

> Oh, and an aside question, does anyone know how to get rid of the overwrite feature on the keyboard? I don't even know how it got placed on there in the first place but it's aggravating the hell out of me!!


I dont know what make your computer is Star, but hit the insert buttin in the keyboard.  :Biggrin:  





> On the other hand, discussing how Orwell would be feeling as he watched millions of CCTVs being installed in England, his England, would be entertaining.
> :


Almost completly OT but you know what I love doing? waving at all those CCtv cameras, espically the montiored ones, sometimes I even shout hello, espically if Im walking to work at 6 am and its dark out still, one of these days I fully expect one of the controllers to crack and I am going to hear a disembodied voice shout Good morning back!  :Nod:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> I don't think religious discussion is comparable with political discussion.
> 
> I get the picture that people are much more sensitive on their religious aspects and views because it's mostly their way of looking on life, on their strong beliefs why and how things happen, which is very very important to them and it should be dealt with a respect. Like they say: ''Don't laugh to things you cannot understand.''
> On the other side, political aspects is just how would you turn something in society which would make it better for everyones good and besides; normal and smart humans would never rip someones blood just because of right and left, democrats and republicans or any other political fronts. It can just be a normal (actually very strong ) and interesting discussion.


Just the oppoiste Baz. When it comes to religion, people frankly don't care because it doesn't have an impact on their lives. So one's a catholic and another is a jew and another a muslim. We can argue, but in the end so what. When it comes to politics there is the feeling that we are trying to influence a voting pattern, a political world view that can have a greater impact on one's life.




> I'm with Virgil here: I have not only seen it happen, but also had to deal with it as a moderator and administrator, and it is not something I would like to burden our excellent but oh so few LitNet moderators with. At the time we were ~35 moderators in that forum (comparable in size to the Litnet), and I'll tell you straight that it was a real bind. Otherwise calm and balanced people resorted to flaming, sniping and downright personal vendettas that were in no way contained within the political threads. Others simply left. It also wrestled the focus of the forum in question away from the intended main subjects. 
> 
> In the end we banned political discussions and guess what? Calm was restored. I am very interested in politics in general, but I would be grateful if we kept it off these premises. 
> 
> That said: Excellent discussion 
> 
> /Claes


Your experience is my experience. This is how it breaks down. I guess the mods can perform a super human job of controlling the place, but it then becomes a totalitarian web site and they will never perform perfect justice, so someone will feel slighted and then angered.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Just the oppoiste Baz. When it comes to religion, people frankly don't care because it doesn't have an impact on their lives. So one's a catholic and another is a jew and another a muslim. We can argue, but in the end so what. When it comes to politics there is the feeling that we are trying to influence a voting pattern, a political world view that can have a greater impact on one's life.


Not true for everyone, Virgil...politics are a temporary temporal impact...religion is an eternal spiritual impact. I myself am much more passionate about religion.

----------


## Virgil

> Here you go:
> 
> Virgil - as a compromise, would you accept that a single, well-controlled thread on Politics, *as it relates to literature*, would work?
> 
> While religion & philosophy are more generalist, the political section could be limited to literary points and still be worthwhile, and when it comes to Orwell and politics, there won't be any argument, because I'll always be right!


But I think you can already talk about politics as it pertains to a novel. What do current politics of 1984, which was written in 1948, have to do with anything in the novel? All I can tell you is I blew my top once when some idiot decided to say that President Bush was turning the US into a Big Brother country. Give me strength. I don't feel like arguing with stupidity. Whatever politics surrounding a work that is required to understand a novel I thought was within bounds as long as it's phrased as trying to explicate what the author intended and not as a promotion for a view point. So yes, if it pertains to understanding a novel.




> Not true for everyone, Virgil...politics are a temporary temporal impact...religion is an eternal spiritual impact. I myself am much more passionate about religion.


So if someone had a different interpretation of a biblical passage, that would inflame you more? Look I love my religion too, but if someone has a different way of looking a religious issue, I don't get heated over it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> So if someone had a different interpretation of a biblical passage, that would inflame you more? Look I love my religion too, but if someone has a different way of looking a religious issue, I don't get heated over it.


No...I wouldn't get heated over it. But if someone belittled my belief in God, or belittled Jesus Christ. I would get heated. As for politics, I would not get heated, just because someone had a different opinion.

----------


## librarius_qui

According to what I see, perhaps you should open a thread on "US politics". Or maybe THIS seems to be the difficult issue ...

If you are really willing to talk POLITICS (and NOT local politics ...), you should understand that *the philosophy forum is the proper place for it*.~

 :Crash:

----------


## bazarov

To not to write the same again - Virgil; I agree with BienvenuJDC.

----------


## subterranean

> No...I wouldn't get heated over it. But if someone belittled my belief in God, or belittled Jesus Christ. I would get heated. As for politics, I would not get heated, just because someone had a different opinion.


I hardly get heated over religious topics. I mean if someone belittled Jesus Christ, I don't see the point of defending Him, whom I consider the almighty and able to do everything. I mean why would I want to defend god?

As for politics, it's very likely that I'd get heated as politics highly related to things like world resources, global trades, distribution of weatlh, etc.

----------


## tailor STATELY

As a newcomer to this august forum I've had limited interaction... But that which I have had has led me to believe that a literature forum would serve its best interests to stick to literature and literary discussions (although I do enjoy the 'games' section immensely).

Politics, religion, and sports discussion not relevant to a piece of literature (guilty) might be better/best suited to another forum... There are many.

My vote (was there a poll?): 

Literature discussion(s): yea... 

Personal belief/politics/sport not relevant to said literature (and/or against forum policy): nay

... But then voting is so "the tyranny of the majority": Alexis de Tocqueville/_Democracy in America_... eh?

Best luck to common sense.

----------


## Admin

Let me put this question to rest.

The answer is no.

I will never sanction a discussion of current politics on this forum. I've seen what it can do, and I do not want it here. I would rather you go somewhere else to discuss politics, than discuss it here, even if it could cost this site activity and traffic.

The only reason religious _texts_ discussions are allowed is because we have religious texts on this site (currently the Bible, but plans to add the Koran and whatnot as well, as soon as I stop procrastinating). As well as all the essays and whatnot written by classic authors, or even things like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

In that vein political texts can be discusses as well. You can discuss 1984 without saying current government X is Orwellian. You can discuss Machiavelli's "The Prince" you can discuss Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." A book discussion is a discussion of the book, it is NOT a discussion of current government where you use the book as an example.

----------


## The Atheist

> Let me put this question to rest.
> 
> The answer is no.


Well, we can't accuse you of equivocating!

Cheers.

 :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

Thank you Admin. I think that is a very wise decision.  :Smile: 





> Well, we can't accuse you of equivocating!
> 
> Cheers.


 :FRlol:  I agree. He was catagorical. It was a good try Ath.

----------


## Jozanny

I argue politics on _The New Republic_, and I am not sure that, as a result, I haven't lost a potential market I had hoped to break into one day, as a result of running of my mouth, to the extent that one runs a mouth typing. It is tricky for more reasons than simply the discordant issue at hand, more or less involving a kind of class resentment. One of the things I hate being leveled at me are charges that I *over-simplify*, or that my polar extremes are *child-like*. No one can see that this hits at one of my core insecurities, that perhaps my disability does limit shades of discernment, or if it is a matter of my dislike of putting too fine a point on it, or perhaps both? I am not sure, but I have never been comfortable in ideological sleeves on either side of the coin. This points to one of the virtues of not posting at all, as opposed to researching to the best of one's ability, and then submitting, and allowing your various markets to judge your success or failure thereby.

I guess it is my way of saying that the internet's ability to vanquish time delay isn't always a positive asset. In 1997 TNR was a sort of gold standard--they wrote it and I read and nodded in trust and admiration-- but my ability to interact with their contributors on a nearly daily basis has changed that. They may have an access to mega important sources and experts that make me sit in my corner and drool, but that ivy league polish doesn't make them infallible, or even right, or even not sloppy, or not taking aim at a figure for possibly spurious reasons.

The continuing technological collapse of communication is, in this regard, a double-edged sword; hence, barriers can be a blessing, and silence, time to reflect, a wise caution.

----------


## Scheherazade

*Now that we have discussed "discussing politics on the Forum" once again and the Admin has replied, this thread will now be closed.*

----------


## MrRegular

I perfectly understand why it would be necessary to ban political talk in literature threads, but why couldn't there be a specific place (like with the philosophy area) for political debate? Politics is a common theme in literature and, I believe, that it is crucial to be able to compare say 1984 with the current 1st world country situation or Julius Ceasar to Barrack Obama for example. Are we not missing out on one of the only _productive_ uses of this hobby of ours which would otherwise be doomed as a form of intellectual masturbation. 

All in favor say 'yay."
All opposed say 'I'm an idiot.'

----------


## MANICHAEAN

Spilt seed falling on stony ground!

Barrack Obama / Julius Ceasar!

"Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed?"

----------


## Scheherazade

*This issue has been brought up to be discussed in minute detail throughout the years and the Admin's answer has always been the same: 
No.* 


> Are we not missing out on one of the only _productive_ uses of this hobby of ours


Guess we will have to indulge ourselves in those uses of our hobby that are not restricted by the Forum Rules.

----------


## Volya

Why are all threads remotely related to politics locked? I could understand them being locked if they were descending into what amounts to people chucking poop at each other, but if the discussion remains civil, why is there any need to close the thread? Especially when in some cases the thread in question was a poetry thread, locking it seems a bit silly. 

Examples:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...mericanization

http://www.online-literature.com/for...4-Barack-Obama
^this one especially, I mean come on, it was an amusing poem about Obama, not some evil hate-filled rant.

Here's me hoping THIS thread doesn't get locked.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Because discussion of current politics is not allowed...

----------


## Volya

A witty poem is classed as 'discussion of current politics'?

----------


## cafolini

I think politics are intrinsic and unavoidable, much more than inherent. But insults are a different matter. When a thread is closed because of insults, I think it's pertinent. But I think that those who think they can stay away from politics are just into it thereby. So I don't agree with a few locks, but the one that ended up in insults toward countries deserved it well.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> A witty poem is classed as 'discussion of current politics'?


Yes it is - poetry is a medium just like any other, more so even, some have argued at least. 

It is easy to stray into politics from time to time because it is fairly intrinsic as Cafolini points out, but rules are rules. It is a privately owned forum so that's that.

----------


## Volya

Well, this is just me voicing my dissent  :Tongue:  I'll accept the moderators' judgement on such matters, whatever it may be.

----------


## Scheherazade

You can rest assured that the voice of your dissent has been heard; loud and clear.

However, Forum rules, which are agreed to by everyone at the time of their registration, clearly states that discussion of current politics is not allowed - whether they have strayed into insults or not.

----------

