Save The Forums & Remove the Political Subsection

[intel-bank]

Nuclear testing. It is purely & hyper exclusively military/geopolitical news. Not in anyways party politics. Your excuse is entirely invalid. Next?

Ive stated what I’ve stated, and I feel no need to argue with you over it. You are continuing the same behavior that nearly got you banned.

 

[NuclearID]

you continue to prove my point

Good. At least people know (not just you) know whom I am talking about. Please. Find somewhere else to get your rocks off on party politics. Because this is not the place. BY THE very definition/niche of this place.

People are only hurting this unique gem (one of the last) on the Internet.

 

[intel-bank]

Good. At least people know (not just you) know whom I am talking about. Please. Find somewhere else to get your rocks off on party politics. Because this is not the place. BY THE very definition/niche of this place.

People are only hurting this unique gem (one of the last) on the Internet.

Go ahead, continue. Just keep it in this thread, at least, please

 

[NuclearID]

Go ahead, continue. Just keep it in this thread, at least, please

It's on topic. Why would you say that other than to dirty my position? Low blow bro.

 

[intel-bank]

It's on topic. Why would you say that other than to dirty my position? Low blow bro.

Read your posts, dude.

 

[Loadstain]

I totally agree with NuclearID on this!

 

[NuclearID]

I totally agree with NuclearID on this!

Thank you by calling me by my new name for the Twitter Handle project. DarkNoon will always be acceptable though!

 

[HoldFast]

If the mods need a data point, I have deleted and removed myself off every social media platform due to the stupid political ads asking me to vote one way or the other.

I come here because even the OSINT accounts I used to follow have become political.

I am here for the indications and warnings that a new international conflict is brewing, so I do check the latest post topics (not sure how else to check the site for updates).

If there is a civil disturbance, I know how to check that and avoid the area.

I am with NuclearID in getting rid of the politics section. There are other platforms for that kind of thing. A few of those posts got super out of hand calling for violence in the country I love and live in.

 

[NuclearID]

I totally agree with NuclearID on this!

 

[NuclearID]

I am with NuclearID in getting rid of the politics section. There are other platforms for that kind of thing. A few of those posts got super out of hand calling for violence in the country I love and live in.

 

[Torch]

If you don’t like it, don’t go to it.

It serves valuable functions, primarily it provides an area for members to express themselves here, without leaving. During periods of relatively quiet activity it keeps members engaged, again here.

 

[intel-bank]

If you don’t like it, don’t go to it.

It serves valuable functions, primarily it provides an area for members to express themselves here, without leaving. During periods of relatively quiet activity it keeps members engaged, again here.

Such as the Venezuelan opinions thread, which is very much a political conversation to be had in America and this forum is at least a place where people might actually understand the topics at hand better than twitter. In an election year it’s relevant to discuss who would be most likely to have certain geopolitical stances.

It’s kinda like if we banned talking about Russian politics and could no longer talk about whether Putin is a bad guy. It’s kinda relevant.

 

[NuclearID]

If you don’t like it, don’t go to it.

And please spare me the extremely lame and false excuse people can choose to ignore it. I have already explained why people cannot. "The Latest" subsection makes it unavoidable. Among many

&

People coming here from twitter are not going to want to see party politics bullshit. They are coming here for nuclear threats, analysis of nuclear threats, and to discuss/monitor them. Something Twitter cannot provide.

Also hate to say it. But keeping the political subsection is a growing minority on forums.


With all due respect Torch... I should not have to explain to staff of a website meant exclusively for nuclear war monitoring, updates, and analysis that... That is what 99.999999 percent of viewers/members come here for. Not politics....

Like I said prior. You and other staff take your time discussing this privately before giving a public response. TAKE months if you need too. However this has to happen if we want to see this place succeed beyond what it already has.

 

[JPod]

&


Also hate to say it. But keeping the political subsection is a growing minority on forums.
View attachment 8234

With all due respect Torch... I should not have to explain to staff of a website meant exclusively for nuclear war monitoring, updates, and analysis that... That is what 99.999999 percent of viewers/members come here for. Not politics....

Like I said prior. You and other staff take your time discussing this privately before giving a public response. TAKE months if you need too. However this has to happen if we want to see this place succeed beyond what it already has.

I greatly respect and support your efforts here for the removal of the section. Nothing made this forum more toxic than discussing political issues not related to the threat of nuclear war.

 

[Publius]

We can remove the politics to a point DN, but only to a point. Unless of course your intention is to make this just a news reporting site. Which I think is your Overall intent.

As far as site traffic. I would imagine it will always fluctuate with the rise and fall of international intensities. Especially if we remove politics.

The other unspoken issue is the disputes or discrepancies of the facts themselves. Your proposing in principle to make the site just a news aggregator site. That is not a bad choice and don’t completely think your wrong. But even in this there will be disputes.
Do we reject the NYT because it has had frequent retractions or corrections, 12 in the last ten years. While accepting Breitbart, 2 in the same time period.
Yes that was sarcasm because even with this decision some will see the factual truth in this and others will regard it as a bad joke.

Forums will always have the flavor of a school board meeting or politics and religion being discussed at the local pub.
First you have to agree on the facts and who’s trustworthy.
I suppose we could all hope some in gov get their wish and see the government being involved in social media and web news taking on the roll of the arbiter of truth.

Domestic politics or not, not my decision. I will say it’s improved my own historical and factual understanding of several issues. Because I have searched out precedent, law and historical cultural context on issues. To help me be better informed and defend my reasonings.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Politics affects military. War is simply an extension of diplomacy.

Nevertheless, we are always open to suggestions.

 

[teekay99]

Some questions for all to consider:

1. This is an open forum / discussion board. The initiation (or avoidance) of a conflict is influenced by opinion and personal philosophies. Even the use of weaponry in a conflict, along with the types of weapons used in a conflict, are influenced by personal positions. Quite often, the prelude to conflict simmers in political debates, especially when that debate is stifled or one side of the debate is consistently shut out. Suppressing political discussion/debate would require a degree of censorship. Is that compatible with the open nature of this discussion board?
2. At a time when many conclude that the authoritarian nature of governments across the globe is on the rise, do we want to shut down political discussion here? Is that appropriate, or does closing political discussion here actually serve the increasingly authoritarian regimes that are popping up around the word?
3. There exists internet archiving sites that have already captured the political debate that has occurred on this site. Killing future political discussions here does not erase from the internet the political discussions that have already taken place. That might make it look like the site is trying to hide certain political positions by no longer having debates in the open. Do you want past comments captured on other archiving sites in the manner that they wish to capture it to be the final record of the political debates held here, or should this site maintain ownership of its own discourse and keep it available for all to see?
4. Where is the line between a "geopolitical" debate and a "national" (or regional) political debate? Who enforces where that line is? The national politics of a country (particularly a global superpower such as the US) can directly effect geopolitics and the path towards (or away from) war. Sometimes that's not even clear that is the case until after a conflict has concluded. How would this be considered when evaluating the difference between a geopolitical discussion and a national political discussion?
5. Look inward and reflect critically when considering this next question. This is not an attack, just a reflection exercise. If the political positions expressed here more closely aligned with the personal positions of those supporting the shutdown of the politics section, would those members supporting the abolition of national political discussion on this forum continue to support its removal?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

There is a certain sense of irony at work.

Political debate between users here is a reflection of debate between countries. Both flare up into wars.

The solution is easily accessible, but not utilized: Stay out of the political forum if you don't like it.

 

[Torch]

&


Also hate to say it. But keeping the political subsection is a growing minority on forums.
View attachment 8234

With all due respect Torch... I should not have to explain to staff of a website meant exclusively for nuclear war monitoring, updates, and analysis that... That is what 99.999999 percent of viewers/members come here for. Not politics....

Like I said prior. You and other staff take your time discussing this privately before giving a public response. TAKE months if you need too. However this has to happen if we want to see this place succeed beyond what it already has.

I don’t need months to decide and your angry thumbs down doesn’t change that. In fact it strengthens my opinion. Simply because you have great difficulty with the political section does not mean that others do.

IMO, You seem to be projecting and on top of that you are grossly limiting free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
I have have my opinion altered, one way or another many times here and frequently in the politics sections.

War is politics and politics is war. What you are attempting, under the ageis of helping others both laudable and wrong. Beyond the lofty ideals, in the real life it will drive down total views and as you know more than most, cause economic harms to the same organization you love. If you or anyone wishes to avoid it they are free to do so.

It is very possible that more vigorous efforts can be applied to keep politics in the political section. I hope that would help you.




Observation:

With all due respect Torch... I should not have to explain to staff of a website meant exclusively for nuclear war monitoring, updates, and analysis that... That is what 99.999999 percent of viewers/members come here for. Not politics....

I believe that to be an inaccurate statement as I come here to see everything, including the valuable opinions of so many great minds here. I do not believe that I am 1 in one million members. Further simply counting the number of unique individuals who post here seems to put you posit to a hard test.

 

[Peter Griffin]

&


Also hate to say it. But keeping the political subsection is a growing minority on forums.
View attachment 8234

With all due respect Torch... I should not have to explain to staff of a website meant exclusively for nuclear war monitoring, updates, and analysis that... That is what 99.999999 percent of viewers/members come here for. Not politics....

Like I said prior. You and other staff take your time discussing this privately before giving a public response. TAKE months if you need too. However this has to happen if we want to see this place succeed beyond what it already has.

I still think the political section should stay. I thumbsuped because I agree with your sentiment to keep the threads kinetically focused. I just don't think the certain political discussions that are taking place on the site are of the caliber that they COULD be, but that's just me. I throw my thumbs up pretty loosely so I apologize