Feedback Should we limit political posts

[ikeo1]

So, will all political comments as well as posts be moved to that forum or will it only be posts and comments that illustrate problems with the current administration?

As instructed, if I miss something, mods can move post if I miss something. Political discussions will be allowed there unedited.

The handful of folks who like to talk politics can. I’ve been busy fighting scammers, spammers, badging and trying to build a community while also looking for ways to support growth without banning/limiting people. We will be having a new AMA soon, I’m working out the details.

I think this is the compromise to give folks like yourself the space to vent and engage with people who choose to and provide the 2A space on the main feed everyone expects here.

My primary goal has always been to educate, train, and connect 2A enthusiasts and build competency and safety skills.

 

[NorCalBusa]

I think a SubForum named Politics is a great idea. Like those discussions? Go there. Do not like that? Don't. Not a lot of thinking or coding required. Maybe to post ya have to have been an active member for 30-60 days, I dunno.

 

[USMC06RET]

As instructed, if I miss something, mods can move post if I miss something. Political discussions will be allowed there unedited.

The handful of folks who like to talk politics can. I’ve been busy fighting scammers, spammers, badging and trying to build a community while also looking for ways to support growth without banning/limiting people. We will be having a new AMA soon, I’m working out the details.

I think this is the compromise to give folks like yourself the space to vent and engage with people who choose to and provide the 2A space on the main feed everyone expects here.

My primary goal has always been to educate, train, and connect 2A enthusiasts and build competency and safety skills.

So, you had no dog in this hunt at all and there is no way the results were at all skewd by conducting an unannounced poll / vote on a holiday weekend and then arbitrarily shut down the vote when you reached the result that you wanted? Out of your what, 25,000 registered "members" How many total participated in this relatively clandestine vote?

 

[USMC06RET]

I think a SubForum named Politics is a great idea. Like those discussions? Go there. Do not like that? Don't. Not a lot of thinking or coding required. Maybe to post ya have to have been an active member for 30-60 days, I dunno.

The only problem is that he isn't including the posts in the "New Posts Feed", so it will be obscured and buried.

 

[ikeo1]

So, you had no dog in this hunt at all and there is no way the results were at all skewd by conducting an unannounced poll / vote on a holiday weekend and then arbitrarily shut down the vote when you reached the result that you wanted? Out of your what, 25,000 registered "members" How many total participated in this relatively clandestine vote?

It’s a sample plus like you’ve DM’d me others have as well. Also because you’re new, you made some assumptions as if this was never discussed before.

I have just under a month worth of data since this started and I think people can tell I’ve been patient and adjusted things. This comes up every few months and I make some changes according to the comments. We’ll keep taking more comments and votes.

The only problem is that he isn't including the posts in the "New Posts Feed", so it will be obscured and buried.

You do not have a megaphone to push your agenda to the entire membership. That in itself is an abuse of this system. What you are showing to me, your goal is not to discuss politics with people who want to engage. The point is to blast your POV to everyone who visits. That’s not gonna fly, for anyone to do.

 

[USMC06RET]

It’s a sample plus like you’ve DM’d me others have as well. Also because you’re new, you made some assumptions as if this was never discussed before.


You do not have a megaphone to push your agenda to the entire membership. That in itself is an abuse of this system. What you are showing to me, your goal is not to discuss politics with people who want to engage. The point is to blast your POV to everyone who visits. That’s not gonna fly, for anyone to do.

That is total F-ing bull! Posting an article is NOT blasting a point of view. I made absolutely no comments about the article or in the post until you turned it into a F-ing referendum on whether the whingers wanted to deal with their cognitive dissonance.

 

[ikeo1]

That is total F-ing bull! Posting an article is NOT blasting a point of view. I made absolutely no comments about the article or in the post until you turned it into a F-ing referendum on whether the whingers wanted to deal with their cognitive dissonance.

It’s not just a single article or post.

We’ll revisit in the future as we’ve done in the past.

Keep in mind. You are not being limited. The people that want to see it will engage in that forum. It will still show on the current events as people scroll through.

 

[treelogger]

Gun politics are based on evidence and as gun-owners we have little disagreement there.

I disagree. Gun politics (meaning legislation and regulation that implements gun control) is mostly a political pawn, with the two sides of the US political system using it mostly to virtue signal their positions about what kind of society they want. Usually with little real-world effect on societal ills.

Have you ever seen a graph that for example shows "number of murders per capita as a function of magazine capacity limits"? That's the kind of evidence that could be used to justify either limiting mag capacity or not doing so.

What little "evidence" is trotted out to justify gun politics is mostly made-up nonsense. Whether it is Wintermute or the NRA's "good uses of guns" monthly column in their magazine.

I also disagree that we as gun owners have little disagreement. I'm very much a gun owner, and my position (that I agree with some of California's gun control laws, but not all, and in particularly strongly disagree with the underlying political goals and mindset) is definitely not shared by about half of gun owners.

We are all here because we especially despise California gun laws.

Speak for yourself. I do not despise them. I find some of them useless, some of the wrong, and some of them reasonable and valuable.

I have never met a liberal, progressive, left leaning democrat, what ever they identify as, that I could have an adult conversation with concerning politics. This being a firearms forum, anything 2A related should be on here.

Please explain to us how labeling "all liberal, progressive, left leaning democrats are unable to have an adult conversation" relates to the 2A. Note that I fit that demographic to a point. And also please explain to us you have you participate in a discussion on how to improve the gun politics situation in this state (what you call "anything 2A related"), given that you just stated that you are unwilling to communicate with roughly half of the electorate and roughly a third of all gun owners.

Posting an article is NOT blasting a point of view. I made absolutely no comments about the article or in the post until you turned it into a F-ing referendum on whether the whingers wanted to deal with their cognitive dissonance.

Sorry to disagree. Posting an article (or a link to it) is usually a form of endorsing it, or entering it into the discussion. With rare exceptions. I could for example post "Wintermute just published XYZ, and I think he's wrong because ABC". But if I were to just post a link to Wintermute's most recent nonsense, everyone would see that as being my opinion.

tl;dr: I'm not unhappy at all with what Ikeo has done, but I continue to see grave pitfalls in trying to discuss any form of politics (in particular gun politics) with many posters here, unless we have very good moderation. On the other hand, if we want to steer the way gun politics is done in this state, we have to be able to discuss this.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I disagree. Gun politics (meaning legislation and regulation that implements gun control) is mostly a political pawn, with the two sides of the US political system using it mostly to virtue signal their positions about what kind of society they want. Usually with little real-world effect on societal ills.

Have you ever seen a graph that for example shows "number of murders per capita as a function of magazine capacity limits"? That's the kind of evidence that could be used to justify either limiting mag capacity or not doing so.

What little "evidence" is trotted out to justify gun politics is mostly made-up nonsense. Whether it is Wintermute or the NRA's "good uses of guns" monthly column in their magazine.

I also disagree that we as gun owners have little disagreement. I'm very much a gun owner, and my position (that I agree with some of California's gun control laws, but not all, and in particularly strongly disagree with the underlying political goals and mindset) is definitely not shared by about half of gun owners.


Speak for yourself. I do not despise them. I find some of them useless, some of the wrong, and some of them reasonable and valuable.


Please explain to us how labeling "all liberal, progressive, left leaning democrats are unable to have an adult conversation" relates to the 2A. Note that I fit that demographic to a point. And also please explain to us you have you participate in a discussion on how to improve the gun politics situation in this state (what you call "anything 2A related"), given that you just stated that you are unwilling to communicate with roughly half of the electorate and roughly a third of all gun owners.


Sorry to disagree. Posting an article (or a link to it) is usually a form of endorsing it, or entering it into the discussion. With rare exceptions. I could for example post "Wintermute just published XYZ, and I think he's wrong because ABC". But if I were to just post a link to Wintermute's most recent nonsense, everyone would see that as being my opinion.

tl;dr: I'm not unhappy at all with what Ikeo has done, but I continue to see grave pitfalls in trying to discuss any form of politics (in particular gun politics) with many posters here, unless we have very good moderation. On the other hand, if we want to steer the way gun politics is done in this state, we have to be able to discuss this.

As I've mentioned prior, I'm also okay with banning all political discussion. That's my preference. Some gun politics could be managed if discussions don't devolve into reckless attacks and divisive infighting.

I understand that some want to ban guns, ammo, standard mags, suppressors, etc. and that some want to free up everything. I understand why people fear guns, reasonably or not. When I talk about gun politics I mean bills, laws, court decisions, pending court decisions—of a more clinical, evidence-based nature. Maybe there's a better phrase for it. Gun law? Case law?

 

[46knuck]

Here's an option.

Allow it in it's own forum, but don't show the threads or thread updates on the home page.

Make the forum so users have to opt in to see it.

Then those that don't want to see it, don't have to

I think you nailed it Bob! I don't need to have this political stuff in my face every day and every time I come here. Isn't this primarily a gun forum?

 

[46knuck]

This is a completely specious argument. There are a maximal number of intersects between firearms (2A) and current events / politics. You cannot say the same about muscle cars.

And to answer your question, I have seen people posting motorcycles for sale in these classified and the posts about dogs have been wildly popular in "General Discussion"

Another day another post blah blah blah.........................

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Another day another post blah blah blah.........................

Guy has literally nothing better to do. I'd approximate that banning him would warrant this discussion null and void. Only guy posting incessantly about how Trump is the next , dictator, king god, hitler, whatever. ALL while living(Im assuming) in CALIFORNIA, where any number of those things are actually true.

 

[Hit Factor]

So, you had no dog in this hunt at all and there is no way the results were at all skewd by conducting an unannounced poll / vote on a holiday weekend and then arbitrarily shut down the vote when you reached the result that you wanted? Out of your what, 25,000 registered "members" How many total participated in this relatively clandestine vote?

It sounds like you’re really taking this personally. Playing the victim card is never a good look.

The only problem is that he isn't including the posts in the "New Posts Feed", so it will be obscured and buried.

Good! This is a gun forum. There are plenty of far more appropriate places on the internet for you to post your propaganda.

That is total F-ing bull! Posting an article is NOT blasting a point of view. I made absolutely no comments about the article or in the post until you turned it into a F-ing referendum on whether the whingers wanted to deal with their cognitive dissonance.

You’re clearly losing it. While I’ve always enjoyed watching liberal meltdowns, I’m actually getting a little concerned now.

 

[USMC06RET]

Guy has literally nothing better to do.

There is no better use of anyone's time than to enlighten the ignorant, naive and gullible when it comes to this administration.

Stereotypical reaction that you would want to ban that which you do not understand or want to read.

 

[USMC06RET]

Sorry to disagree. Posting an article (or a link to it) is usually a form of endorsing it, or entering it into the discussion. With rare exceptions. I could for example post "Wintermute just published XYZ, and I think he's wrong because ABC". But if I were to just post a link to Wintermute's most recent nonsense, everyone would see that as being my opinion.

Posting a factual and vetted article of news, not opinion, is not an endorsement. It is an attempt to share facts with those people who are objective and intelligent enough to read and evaluate said facts.

So far, with regard to this extremely important piece of news, all anyone has been able to do is denigrate the source (asinine), call for the eradication of discussion of "anti-Trump" topics and call for me to be banned.

 

[pikachu]

lol this whole thread only makes me miss the ‘Haha’ (forums only) emoji even more

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

There is no better use of anyone's time than to enlighten the ignorant, naive and gullible when it comes to this administration.

Stereotypical reaction that you would want to ban that which you do not understand or want to read.

That's what you call this? An intellectual in your own mind. Literally you reposting propaganda while you and 3 other members which I won't name circle jerk each other off about how you're are resisting the facist neo administration of Donald J Trump. PATHETIC.

 

[USMC06RET]

That's what you call this? An intellectual in your own mind. Literally you reposting propaganda while you and 3 other members which I won't name circle jerk each other off about how you're are resisting the facist neo administration of Donald J Trump. PATHETIC.

One thing is for certain, my intellect could never compare to yours...

 

[Hit Factor]

When I talk about gun politics I mean bills, laws, court decisions, pending court decisions—of a more clinical, evidence-based nature. Maybe there's a better phrase for it. Gun law? Case law?

I would hope that would still be appropriate in the “California Law & Activism” sub forum. Gun laws and Second Amendment court decisions should be a major focus of any gun forum.

 

[Hit Factor]

I just put my first user on “ignore.” I’m typically opposed to doing things like that, but as a veteran, I just can’t abide what I’m convinced is stolen valor. Anyway, it’s amazing how clean and quiet all these threads just got!

Now, who’s ready to talk guns?