Should Political Discussion be Allowed?
 

Hi All,

I posted this in the "911" thread, but thought I'd start a new one here for feedback on the topic of political discussion.

Just casting my vote for allowing political discourse and debate on BT2. NOT being allowed to discuss politics on BT1 was just as stressful to me as reading political posts is to others. I could never figure out why religion was a sanctioned topic but not politics. For some, politics is their religion!

As a Parkinson's political advocate, debate in this area is necessary for our health and well being, whether it be stem cells, prescription drug policy, or mental health legislation. It is ESSENTIAL.

If the thread is clearly labeled "political" then can't people who don't want to read steer clear? Kind of like turning the channel if something offensive comes on.

cheers!
Carey

"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

I think both topics of religion & politics were discouraged for the most part , since they are very passionate subjects for many.

A separate forum topic space for it is a good idea.

It isn't really forum feedback it is a topic -
perhaps move it to the Chit Chat ?

feedback
 

I'm thinking that the general topic of whether or not people want political discussion at BT2 is one for "Forum Feedback," but that the political discussion platform itself would be under "Chit Chat."

My memory seems to say that religion was specifically authorized as a topic under the BT1 TOS, but I am willing to be proven wrong! :)

Carey

on second thought .........
 

I think there should be a place under "General Subjects" - a whole category like "Sanctuary for Spiritual Support." Only it would be called "Sanctuary for Spirited Political Discourse."

Carey

:D :p :D :)

I wonder if you all realize that this forum has no set rules or regulations that you are required to apply to your postings.

This is not Braintalk and as such none of the rules apply here as yet.

So why discuss your question here at all

Ideally, we SHOULD be able to discuss such matters. The sad fact is that too many folks are either too passionate or too dysfunctional to discuss/debate in a respectful manner. Sad.

To put it bluntly, if you are not of a certain political slant or just want to ask questions, you are insulted out or afraid to post at all. To be successful both sides have to listen, not just accuse and blame. You have to listen to the people who do not agree with you. YOu have to understand that people come in with different levels of information. You have to be fair.

Otherwise, it just becomes a political war of words, not a discourse, which I agree can be found outside of a medical forum.

Paula

I think we are just perusing the idea that politics and or religion discussions should be moved into their own topic section, instead of FF.

I did just visit the Chit Chat forum - and it is for topics unrelated to neurology- so the above subjects would fit in.

Yes
 

Since everything we do in life is political - how much you pay for a loaf of bread, gas, meds, which meds are available, insurance costs, education standards, pay rates, taxes etc etc - it seems only right that one should discuss these issues. Politics aren't just about explosions and war, remember. Should be interesting to see it all from the brain talk point of view, too.

*BUT, it's got to be in a clearly-marked bomb-proof container.* i.e. a separate forum within the general area. Actually, it's an easy matter to add new sections, so a "Life Politics" section should work fine.

Same goes for "Religion" too. Personally I am not religious (I don't mean not spritual, you understand), I'd like to see another individual forum for that. Trouble with BT1's policy regarding religion is that with no platform, religion crept in everywhere and bled all over the carpet.

I think Chit Chat could be for those recipe/lifestyle/other matters that aren't obviously "medical" but can be very useful and supportive.

I vote yes, good idea Indigogo (fun username...)
all the best

Oh yes, forgot to point out that the internet is international, so US citizens will have to sit through other nationalities' issues too.

not an anarchist
 

I thought about that, Thelma. I, or anyone can post what we like - but there is such disagreement on this subject that I thought that it was good to get people's opinions. "Responsible" anarchy instead of just anarchy!

BT2 was top-down. BT1 is more home-grown. But I think that, as in any community, process is important. We should be responsible to our community. Democracy in action!

Besides, only the Administrator can provide the appropriate place. We should demonstrate the need.

Carey

Get a big padlock Bobby. It would have to be with registered only on the door.

Now who the heck would want that save maybe it is a good idea to put medical under lock and key and let the others run free.

But who wants that?


There is no answer to the problem except to moderate but the choice of moderators has to be defined in a more sensible concept then letting members be chosen to do it.

Whether you know the moderators or not it is not difficult to see the problems that it entails.

There is the the fact that a person who has one disease is not as familiar with another disease as they need to be and it is not hard to see that even if they have that disease they don't have upfront firsthand information on it.

It is and always will be clouded by their own condition and treatment plans.

It is not an easy solution that would satisfy all but the only one that I see is outside people that can at best moderate one or two forums only.

If they are professionals then of course that would be best but that is a costly endeavor that no one would want. The time factor of reading them would be such a waste of valuable time.

I have always wondered about those who say they are in the medical field in one capacity or another moderate or visit these sites. How they equate their professional responsibilities and 'talk' to the screen about treatments and help in general is astounding.

Sight unseen they offer advice with no known evidence that the person even exists let alone has the disease in question.

In my mind that same advice from a member is as questionable as any from any practicioner.

It is not sufficient to have the disease to make these profound statements of treatment that I see all over the net.

Perhaps the concept of a medically oriented view of Braintalk is wrong and it is only a chat area and should remain that way.

Am i alone in seeig the danger of where some want this and other sites to go.

If you can gather a measure of help here or elsewhere that of course is good but if you are thinking that all can you are going to be miserably fooled.

People who can not write well will be fooled by those who can and think they are inferior and either leave or heed what the other is saying.

I do not write well and never have unless I take far more time then I am willing to to do it. Hence I ignore a lot of what is said because I haven't made my point and upon review it was not worth making so go on to other things

I am probably doing this now. But my main point is that the problem of moderation is not with the concept that is bad it is the choices of the people who do it that are not well made.

I could go on and on about the subject but I think I have said enough. To go any further I would have to name names and I am not at that point yet.

thanks for reading Thelma

ARGH.......

When will people just stop reading something if they dont' like it???? Just because someone doesn't like something no body can discuss it???? Why do people get on the train if they weren't in the wreck to begin with???? It's so frustrating to keep reading about people who don't like what they're reading. JUST STOP READING IT THEN FOR GOD SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I know, Catch 22 here). Nobody forces anybody to click on to a thread if they don't want to. If you click, continue to read it and don't like it, then it's your own darn fault. This should not effect anybody's health. If you are sensitive to disputes or commentaries that go against your belief, then stay away from topics that are labeled with some thing you might suspect is upsetting, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ IT! Stay in your health forum where it's comfortable and healthly, and I do NOT mean that in a derogatory way, so please don't take it that way.

UGH........................

I agree! Everyone here is an Adult, we all have choices to make in life as Adults. As an Adult no one has the right to tell you what to read and what not to read. So, if something like this or any thread bothers you, DON'T READ IT! Just move on to something else that interests *YOU*.

Everyone has different interests too in what they like to read or what they have to say. Thats what makes us all unique. I respect everyones opinion and everyones choices. Choose what you want wisely for yourself.

Fee

I would think
 

that the most important thing to worry about on a new forum is organization--putting everything in its proper place. Put political threads in one forum, and label them. Far more important than people's desire not to be upset is the need to be able to find medical information without wading through irrelevant material, no matter what it's about. Simple common-sense rules that discourage thread hijacking and the like should suffice.

ABSOLUTELY! :)

Unfortunately, the world doesn't stop because we are sick. But it takes willpower to let people disagree without interfering or reading it if you don't really want to. That's where the people who don't like political discussions have to exert a little effort. Just compare the hit numbers to the threads and you can see the patterns.

Reminds me of the people who accuse you of watching or reading something and know more about it than you do. lol

Fencing it off and marking it is as fair as it gets I would think.

Paula

ps Ha Ha I just reread the post and see that the word 'unfortunately' makes it sound like the world stopping would be a good thing since we are sick.

One only need look at Yahoo message boards, when it comes to politics, to see there is no such thing as political politeness. Political discourse is just that discourse. If people could be mature about their postings that is one thing, but there are too many people out there who don't care what they say, who they offend, or how they act. I guess that is the way life is now. It is sad, I know it could change, but it would take clear headed adults to change it and they seem so hard to find now a days when one steps outside to view the world as a whole. I know there would be many here who would be able to have a discussion without going off on someone, but for the few that can't help themselves it would be tough..

hoping for the best
 

Dear hmmmmmm,

I quite agree - but why not at least attempt to cater to the "clear headed" adults instead of giving in to those who can't help themselves before we even get started?

Ever hopeful and optimistically (naively??!!) yours,

Straight up answer, a forum for political discussions can do nothing but harm, especially on a medical site.

There is no such thing as objectivity and polite discourse when the subject is politics. Political differences breed anger, and "discussions" invariably deteriorate into name-calling, personal pot shots, harsh words and disrespect. It’s just the nature of the beast, and that beast does not stay locked in a forum just because its name is on the door. It would be led on a leash to every single forum the political participants visit. The acrimony would influence the personality of the forums, arguments would surely erupt, and members could be badly hurt, if for no other reason than from loss of respect for others.

You can’t resort to "just don’t read it." That works when you can’t stand the thought of having one more encounter with specific posters. It is irrelevant in a situation where an entire forum is contaminated with bad feelings, and a sense of family is damaged.

There are plenty of venues on the Internet for spirited, rock 'em/sock 'em politics, snarling and shredding of political candidates. BrainTalk2 shouldn’t be one of them.

TCC

Agreed the emotions would not stay confined to just one forum. Participants would chase each other around and infect all forums.

politics and medical discussions=fuel and fire

NO

there are many other online communities out there for political discussions; have seen far too many discussions become full out war at BT over the years, just not worth the risk; no real upside, unless of course, one loves a fight!:D

lol LOVE it!

How can the things in life that make up the totality of our existence not be talked about.

I am political

I am medical

I am not religious

I am nor rich

I am not poor

I am a normal human being and fully concious of the fact that a discussion can be orderly if those who are only there to say

don't raise your voice,

don't disagree

don't do this here

please don't be so adamant in your opinions

think like me

talk like me

and the world will be a peacefull content cow pasture and you know what that is filled with..

Stop telling others what to do or not do and predicting the future as only you can see it

Bush is doing this and look at the mess he tracks in

Let things happen and then say your piece

There is no other way really

My 1 cent opinion? see below...
 

Dont'/Didn't vote? Don't/Shouldn't Complain...More bluntly put...SHUT UP!?!
Vote Every year, as local issues AND politicians have a way of ' bubbling up' as A Political Appointee I used to work for in a gummint agency would say.
In my region, there are and will be many 'hopefulls' Gosh, read past histories and the fine print. What's presented to you now, if finely 'packaged'.

As for political discussions: Those relevant to the funding, research, treatments or advocacy on behalf of our SPECIFIC neuro causes. YES. As for the implicitity, impunity or veracity of any political or philosiphical stance, I urge caution. Maybe this is what BLOGS are for. For any site. to, by virture of posting positions that may appear extreme to potential funding sources well, it could be ABHORRENT. Yes, I am an advocate of free speech. IN THE PROPER PLACE. Should BT 'a la orinigiale, decide there is a PLACE, well, it's their choice. Especially when and where. [Long as..according to the IRS rule of 17% percent? may be 18-20, it's a long time]

There are many special interest support groups out there, they are entrusted with the 'advocacy' functions - as to whether they do the JOB or not, is up to the MEMBERS to decide, vote and constructively act on for the future.

Be realisitc, Having worked for a gummint [and therefore condemned in some circles] I will say this: Budget plans, and planning occur starting 5,10 &15 years in ADVANCE--For any given fiscal year, there are anywhere from 3-9 tiers of dollar expecataions/responses in terms of need, monies available, and ability to respond. Essentially, any budget CUT [for research, etc.] takes at least ten years to get back on track. This is reality. Stuff has been cut. LOTS OF IT! Unless the legitimate press highlights aspects of research that benefit the neuro commuinity... well, no one ever knows. Put energies, where they are not only needed, but where they can ultimately benefit. Conspiracy stuff, it just that...stuff.. Put energy, resources where it mite be useful. Not to the detrement of any part or whole.
What does that mean? Work fiercely on the local level for aspects that can help you...constructively..Then, work the next level, state congess & senate...then go National..There is a food chain. BUT, IF you don't VOTE. Why bother? IF not, DO you have any right to complain? I think not... -j
Protesters keep note. I WAS really watched/monitored by the FBI, BECAUSE I'd a roomate who was on 'a list'...By posting here, maybe by association YOU are as well? Never know..

I voted yes because I believe some political discussions are healthy and I believe that some political topics should be allowed.

Any politics that are related to health matters - FDA decisions, laws that have an impact on healthcare or funding for research, the discussions of opinions about potential 'wasteful' areas of government that spend money on the wrong things when that money could go towards better causes (such as research, healthcare for the poor, funding social security), etc...

The types of politics that I think should be discouraged are the democrat versus republican debates. I say that because discussions of that nature usually turn into a debate, while discussions about health-related politics usually stay discussions about opinions without turning into a debate.

In my perfect world, there would be a "politics" forum where the discussions would be about health-related politics -- with a sub-forum for the non-health related political discussions for those who wish to participate.

My 2 cents.

Liz

The Third Reich
 

.................................................. ...

Well now this is the limit of my endurance. When a person who is communicating with anyone is treated like this and he is not doing anything wrong then this cartoon is wrong and should be removed.

Keith and I have had differences for at least 2 or 3 years now and we have never insulted each othr like this.

If you are one who has never siad a bad or harsh word in your life to anyone then you indeed are better than me.

Give the finger when you need to but not just for the sake of extending it.

Innocent as evidence above indicates.

But remember Keith that doesn't say anything for the next time lol

for once Keith, we agree.

Which makes me the troll? If so, I leave it up to you to decide if I am a troll. I've posted pretty much everything about how I feel. Judge for yourself if it's troll behavior. I'm not spitting hate about Bush, therefore I am troll...

Thank you for the example,
Paula

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7...betboysgv6.gif

:eek:

Composing myself, as I over reacted - thinking the troll picture was referring to our political discussion posted where it was agreed upon until the decision or vote was final.

Newbie, why don't you identify who the trolls are? Or what you are afraid of?

Finally, if the cartoon has anything to do with the troll comments, I don't get it. If not I guess that would explain why. lol

sorry
Paula

Dorry, the 'toon can be considered apt...
 

in some instances. But, you know? They watch only the front door, not the back one. Been there, done that...still goes on... I believe the appropriate phrase is 'MORAL TERPITUDE'. Where is the gray matter in the process?

Some 'Trolls' seem to feed on the air...can find no other reason for the proliferation of hates and discontents.

Godfather the Nazi Implications abound, Most are and will continue to ignore them. Look where that got those 'believers' ? The leaders who survived had plundered and pillaged and lived happily ever after.

Thelma - who is Keith? Someone who's under a pseudo? Or, more than one?Can I guess?

As for politics at any future BT...Some unlimited philosophical espousals, could lead to a system overload...limiting the FOCUS of politics as it relates to the BT Mission. I am very cool with. There have to be paramaters - delineating them could be contentious tho. On the old BT they were there...just very overlooked. I've always been surprised about that. - j