Watercooler v political forum (2 Viewers)

[BlueSpruce]

Whether or not it complies, the politics section was removed to reduce risk. Those users who continuing to discuss politics here means they are a risk if they remain members.

Okay then so I will no longer mention anything political or religious, no matter how respectful and constructive it may be. I sure hope other members can do the same.

 

[Jon]

If we don't keep a lid on it, I will close The Watercooler too.

 

[Isaac]

I disagree. Membership length does not give more rights to post than other members with less time. The only rule here is to reach 100 posts before being allowed to post links.

......And you replied within seconds.
Less coffee, less something, I dunno man - just a friendly piece of advice

 

[Cotswold]

I personally feel the UK should return Northern Ireland to the Irish. That would end the animosity. The Irish have a right to self_determination. The UK has granted independence to many other former colonies, so why not them?

I was surprised the Scots voted against independence.

The trouble is that the USA has no idea about the UK.
Before you roll out the rubbish about "giving Northern Ireland back to Ireland" why not ask the people in NI what they want instead of telling them what is good for them? Ask many in NI what they are and they'll say they are British.
This is just not so simple and involves religion. If the Catholics become a majority they may well force a vote but the effect will probably be protestants moving to England or Scotland. One problem is money and Ireland probably cannot afford to fund NI, so the last thing they want is to merge. Which is probably why Ireland doesn't ask to merge with NI. Even though the EU imagined it would happen at Brexit, clueless.

Scotland independence is a joke. As is Wales. Both have populations lower than Yorkshire. Both do not earn enough money to exist. The combined populations of both is lower than London. And they both think they can be independent countries. Scotland is simply a huge financial drain on England. A millstone around our neck and a real pity they didn't vote independence, that would have saved us a fortune year on year.
Scotland became a part of the UK in 1707 because it had bankrupted itself with a crackpot investment in South America. It had to come cap in hand for English money back then. Even today as a country it is incapable of understanding macro economics. The dream was to be independent and join the EU and adopt the Euro as currency. Unfortunately for them the EU refused to stump up to support Scotland.
The main politician for independence had to resign due to dodgy financial schemes. Whether she gave back the camper van bought with donations intended for for independence I do not know. Scotland has one of the highest drug and alcohol dependencies in Europe with their
so called government being the main employer and as country is unable to survive without huge subsidies from England. Every time an SNP politician opens their mouth all they shout is "give us more money". Basically that is all the fish wife Sturgeon ever said.

Wales is similar and is allowed like Scotland to manage its budgets but again only with huge amounts of subsidies.

NI, Scotland and Wales are not the simple naughty England took them over and won't give them independence rubbish story we hear from the USA and Europe. In fact as far as NI is concerned just when did you hear that they themselves requested to leave the UK? Was it actually never?

So many Americans have this fairy tale Ireland/Irish image in their minds, Biden, Bluespruce and @Pat included it does appear.

 

[NauticalGent]

The trouble is that the USA has no idea about the UK.
Before you roll out the rubbish about "giving Northern Ireland back to Ireland" why not ask the people in NI what they want instead of telling them what is good for them?

Dont hold back now, tell us whats on your mind...

A citizen of Gibraltar told me a similar story...

 

[Isaac]

The trouble is that the USA has no idea about the UK.
Before you roll out the rubbish about "giving Northern Ireland back to Ireland" why not ask the people in NI what they want instead of telling them what is good for them? Ask many in NI what they are and they'll say they are British.
This is just not so simple and involves religion. If the Catholics become a majority they may well force a vote but the effect will probably be protestants moving to England or Scotland. One problem is money and Ireland probably cannot afford to fund NI, so the last thing they want is to merge. Which is probably why Ireland doesn't ask to merge with NI. Even though the EU imagined it would happen at Brexit, clueless.

Scotland independence is a joke. As is Wales. Both have populations lower than Yorkshire. Both do not earn enough money to exist. The combined populations of both is lower than London. And they both think they can be independent countries. Scotland is simply a huge financial drain on England. A millstone around our neck and a real pity they didn't vote independence, that would have saved us a fortune year on year.
Scotland became a part of the UK in 1707 because it had bankrupted itself with a crackpot investment in South America. It had to come cap in hand for English money back then. Even today as a country it is incapable of understanding macro economics. The dream was to be independent and join the EU and adopt the Euro as currency. Unfortunately for them the EU refused to stump up to support Scotland.
The main politician for independence had to resign due to dodgy financial schemes. Whether she gave back the camper van bought with donations intended for for independence I do not know. Scotland has one of the highest drug and alcohol dependencies in Europe with their
so called government being the main employer and as country is unable to survive without huge subsidies from England. Every time an SNP politician opens their mouth all they shout is "give us more money". Basically that is all the fish wife Surgeon ever said.

Wales is similar and is allowed like Scotland to manage its budgets but again only with huge amounts of subsidies.

NI, Scotland and Wales are not the simple naughty England took them over and won't give them independence rubbish story we hear from the USA and Europe. In fact as far as NI is concerned just when did you hear that they themselves requested to leave the UK? Was it actually never?

So many Americans have this fairy tale Ireland/Irish image in their minds, Biden, Bluespruce and @Pat included it does appear.

Thanks for posting that, I learned a LOT just from reading your explanations. I didn't know most of that.

 

[Isaac]

Discussing politics in The Watercooler instead of the (now closed) Politics section leads to the same risk. It's not rocket science.

Jon I am glad you clarified this, as things are moving pretty fast here and I'm not sure we all kept up (I didn't for sure).
It wasn't until sometime today, (as I frenetically try to read all the posts and update myself) that I realized the new rule was no discussing politics, period. (I thought it was just don't be offensive).

Now that I know the rule, I will no longer discuss politics. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks

 

[Isaac]

Strictly speaking, for this forum, the specific topic isn't an issue. The REAL problem is whether it is inflammatory

@The_Doc_Man I think the new rule is no politics anywhere, anytime on AWF, period.

Well let's all get ready to discuss what we had for lunch and the latest Tesla move. Oh cr*p, Tesla might be off limits too.
Stick to lunch. I had a granola bar for breakfast, some baked potatoes for lunch, and watermelon for dinner.
My family should prepare for some interesting discussions coming their way soon, as AWF was my only social-media-like outlet, and no others are forthcoming in my life

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@The_Doc_Man I think the new rule is no politics anywhere, anytime on AWF, period.

I don't read it that way. The new rule is that we need to avoid the kind of situations that go 'round and 'round the mulberry bush and therefore go nowhere of any merit,... but because of those circling responses, results in anger boiling over. And the boilover occurs because neither side will budge and both sides somehow have their lives tied up in the topic so deeply that if they lose the argument, they begin to doubt the sanity of the other participants of the argument. By that standard, even a technical topic could be the trigger that explodes into riot. (Like, say, a UNIX vs. Windows argument.)

The trigger here could be religion. It could be politics. It could be one of the UK soccer/football teams. It could be Taylor Swift's latest album. All that is required is a topic that has dedicated but overly loyal followers on two sides of an issue.

Stated another way, the new rule is to remember that arguments that start to escalate into expressed or implied insults directed at members are the events to be avoided. I.e. if you can't be civil about a subject, don't post in a discussion thread on that subject.

 

[Isaac]

I don't read it that way. The new rule is that we need to avoid the kind of situations that go 'round and 'round the mulberry bush and therefore go nowhere of any merit,... but because of those circling responses, results in anger boiling over. And the boilover occurs because neither side will budge and both sides somehow have their lives tied up in the topic so deeply that if they lose the argument, they begin to doubt the sanity of the other participants of the argument. By that standard, even a technical topic could be the trigger that explodes into riot. (Like, say, a UNIX vs. Windows argument.)

The trigger here could be religion. It could be politics. It could be one of the UK soccer/football teams. It could be Taylor Swift's latest album. All that is required is a topic that has dedicated but overly loyal followers on two sides of an issue.

Stated another way, the new rule is to remember that arguments that start to escalate into expressed or implied insults directed at members are the events to be avoided. I.e. if you can't be civil about a subject, don't post in a discussion thread on that subject.

I'll await Jon's response, as the reason I said that is I believe his direct quote was, no more politics as it leads to the same risk.
Could be wrong. There's been so many posts I'm still not caught up, so I could be mistaken

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Thanks for posting that, I learned a LOT just from reading your explanations. I didn't know most of that.

When I see a controversial post - clickbait - I ask Grok. .. It's amazing!

Groks insight has prevented me from making many potentially embarrassing ill informed posts...

 

[Jon]

Avoid politics. I can get up to 2 years in prison for things people say on here. Like I said, if we don't keep a lid on it, I will close The Watercooler, ban members and eventually make the forum read-only, making no more discussion possible. I have no intention of risking my own safety through others failing to follow the new house rules.

Edit: Don't blame me, blame the new regulatory framework under which I have to operate.

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

I'm a firm believer in free speech — it's essential. But personally, I'd steer clear of hosting discussions around politics, religion, or watercooler drama. Those topics tend to attract heat, and while big platforms have the legal muscle to handle it, smaller communities don't always have that luxury.

If there's any risk to the site's stability, and you can reduce that risk by shifting sensitive conversations elsewhere, I think it's worth doing. The alternative could be a shutdown — and that would be a huge loss for everyone who relies on this space.

This is my personal view i have expressed; not trying to influence anyone..

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I'm a firm believer in free speech — it's essential. But personally, I'd steer clear of hosting discussions around politics, religion, or watercooler drama. Those topics tend to attract heat, and while big platforms have the legal muscle to handle it, smaller communities don't always have that luxury.

If there's any risk to the site's stability, and you can reduce that risk by shifting sensitive conversations elsewhere, I think it's worth doing. The alternative could be a shutdown — and that would be a huge loss for everyone who relies on this space.

This is my personal view i have expressed; not trying to influence anyone..

ITA. One option would be to only make The Watercooler visible to members only, even with a restriction on minimum posts. A forum i am a moderator on keeps a members only free zone, except politics. The threads were battles and not debates.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think Jon has to weigh in on a "members only" Watercooler, because I didn't think guests could post anything anywhere in this site. Therefore I'm not sure what "members only" would accomplish. Further, if a member gets out of hand and gets reported, Jon's in the same hot water.

 

[AccessBlaster]

At the very least the title Watercooler v political forum should probably be edited as to not confuse new members. The rest of us have been explicitly warned.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I think Jon has to weigh in on a "members only" Watercooler, because I didn't think guests could post anything anywhere in this site. Therefore I'm not sure what "members only" would accomplish. Further, if a member gets out of hand and gets reported, Jon's in the same hot water.

It would mean that guests couldn't read these posts. Google wouldn't have access to them. A member would have to be the one to report Jon. The forum would still have a strict terms of service that Jon would control. Otherwise, shut down the Watercooler to protect Jon.

 

[Isaac]

I think Jon's avoid politics sums it up good enough for me - we're over complicating it in some cases.

And in case anyone is wondering, today I had hamburger and beans for breakfast.
I'm starting to realize I eat very odd things at different times of day!

 

[AccessBlaster]

I was thinking a good thread title might be unicorns v teddy bears

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Well, let's see... hamburger is protein, beans are vegetables with protein, and if it was a hamburger on a bun, the bread represents carbs. Sounds like a perfectly balanced meal to me.