Regarding the Wikileaks thread et al

[Freuds_Cat]

Every time we have a thread like this, no matter how civil it stays, other posting on the forum falls off quite a bit. Every time. It can't be a coincidence. I think it turns some people off and makes some people stay away, maybe for good.

Dave, as these threads always seem to get at least one comment (usually a lot more) from most of the regular posters (does that translate as most loyal?) of this forum it suggests to me that they/we are keen on the ocassional "world news" thread.
Some of the biggest discussions have been about American politics. As a non American a lot of what is said is outside my sphere of knowledge. I therefore rarely if at all comment. However I do read them and find them interesting.

If I find a thread too political or uninteresting I simply dont follow it. I'm sure your stats are correct after having known you for a while now    but I find it confusing how one thread (which is all it usually is at any given time) out of the many running  is capable of driving people away from the forum. Is an expanding forum a priority?

One of the pleasures of this forum is that these discussions to a very high degree have intelligent non agressive comments even when strongly put opinions are expressed. I enjoy this aspect of the outpost a lot. Its kind of like getting your cake and eating it too without having to worry about the washing up.

For me you have the balance right and I would hate to see it become more restricted.

Cheers

Bret

[uwe]

Dave is just worried about these things and always holding his breath whether such a discussion might not turn sour or veer totally out of control. Whenever I start a discussion like that, he's biting his lip.   But it's a paternal concern about the forum, not an averseness to political thought as such. Mail with him and you'll find a lucid discussion partner re political subjects too.

We have had these things before and they did not spin out of control. We discussed Obama's victory, the healthcare bill, American Nazi party protest marches in jewish neighborhoods in Chicago, Aryan Rand's philosophy etc. I think all those discussions show that - under the ever watchful eye of Dave   - we can act like grown-ups here and actually listen to other people's arguments even if we don't hold them ourselves. Frankly, in this online assembly of largely middle-aged men I find it immature to flee the forum because you've just noticed that someone who you love to discuss basses with is at the other side of the political fence. It escapes why I should not agree with George on many other things just because he's a staunch conservative (from my distorted, partisan point of view) and I'm a left-leaning liberal hell-bent on introducing socialism worldwide (from his measured, objective point of view). Whether I like someone or not is just as little determined by his political views (extremist, inhumane ones excluded) as by the color of his skin or his religion. He can even play a Fender. 

I find the Wikileaks thing not so much a party-political subject as a sociological/philosophical one. It's not a "Say what you think of Sarah Palin, Fox News and the Tea Party" thread which would split our ranks right down the middle. The Wkileaks thing defies categorisation in "left" or "right", Republican or Democrat, Big Government supporter or laissez-faire-individualism-meritocracy-supporter. My views regarding healthcare are probably ragingly socialist in comparison to what most of you guys think, determined and influenced  of course by my European background just as yours is determined and influenced by living in countries with a different history. But I notice that regarding the Wikileaks thing I'm possibly more restrictive (conservative?) than many of you guys who share a - very American, I dare say, and I don't mean that negatively - perspective along the lines of "utter freedom of information, even if it hurts". I haven't sorted out for myself, for instance, whether the fact that the soldier stealing the data schould be punished and the fact that the press/Wikileaks should have the unrestrained freedom to publish the fruits from a poisonous tree go together. I think I'm more "if the data is of public concern and its release makes the world a better place and/or halts a wrong development, then the whistleblower should go unpunished too" or "if the whistleblower had no right to release it, then there can't be no right of third parties to publicize it either". Does that make me right or left?   I'm wondering myself.  

Uwe

PS: I wrote this before noticing that the other thread was locked for whatever reason.

[Denis]

Like you guys, I appreciate the high level of intelligence and thoughtfulness that has been a hallmark of every political discussion I've seen here. Unlike nearly every single other forum I've joined, this one is unique in that these discussions never get ugly. Maybe we should all run for Congress here in the US: perhaps we'd get some things done!

[Freuds_Cat]

Uwe, I realise that when you start a thread with the subject "What about Wikileaks and US Foreign Policy Practices?" Whilst genuinely  being interested in the topic and peoples opinions of that topic, you are also getting a certain perverse enjoyment in starting spot fires that you know Fireman Dave will feel obligated to watch closely hose in hand. 

[rahock]

Like you guys, I appreciate the high level of intelligence and thoughtfulness that has been a hallmark of every political discussion I've seen here. Unlike nearly every single other forum I've joined, this one is unique in that these discussions never get ugly. Maybe we should all run for Congress here in the US: perhaps we'd get some things done!

I definately agree that the level of intelligence and thoughtfulness here has been exceptional. However, if anyone with any sense and /or an honest agenda runs for any political office , it seems they promptly get their butts kicked by the professional politicians, because of their sensible and honest views . I'd hate to see that happen to anyone here .
Rick

[drbassman]

To be honest, I feel like we are all family here and in my family, we just don't talk politics or religion.....ever.   We each have firmly held, diverse views and values and we know, in our hearts, we won't/can't change each others minds.  So, in the end, it's a spiraling debate with no real end in sight and more negative outcomes than positive IMHO.  So, I frankly don't feel a need to discuss politics here, global or national, and wouldn't mind if we just didn't bother with it.  It's really not productive, I don't think.

[eb2]

you are also getting a certain perverse enjoyment in starting spot fires

Uwe? 

I like these political threads, but when the blame game starts popping up, and I disagree with the conclusion or presumption, I challenge it if is wrong or out of place, in my opinion.  Which is probably why the thread locked. But I welcome it, and wish these things came up more often.  (Uwe - start one on the Irish bailout!) I went to a school that encouraged debate and argument, so I get a kick out of it.  And there is no better way to defend your beliefs than to have them challenged.  One of the nicest things about being Catholic is to live among the Lutherans out here, and grudgingly admit he was right about most of it.  Excuse me now. I have to venerate Mary.

[uwe]

I'm with Jim/eb2 on this (but not on US foreign policy and certainly not on the alleged merits of the bar bridge or two-point). Discussion sharpens senses. No, I don't believe that I'll convince anybody here, though like all leftists I'd like to change the world for the (perceived) better, but weighing other people's arguments and realizing that they are not moronic is something too. Besides, I sometimes do change my view on things, even political ones.

Re firemen and perverts, ouch!!!! Guilty on all counts. But since when was being perverse here an issue? ! - )

Dr Bassmann/Bill, I hear what you are saying, but my favorite uncle was always my most conservative one (and I his favorite nephew). We talked politics a lot, it never hurt our relationship. Politics - like religion, sex, basses and good wine - are a part of life, but not IMHO an overriding one (life and death uprisings against dictators excepted), reality corrupts/mellows out any politician of any ilk (at least in democracies), so very often we are talking about nuances of government. That is nothing to give up friendships about. Edith and I disagree violently on Tibet (she: let them go back to independence, I: yeah, sure, and analphabetism, a raging child mortality rate and a backwards class society under a theocracy), Putin (she: a dictator who can't be trusted, I: just what Russia needed at the time and as a former intelligence man reliable not to do anything foolish), nuclear plants (she: a non-calculable danger, turn'em off, I: not now and it's a calculable risk ...)  and child molesting (she: death penalty!!!, I: ... wait a minute ...), but it never ever hurts the bond we have. I just call her "my Dalai Lama groupie" and she wordlessly admonishingly points me to any new statistic re cancer rates in nuclear plant vicinities!

[Dave W]

I would have deleted the other thread right away yesterday morning if anyone else besides Uwe had started it. There's no way it can be discussed without being political. I would have locked it a lot sooner if I could have checked back in sooner.

Dave, as these threads always seem to get at least one comment (usually a lot more) from most of the regular posters (does that translate as most loyal?) of this forum it suggests to me that they/we are keen on the ocassional "world news" thread.

Bret, you see familiar names chime in, but the number of regulars who never post in these threads is a lot greater.

To be honest, I feel like we are all family here and in my family, we just don't talk politics or religion.....ever.   We each have firmly held, diverse views and values and we know, in our hearts, we won't/can't change each others minds.  So, in the end, it's a spiraling debate with no real end in sight and more negative outcomes than positive IMHO.  So, I frankly don't feel a need to discuss politics here, global or national, and wouldn't mind if we just didn't bother with it.  It's really not productive, I don't think.

This. ^^^

We're bound together by our common interest in basses. We've become friends for this reason. Nothing will tear that apart faster than political or religious arguments.

[Denis]

Nothing will tear that apart faster than political or religious arguments.

Or unless someone says your favorite bass is an ugly piece of shit!!!

[drbassman]

Dr Bassmann/Bill, I hear what you are saying, but my favorite uncle was always my most conservative one (and I his favorite nephew). We talked politics a lot, it never hurt our relationship.

I agree with you 100% Uwe, but we aren't bound by blood here and computer mediated discussions lack the strength and richness of verbal and non-verbal cues embedded in face-to-face interactions.  As such, they always seem to escalate and become contentious.

As for my relatives, we do talk briefly about politics/religion occasionally, but we just don't go into a lot of depth because, again, we know we don't agree and no one is going to change.  We recognize and accept that.  So, why flog an immovable object?  Your arm just gets sore and the object is bloodied, but still immovable.  Not very productive or much fun, I think.

[drbassman]

Or unless someone says your favorite bass is an ugly piece of shit!!!

I agree.  I think we should toss the Fender fans out immediately.   

[uwe]

Libertad for the oppressed Gibson masses, burn the Fender palaces!!!

I still don't see what is party-political about the Wikileaks thing - it affects a Republican former and a Democrat current administration, both are (and should be) equally displeased. Is anything not found in the pages of Bass Player automatically of overt partisan-political nature?

[TBird1958]

I agree.  I think we should toss the Fender fans out immediately.   

 

[Dave W]

It's not partisan as in party politics. It's highly political because it goes to the core of different views about the role of the US in the world, government secrecy, the role of the press etc.