Political discussion

Hi Gordon,

I have rarely seen a balanced and respectful political/religious and often cultural discussion ever on forums. Even during friendly debates things can get heated up, but amongst this huge number of strangers, I highly doubt we would be able to keep the flares from firing. Countless posts on facebook are a good example.

I agree that political will attract more 'comments' but I doubt there would be something more substantial than back and forth exchange of insolent remarks.

Due to this reason, my vote would be no on this.

Z

Discussion about politics and religion, with good reason, are not allowed.  As Xeeschan rightfully points out, it almost always descends into name calling, flaming and other unwanted behavior that is against the values of this site.  There are other forums/sites where people can discuss political matters.

I stand by the policy Julien and team have established not to allow it.

Romaniac
Expat.com Experts Team

I see the OP's point, but I disagree with it.
Arguments, and there will be arguments, will spread to other areas of the forum.

Are we all so desperately afraid of argument? I am well aware that politics can bring out the worst in some people, but not in all, and not always. If the administrators of this website (now expat.com) want to generate more activity - and why would they not? - then they should be willing to allow discussion on such topics as the refugee/migrant crisis in Europe. Members who step out of line can always be suspended or banned, can't they? Of course they can.

Blandness is safe, yes, but perhaps it's over-rated as a virtue in international forums such as this one.

Political forums tend to cause a lot of upset, and that won't stay in one section.
Let's say I condemn <country> for human rights violations in a political zone - do you forget I said it in the rest of the forum, or does it stick with you when you read every reply I ever write to anything?
Imagine an Israeli settler telling the forum how he has the right to live on what a Palestinian would say is occupied land, then tell me that isn't going to be a problem.
When strong political arguments hit the forum, they'll spread to the whole thing.

This forum isn't about arguing, it's about learning to understand and accept.

Fred. Point noted. But I don't think there can be much understanding without some argument, can there? I would say this forum is about accepting all right, but nothing more than that.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical. The founders invited members to suggest ways of improving the participation, and that was my suggestion on how to make the place less bland. I haven't seen any other suggestions of any consequence.

I can't agree with anything that would encourage political or religious argument.
I've yet to see a forum that didn't become polarised when it comes up.

Nopes Gordon,

You just wanted an opinion about discussing political issues, and we gave our opinion in affirmative or negative. That was all.. : )

Z

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Are we all so desperately afraid of argument?...
...
If the administrators of this website (now expat.com) want to generate more activity - and why would they not? - then they should be willing to allow discussion on such topics as the refugee/migrant crisis in Europe. ..
...

Besides, going back to the original aim of expat-blog was to help expat through daily life in another country. There are so many simple everyday life queries still unanswered on so many threads, like where to get a particular document for a particular purpose to  be attested, or even where to find a bicycle rental shop in a certain region...

I think starting political discussions would cause a massive deviance/divergence from the  original objective.

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Are we all so desperately afraid of argument?

Talking about arguing is bring arguments to the forum.
Imagine if we actually argued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Are we all so desperately afraid of argument? I am well aware that politics can bring out the worst in some people, but not in all.... Members who step out of line can always be suspended or banned, can't they? Of course they can.

Blandness is safe, yes, but perhaps it's over-rated as a virtue in international forums such as this one.

Kudos to Gordon for thinking outside the box and presenting an idea aimed at generating more interest in expat.com

I say, try it for two months .. moderate it closely to avoid over-the-top flaming and personal attack(s) .. and then re-evaluate.

cccmedia in Ecuador

You forget one thing here: which political issue you want to discuss?
European or American political issues are harmless instead the politics in North Korea, Saudi Arabia to name a few. Another main reason to forbid political or religious discussion is to prevent this blog from shutting down in that particular country.

Primadonna wrote:

You forget one thing here: which political issue you want to discuss?
European or American political issues are harmless instead the politics in North Korea, Saudi Arabia to name a few. Another main reason to forbid political or religious discussion is to prevent this blog from shutting down in that particular country.

Can you imagine Israel Vs. Palestine, or Saudi Vs. Iran

and a cartload more really sensitive subjects?

One thing I've always seen with anything political, extreme views tend to come to the top, and they're no good for a forum of this nature.

Or US vs Afghanistan/ Iraq / Vietnam / Russia / Cuba / Panama.... Just to name a few

Or Russia vs Ukraine

Or...

Fred wrote:

Primadonna wrote:

European or American political issues are harmless instead the politics in North Korea, Saudi Arabia to name a few.

Can you imagine Israel Vs. Palestine, or Saudi Vs. Iran

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Blandness is safe, yes, but perhaps it's over-rated as a virtue in international forums such as this one.

I agree. The world is becoming more and more boring because of the perceived constant need to reduce risks. We need people who are more daring!

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)

So far - through #16 - the score is 3 for the motion, 4 against, with 111 abstentions (118 views less 16 comments from players). Interesting.

What about if we had a "Take it Outside" thread like British Expats has?

Gordon Barlow wrote:

So far - through #16 - the score is 3 for the motion, 4 against, with 111 abstentions (118 views less 16 comments from players). Interesting.

What about if we had a "Take it Outside" thread like British Expats has?

it's a little early in the morning, so perhaps you could name the three in favour and note the post number.
I only see one... but it is early.

I like to discuss politics, as well as other controversial topics (globalisation, xenophobia and religion are other favourites) with open-minded friends - the more diverse their opinions the better - over a glass of wine at home.
But I'm not sure if it works the same way on an Internet forum.
In any case, it's Julien's court here, so we have to play by his rules!

Fred - our personal opinions are meaningless, since we don't get a vote. As Beppi says, it's the boss's call, entirely. My numbers were a simple poll, and the reason I noted the score was to highlight the fact that we who are debating the proposal are greatly outnumbered by the abstainers/don't-cares/undecideds. My statistical sample is way too small to be valid.

I am working on the premise that Julien would rather like more participation by members. Perhaps he wants to increase his traffic so as to be more attractive for prospective advertisers; I wouldn't know.

I get the impression that you are a bit irritated that I even raised the topic. But I see nothing wrong with discussing the concept of open discussions. After all, this Cafe promotes the idea of "open discussions", it claims. Would you prefer to remove those two words?

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Fred - our personal opinions are meaningless

This is true, mostly considering the forum's management team have always been clear on the subject.

That accepted and agreed with, please name the posters who have expressed a positive opinion to your proposal.

As I said, it was very early in the morning, but I only counted as far as 1.
I'm clearly having a serious problem with my maths, so I would like your help with some basic counting.

As for those who didn't express an opinion but looked at the thread, that suggests a negative vote from them.
The vast majority of people in this world lack any interest in politics, being far more interested in other things such as paying the electricity bill and the many lovely varieties of sheep so, if they've viewed the tread but didn't bother commenting, I suspect they don't give a fat rat's arse about politics, so they're a 'NO' vote. Many others will have seen the thread title and totally ignored it, also counting as a 'No' vote. Thus I claim only two posters (Including your eminent self) in favour,

I suggest watching paint dry is more interesting to most members than politics, I claim the uninterested as no votes, so that makes

Yes - 2
No - 1 585 308 (Number of members - 2)

So, who are the other posters you claim are in favour?

Gordon Barlow wrote:

Fred - our personal opinions are meaningless, since we don't get a vote.

That also applies to politics, so why should we bother arguing about the middle east situation or whatever?
After all, we don't get a vote on them either.

Gordon Barlow wrote:

I am working on the premise that Julien would rather like more participation by members. Perhaps he wants to increase his traffic so as to be more attractive for prospective advertisers; I wouldn't know.

You have to consider the point Primadonna brings up in post 13. In quite a few countries (which the number is constantly growing lately), it is illegal to criticize or insult the government or police in public, including social media and other internet outlets (like forums).  Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Iran, are examples that have these rules.

Traffic will not be increased if Expat.com gets shut down in those countries, in fact it will prevent expats coming from or going to such countries from getting the benefits of this site altogether.  Also, it could lead to other legal consequences for Julien, which I'm sure he considered when implementing this "no politics" policy here.

Also keep in mind, that if political discussions where allowed, it would indexed by search engines like Google, Yahoo, Bing.  So when a random person searches for some political keywords (e.g Human rights abuses in country X), Expat.com could potentially returned in the results.  Then that person would be directed here if they followed the result, see the discussion, make an account so they could argue or agree on the topic (which again, often becomes heated).....meanwhile this "user" has no intention or interest in the primary goal of this site, expatriation.  Expat.com then gets "indexed" as also a political site, which it is not, which may actually deter advertisers or sponsors, or future "expat" users.

Fair enough, Roman. Just to wind this thread up, then... I accept that venturing into politics might affect the site's bottom line, and that's a pretty conclusive reason for continuing the censorship. Over and out. Mods, you might as well remove this thread from the record! I started it and I have now finished it.