Post #16746 by aquarj on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 7:45 PM

About discussing politics on a tiki list, I think it would be fine (in Beyond Tiki of course) if people were capable of doing so without succumbing to just writing provocation or insult. Just as an example, kahukini's initial post accomplished this, but he lost that by his third or fourth one on the thread. TheMuggler said it well in commenting that it's the quality of discussion more than the actual topic. It's especially pointless when it gets to the level of "Bush is dumb" or "Clinton can't keep his pants on." The thing with religion and politics is that it's a pretty reliable fact that the quality drops fast, since inevitably nobody convinces anybody of anything and both sides just get mad. So it's reasonable to just avoid those kinds of topics.

Suggesting that we avoid this kind of topic, or more specifically these kinds of divisive comments on any topic, is NOT censorship. No control is being exercised, and no rights are being abbreviated. People are exercising judgment when they decide to post something, and it's reasonable for other people to say when they think something is inappropriate - as a matter of judgment, not a dictate.

Kahukini, one little point responding to your logic (hopefully without getting into the left vs. right politics). You commented that leftist intellectuals are the first to admit the historical failures of leftism, and are therefore more scientific in their continued practice or study of leftism. But the continued faith in an ideology despite a priori evidence of its "failures" is in fact the opposite of science. Either such people are in fact zealots and not rigorous academics as you suggest, or they actually refuse to admit the failures of leftism, preferring instead to explain away each historical failure with some excuse other than leftism itself. I don't think you helped your case there with that example.

-Randy