What's political and what isn't...

The BBQ Pit
1

I posted to this thread in GQ:

Children killed in 9/11 attacks

… and got a little lecture about starting political debates in GQ, as well as an admonishment that the post strayed from the OP ( :confused: - in my obersvation that’s half the content of the fact-based portions of the boards, is it not?).

Note that I get admonishment #1 within 20-odd minutes and the second for defending the post upon the relevance of its relation to the OP in something like 12 minutes.

That’s as regards Afghan children killed in response to the 9/11 attacks, what with there being a big concern (and some discussion) that children get more press than adults (except, yknow, Afghan kids, apparently).

The thread has now moved into tsunami coverage and debunking (deserved debunking, but this isn’t the point) of anti-Semetic conspiracy theory, as well as a discussion of who might or might not be Jewish based upon their names. No one has felt the need to point out that this is either beyond the bounds of the OP nor have they admonished anyone for the obviously political content of the Jewish conspiracy thingy. And I don’t think they should, really.

The fact is my comment has citations and is almost totally based in fact, whereas the other posts are side commentary and rather further away from the subject at hand. (I wouldn’t, incidentally, want the moderators to squelch these posts in that thread as it’s still somewhat tangetially related to the OP and interesting… as I’d argue was my own.)

While I think this is more a comment about bias in perception in our society as regards “worthy” and “unworthy” victims of violence than any sort of conscious, active bias on the part of the moderating staff, I find it troubling. It’s expected as a base level in our society that accusing Jews of conspiracy is reprehensible, beyond the pale of discussion (and that’s good). But apparently bombing Afghan kids is pretty well accepted something that happens, like the tides and the seasons therefore meantioning it is political? (This is the impression I get from our society as a whole, not just here on the SDMB.) The factual nature of apost shouldn’t be judged on whether or not it hits a social nerve… not if we want to “fight ignorance.” The columns attributed to Cecil do this sort of contextualization all of the time; I enjoy it.

I mean, what the hell, the entire thread of “Is al-Jazeera pro-fundementalist?” stayed in GQ! You never would’ve let “Is Fox News pro-fascist?” stay in there, and those are pretty much the same assumption-laden questions. Depends on who we’re calling a looney tune I suppose.

It makes things appear to be: dead Muslims = political (and we can’t have that!), anything supporting the Jewish diaspora = apolitical and hunky dory.

I know you folks don’t mean to do this (no sarcasm; I know you don’t.) But you’ve really got to either get a better definition running of what constitutes debatable material in GQ (I mean, the thread on metal swords Middle Ages vs now? what makes the Stradivarius such a hot violin? all the econonomics stuff - this isn’t partilaly subjective debate?) , or what constitutes “political”, or drop the issue and let things flow. But selective citing of posts that point out perfectly valid points about certain people being victims isn’t going to cut it.

I’m not really a troublemaker around here and I’m not trying to get rep for that and eventually banned.

Comments?

2

While sometimes topics stray far from their original purpose (sometimes rather far afield, in fact), topics in GQ are more likely to stay on topic. This is not an invition for you to dig up ones that wandered far; I’m sure they exist. But a quick reading through the thread finds your question sticking out of the discussion like a real hijack. It’s not quite out of left field, but it is a departure from the original question, no doubt about it.

It would have been more appropriate for you to start another thread, in GQ or GD, however you wanted to take it. But since you threw it in the middle of an existing discussion and was so far off the stated question, it got noted by one of our sharp-eyed moderators.

I don’t think he even yelled at you, just stated policy. Oversensitive much lately?

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

3

So let me get this straight: trying to figure out who’s Jewish and who isn’t based upon their names is more relevant to the topic at hand than my post? How is that, exactly? What about tsunami coverage or Catholics in Milwaukee? This is all in the same thread, and we’re claiming that it’s more on-topic than my post?

I took my concern to the approprate posting area, I posted a very respectful and well-thought-out response, and you took an “oversensitive” cheap shot, one that makes its premise appear to be true if I respond to it. This seems uncalled for, especially for a “humble” Administrator.

You appear to have dodged the central question of my post about what standard you’re using to judge when something is “political” or not, such as why the al-Jazeera thread wasn’t but my comment was, or why negative uncited commentary about a conspiracy theory isn’t while my comment was. Addressing that concern in some way would seem appropriate.

4

We are not a group of lawyers, trying to define the parameters of what’s political and what’s not. We do not have the time or inclination to spend trying to set up definitions of what’s political, nor of when someone is being a “jerk.”

A question about “How many children were killed in the WTC” is GQ. Examples of political responses would be comments about Iraq, Rwanda, Afghanistan, the Holocaust, or the state of health care in the US.

A question about the average mean temperature in the Irani desert is GQ. Examples of political responses would include comments about Bush’s policy in Iraq, Rwanda, Afghanistan, the Holocaust, or the state of health care in the US.

5

Actually, it now occurs to me that complaints or comments about Moderator actions belong in the BBQ Pit forum, so this is moved thereto.

6

Crandolph, it seems that the point you were making was politically motivated.
I really don’t think it was relevant to the discussion in any meaningful way.

7

I meant to post my last comment in the other thread that Crandolph started… I guess I’ll just leave it here though.

8

I agree that selective moderation is too common and occasionally served with an unrequested dollop of snarky attitude. But I don’t think that happened here… this looks fairly cut and dried.

The original question “How many children were killed in the WTC” does make one think that there’s a politically motivated undercurrent, but it is a factual question. It can be answered in factual terms, being reduced to a number. It really did not require any rhetorical devices or comparisons.

Thus, your response had 2 problems… first, it did not address the question at hand. That alone leaves it defenseless to whatever other problems it might have raised. And there was a second problem, specifically that it was potentially a conversational landmine. You might not have intended it, but it really seemed to imply some moral equivalence between the WTC and Afghanistan. And there may well have been, but if so, that’s a topic for GD.

And yes, it’s true that other threads in GQ get jacked about occasionally, but there is a difference in the disruptiveness of a nonsequitur such as “I like grapes” and “Probably about the same number of children died in Afghanistan as in the WTC.” Huge opening for a hijack, whether you intended such or not.

I don’t think you should have been particularly roasted by the mods, and unless I missed something, you really weren’t.

9

Answer also attempted here.

10

If you really wanted to know how many children died in Afganistan, then you should post a new thread in GQ. Your rhetoric would have been understood and you may even actually have other posters actually answer your question…<two birds, one stone>

That’s a no-brainer.

11

I didn’t post a question, I posted an additional comment with links to data, after people had already started straying from the topic and adding other extraneous data. If people can discuss why it seems odd that the media didn’t focus on dead children in the 9/11 attacks in GQ, what about mentioning the fact that you didn’t hear much about the dead kids in the return attack either makes things suddenly take a political turn? One seems pretty relevant to the other, and neither seems less political.

12

I fear it is one of those things that if you have to ask the question, you won’t understand the answer. I never read the original thread until I saw your other thread on this issue. I read that thread because there is something irresistable about reading threads started by people who are intent on pounding themselves into a pulp against a brick wall.

I then read the linked threads. In my opinion, mentioning “the return attack” AT ALL makes a political statement and is pretty tasteless- if not political. The manner in which you brought it up seemed likely to hi-jack the thread, although it might have been ignored completely. A thread in which both 9/11 and the “return attack” were mentioned in the OP would be very likely to get closed/moved to GD because the likelihood that posters could and would respond in a manner appropriate to GQ is severely limited. Potentially sensitive topics in GQ often cause people to have a hard time answering even the most factual question in a factual manner. Where the line is drawn depends on the phrasing of the GQ question, the behavior of the respondents, whether a mod happens to read a particular post (or someone reports a post), and other factors, like maybe the weather.

I hate to say it to you, because you are probably already tired of this advice, but really, you should have dropped the issue at once, and tried not to stir up further trouble. Most of us would never have noticed the inapropriate post, or the warning you recieved. Now, however, you are up on my list of self-made martyrs, and it will be a while before I truly take you seriously.

13

You make my point in the first sentence; you have correctly begun the sentence with in my opinion; to others not mentioning similarly inncocent victims in the context of who is and isn’t considered worthy of media attention when victimized would also be a political statement and, perhaps by some, tastleless.

If people had a decent amount of internet access in Afghanistan and could read that question I rather doubt a post like mine would not have been shared, and probably a lot less politely.

So, you have a list? Like Nixon in the paranoid days, only without any of the power?

Can’t honestly say that an abstraction of a person on a message board I’ve never really even had email contact with not “taking me seriously” is really going to keep me awake nights or anything.

14

Crandolph, if Americans are posting about a subject such as 9/11, they are quite sensitive when someone drops an anti-American statement in their lap. The same sort of thing happened to me when, in a thread pointing out US war heros from the Iraq war, I stated something to the effect that there can not be heros in an illegal occupation. Penis ensued, and I was warned.

The moral of the story is to post by the rules, and when in doubt, to realize that some issues are much more sensitive than others, and to recognize the general American gather-round-the-flag bent to the SDMB.

If you get your panties in a knot simply because you were directed to take your issue to another thread, then you won’t be able to enjoy the SDMB. Don’t let a little thing like that get in the way of what usually is a first rate message board with some terrific people of many persuasions.

15

Crandolph, you still don’t seem to get it, so I’ll try again.

There are plenty of anti-Bush/military action comments on this board. Yours seemed particularly gratuitous. If you felt you must start discussing dead children in Afghanistan, you should have started a new thread and posted a link in the dead children of 9/11 thread.

16

Addressing your last point first. You have a point. Spending great amount of time and energy trying to get yourself moved from Eureka’s List of Self-Made Martyrs to Eureka’s List of Posters so Witty, Wise and Wonderful it’s Worth Checking out a Thread I Wouldn’t Otherwise Read is not worth the effort, and thinking it was would probably be a sign of bigger (emotional or mental) problems than you presently have.

On the other hand, I’d be shocked if I’m the only one with lists like these, and most of the responses in the other thread seem to suggest which list those posters would put you on. Worth losing sleep over? Probably not. Was getting warned about politics in GQ worth losing sleep over? I’d say no- but I don’t tend to post to GQ.
And now back to your first point. You and I have different perceptions of what the focus of the original thread was. You think the context was “innocent victems who recieved or should recieve media attention”. I saw it as “Were children killed in 9/11?” The former is phrased in a way which would make staying in GQ tricky even if you personally had not posted. That latter is a strictly factual question, asked for curiousities sake.

And remember, the fact that “if I hadn’t posted X someone else would have” does not count as a defense. Dex has claimed previously that moderators, like parents, aren’t interested in who started it, they just want peace. As such, your post crossed a line, and whether any one else would have made a post which croseed that line is irrelevant.

Of course, all of this post is only in my opinion, but it is based on my observation of this board over an extended period of time.

17

Isn’t this like, the fourth Crandolph-related thread on the same complaint?

You’ve posted that like, six times!

Move on!

You’re lying.

18

Sorry Rysler but this is thread 2, which was mostly being ignored. But then Talon Karrde replied to it, rather than to the long thread. So Crandolph shouldn’t get griped at for starting another thread on the subject.

On the other hand, the evidence still seems to point to Crandolph not being able to accept that his post was inappropriate, the moderator warning reasonable and the mockery self-induced. So, I don’t blame you for being confused.