No.3768
Recent discourse shows there is unease around politics. But there isn't a consensus of what politics are.
Let's say that typically politics is "the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed" and the discussion of this is political discussion. The problem is that this doesn't cover everything that's been referred to as politics. Let's then say, working with the separation of the internet from the real world, that political discussion is the discussion of the current state of events in the real world, how the world should be and the ideas behind both. Things are considered political if they tie or lead into these.
That sounds way too broad and unhealthily rulefaggoty, doesn't it?
Well, it is. Let's put a clause in there: something is considered depoliticized, so not political, if in a community its presence does not lead to political discussion. This can be because it's taken as a joke, because nobody cares enough to spark the fire, because everyone agrees and it's common sense, or some other reason. With that clause, even though everything has a certain worldview, a certain ideology behind it, you can differentiate between conflictive and peaceful content. Calling someone a fag or a nigger, even though it's linked to RL conflict, is not political because it doesn't generate political discussion. If one day it did generate it, then it would be political. Things can likewise stop being political if the reasons for something causing political discussion go away.
But that's still too harsh, isn't it? Maybe. What about realism.
Certain threads invite comments about the state of the real world, whether because it's directly or tangentially related to the state of a medium or because of some other bullshit I can't think of. This can easily derail the thread into politics (or just kill fun without introducing politics), and it ends up being kinda shit. To elude such an end, the thread ought to be approached with a suspension of disbelief, unlike for example the mistake I made in >>>/qa/40946 where following >>/qa/40936 instead could've lead to more fun (the conclusion of the former is a barren earth, the latter's is alternate history scenarios), reign in the realistic 'tism to facilitate enjoyment. One must also be conscious of posting or replying to controversial ideas, else a spiral of butthurt be started. With that in consideration, things should in average be less political.
The issue isn't really the material or the people, it's the context around content eliciting a certain reaction from people.
No.3771
>>3770I'd try more to remove the serious trash in threads like those if it pops up, since the beginning of the 2nd didn't seem to be too serious in nature until that one post.
No.3772
>>3769Thank you.
>>3770It was understated because if there are people on kissu causing this situation in the first place, then it wouldn't be realistic to say that the entire community is digusted by the practice. Or the userbase if you don't consider those people to be part of the community, because they are very much using the site.
I agree with nuking it to high heaven, though.
No.3777
if we can continue to have this discussion forever well never be able to start talking about politics in the first place and skillfully sidestep the issue
No.3778
You know, at a first glance I would've said >>>/qa/43273 was a bit of an overreaction and that the definition would need to be revised, but looking at /trans/ I see it was entirely justified and even moderate.
I think there's still the element of easiness to be worked out, but I can't think of a way to formalize it and find scenarios where it's present in politics because the argument I make against politics is that it has a fundamental tendency to lack easiness.
Either way, ggwp.
>>3777This maneuver would work if and only if we manage to get everyone discussing politics to focus on meta instead. Which would be fine by me, but it'd be hard to achieve.
No.3816
I am still not happy with this definition. I feel it's constrictive.
>>>/qa/43563 asks about possible reasons behind the populace's inclinations, and the only possible answers to that are tied to what I've called political. Y'know, historical, sociological, philosophical and relevant to current events.
Even ignoring that, I'm not comfortable with the depoliticized clause because that's something that can be sort of known only after a topic's been discussed, so I have no idea whether new a discussion will or will not light the fire.
No.3817
I'd say maybe seperate the politics that people may not even think of as such and the politics that is a source of disdain for many. Easily you could classify the politics that gets others riled up and leans too heavily on activism or arguing inflammatory politics, which people don't like. And the more informative type which doesn't so much seek a reaction, but rather to just put information out the "politics" which people subconsciously deem acceptable, and may not even realize that it is such.
No.3819
>>3778I think the reactions to both posts, the initial one that set off the politics debate, and that post which died off without a soul caring show the difference in what people find tolerable. At least, to the point that if tolerance is revoked for one the tolerance for the other should be revoked as well. While the first posts were a bit inflammatory, they could be seen as a bit more normal with emotion mixed in. In contrast, the other side was clearly more well-spoken, but at the same time was still discussing politics the same as the other.
Also this part of your posts, "Oh, yeah, and here's a surprise fourth: you're racist." could be seen as a bit inflammatory and is what certainly lead to escalation as well, so deletion of both in that case would've been the best option.
No.3821
>>3817You could do that, that's what the depoliticized clause tries to cover. But you find the same issue. You don't know what's inflammatory without previous experience, so anything between commonplace, undisputed and obviously inflammatory may cause trouble.
Like the the chain that started from someone mentioning they keep up with the news on twitter, it can be something small and still derail the thread. The guy didn't even specify what news and from whom.
Maybe it's not the context, maybe it IS the people who bring in garbage over these trivialities.
>>3819I made a mistake in comparing the alt his thread to politics, because by my own definition it's not political, it's got nothing to do with current events. That part is more about realism and it's actually what I wrote first, ended up a messy section. I kept it because realism can bring in politics (say something like "people wouldn't do that because it doesn't fit my model of human behavior" shows up, from there the jump to current events is easy as pie). Happens commonly when 3D is compared to 2D.
>your postsAi'll 'av' ya kno', Ah meh speek like the laddie, but that is
naught meself. Ah kno' full well how volatile that is.
No.3822
Maybe this approach isn't right. The idea of targeting a broad area with broad exceptions sounds okay, but the exceptions being dynamic kills it. If context can change from random users coming and going, then you might arrive at a point where these exceptions are preemptively shrunk for purely practical reasons, because it's easier to manage while following the same principles. Then you're left with moderation nuking innocent shit because it might cause trouble, and that's not nice.
But the other option seems to be cutting the weeds after they've grown, that can take a toll on the community, the response isn't going to be instantaneous, you know how that goes.
Yeah, actually, neither option looks good. Maybe that's why a lot of sites tend towards enforced homogeneity or death? Someone ought to have figured it out in these last thirty years.
No.3824
>>38224taba-style subposts can decrease the probability of politics derailing a thread.
No.3825
>>3824Maybe, assuming they'll use the feature.
No.3826
>>3824Not sure how to present them right
Also won't be modifying the DB for a while...
No.3827
>>3824the feature that killed 4taba
No.3835
thought that was a good post even if it referenced elsewhere
No.3836
I'm going to do something I don't usually do and reference a post elsewhere. This was made on /ota/.
These are the people that need and deserve a place, not people that feel insulted if they can't shove their politics into every corner of the internet.
I do not feel pity for politics posters and I never will.
>>3816That thread already has two posts in it that are trying to turn it into an emotionally-charged argument about groups instead of ideas. People are thankfully disregarding that attempt and the thread is staying on track, which is good.
I don't know what else you want from me as a mod if I'm giving people a chance to behave like adults before they betray that trust for the 30th time and I log in as a mod when I shouldn't need to.
I have to weigh people's desires against each other and I'm taking the side of the nerds that just want to talk about their hobbies and interests and take it easy. The guy in this image deserves a place on the internet to hang out with people who feel the same way. This unfortunately means I have to take a side and remove things that other people enjoy, such as politics and getting angry at things people said on social media.
>>3835I wanted to say more so I deleted it and reposted it... NOW!
No.3837
was thinking on gnfos and why people can stand it even though it's filled with shit and politics and i think i came to an answer
it's because despite, or maybe because of, the overabundance of politics there are posters there that will take the dull reality and elevate it to such heights that it becomes parody almost. not to say that kissu should become more like gnfos of course, but i think that a lesson to take away from it is that humour is a good counter to people trying to drag everyone into the reality
No.3838
>>3836>I don't know what else you want from me as a mod if I'm giving people a chance to behave like adults before they betray that trust for the 30th time and I log in as a mod when I shouldn't need to.Heheh, yes, that's the tricky part.
Really, I just want to discuss this stuff. If it helps you, great, if it doesn't then feel free to ignore it. You have the right to, and I don't want to be Shii.
I do respect the fact you first try to moderate as a normal user.
>>3837GNFOS is a dump first and foremost, so of course politics aren't taken all that seriously. Different environment.
No.12301
trying to discuss politics on the internet will always be a waste of time
the only winning move is not to play