Question about Political Content

[the white drew carey]

I noticed that ChristopherB has included a link in his signature which is in regards to a popular political group, and I was curious:

I know that political discussion is a big no-no around here. But are signatures open ground for displaying and or announcing your political views and beliefs?

Edited September 7, 2004 by the white drew carey

[Nightbat]

Oh,... politics isn't so personal to put in a signature

It's the childish personal vendetta-sigs that irritate me

[ewilen]

I don't notice political stuff in sigs because I turned off viewing signatures long ago. Most of the stuff in sigs is worthless, annoying, and a waste of viewing space anyway.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think the content of people's sigs is their own business... as long as it does not have a pic or is combative or directed at other members in a hostile way. I agree that a few folks here and there have rather combative and insulting sigs directed at other members or at groups in general and they might be pushing it a bit.

As for the whole "politics" issue in sigs I'd think that a simple non-hostile, non-political statement and a link to some group or person the member likes or believes in is not "political" at all. Politics becomes an issue for me like religion when someone is shoving their views in my face and going out of their way to draw attention to themselves. In the case of ChristopherB's sig it does not bother me at all... it is unassuming, low profile and not that noticeable. Now if he had it up in giant font with a deep red color screaming bloody murder some radical policial tripe along with that link then I'd say we have an issue.

But in the end it is the Mods place to decide these things and us to follow the rules they set forth. If the mods decide that a new law to be placed in the Rules of MW stating no politics of any sort mentioned in sigs will be tollerated then that will be the law of the land.

[Agent ONE]

Sigs rule, especially mine...

Actually if we are to follow extablished previous rulings, politics in sigs is a big no... Part of the reason CTLesq was banned.

[Blaine23]

I think it's a bad idea.

JSA - you yourself said you don't mind ChrisB's sig, because it's small and unassuming... but that's a pretty fine line for mods to tread. I think it's a yes or no thing, really. And I lean towards no.

I mean, the reason we don't do politics & religion here is because our mutual appreciation of Macross has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The two subjects only lead to argument and wasted bandwidth. I don't see why your sig would be any different than content posted to the board - it still has nothing to do with Macross and it will only cause problems.

I'm just fine with keeping my politics to myself while on Macrossworld. I don't see any reason why anybody would mind.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Blaine23

[JsARCLIGHT]

I still think there should be a hard and fast ruling by the mods on this soon, after all the political climate in america is coming to a head and this situation could snowball into unwanted political posturing.

But another question remains... at what point do politics end and apolitical issues begin? What if someone like me were to put an NRA link and slogan in my sig or a Pro-Life link and slogan, a Move-on.org thing or some other non party non cannidate item? To me that is unpolitical but to others it is a very staunch political slap in their face. It all comes down to perceptions of the reader. Overt politics like links to candidates or political parties or doctrines are easy to see, but the outer rim groups and issues can be sort of a grey area. Some see them as political while others do not. Without a wide spanning ruling in the court of MW there is room to abuse, and at what point is the line drawn? Is a item like the NRA too political to be not political?

Edit: And just for the record I neither believe in nor endorse the groups mentioned in this post... I just used them as examples.

Edited September 7, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[Agent ONE]

I dunno... I looked at CB's sig, its no big deal. Its not like the link is 48pt or anything.

I did ask a mod if it were ok to have this sig:

"10 out of 10 Terrotists agree, anybody but Bush"

And he said "no"

WDC are you offended by his sig? I think if you are then it needs to go. If you are just askin if its a problem and you, yourself don't have a problem then I think it doesn't matter.

[Hurin]

It's really simple: If I agree with the politics espoused in a sig. . . I think it's fine and should stay. But if I disagree with it, it should be removed and the person who had it posted banned.

[the white drew carey]

Probably the most offensive thing about his sig is calling the SBVT guy the Real "Band of Brothers", which I consider a slap in the face to the honor of the WWII vets to whom that term is now associated.

The SBVT guys don't offend me because I know they are about as much of a joke as Bush or Kerry.

I just found it interesting that he has linked to what is obviously a political group with one single goal, which is the election/re-election of bush at all costs. I'd consider that a fairly strong political matter to be posting anywhere here on MW.

Personally, I follow the Daily Mislead on a regular basis, but I would never condone myself, or for someone else, to link to it in their sigs. I don't think MW should be even remotely about that.

Sure, a bit of political talk slips by, especially in A1's "The Oak" thread (and that is simply because of the unique situation Ah-nuld presents us). But as has been mentioned before, politics themselves are tricky matter, and what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

Really, I was just curious, since it's well known that politics in posts are strictly frowned upon. Are sigs the loophole a political pundit needs?

[Hurin]

Well, I think WDC's post here illustrates exactly why politics in sigs shouldn't be allowed. He felt the need to respond to the political content of it, and now it takes a lot of effort on the part of argumentative people like myself to not respond to what he said (especially because it was said so "matter-of-factly"). . . and thereby begin a political debate where nothing will get solved. . . but a lot of animosity will probably be generated.

Basically, if you can't post about politics, you shouldn't be able to have politics in your sig. Otherwise, sigs just become a way of posting some "bumper sticker" political belief that comes across as a recurring annoyance to everyone around here who doesn't agree with whatever trite platitude is being disseminated. And, of course, such trite little sigs are even more annoying because, while the sig is allowed, addressing it is not.

Yes, as JS pointed out, there are grey areas and demarcations that might be sticky. But, I don't think a link to a blatantly political website is one of them.

Banning political sigs is the more fair and consistent solution. And, the mods can take the "grey area" ones on a case-by-case basis. But I really don't see that coming off very often.

H

[Agent ONE]

It's really simple: If I agree with the politics espoused in a sig. . . I think it's fine and should stay. But if I disagree with it, it should be removed and the person who had it posted banned.

No! Stop being a pathetic little girlie man ...

If it offends people, then it must go, if it offends nobody, then let it stay.

Example:

If I had a sig that said: "Vote for clean air" I don't think anyone would be pissed off at me.

So quit your girlie crying and go to the gym.

You can just hear me now and remember me later.

www.dont-be-a-girlieman.com

[Hurin]

It's really simple:  If I agree with the politics espoused in a sig. . . I think it's fine and should stay.  But if I disagree with it, it should be removed and the person who had it posted banned.

No! Stop being a pathetic little girlie man ...

If it offends people, then it must go, if it offends nobody, then let it stay.

Example:

If I had a sig that said: "Vote for clean air" I don't think anyone would be pissed off at me.

So quit your girlie crying and go to the gym.

You can just hear me now and remember me later.

www.dont-be-a-girlieman.com

Well, I know that I was kidding when I essentially said "anything that I agree with is fine". . . but I really and truly can't tell if you're also kidding here or took me too seriously.

H

[the white drew carey]

Well, I know that I was kidding when I essentially said "anything that I agree with is fine". . . but I really and truly can't tell if you're also kidding here or took me too seriously.

H

It's A1!!!

He's never serious unless he's talking about his respect and admiration for Schwarzenegger!!!

[Blaine23]

I gotta agree with WDC and JSA. It's an election year, the USA is divided pretty much in halves and I don't really need to drag it here.

As for JSA's list of "527-style" sigs -

Pro-Life - it's religion + politics - double no.

Move-on - easily politics, just like swiftvets

NRA - well, I think we're all aware of Graham's fondness for guns... Nah. I don't see the NRA as being a one party group. I can't imagine that it would potentially offend half the members here, unlike ChrisB's sig.

I mean, anybody that puts a political message in his sig must be crack to think I'm going to change my personal politics based upon what some guy on an anime messageboard puts in his "personal signature" space. So what's the point?

Let's all go back to putting funny slogans, links, and quotes and talk Macross, Anime, etc.

[ewilen]

Basically, if you can't post about politics, you shouldn't be able to have politics in your sig.  Otherwise, sigs just become a way of posting some "bumper sticker" political belief that comes across as a recurring annoyance to everyone around here who doesn't agree with whatever trite platitude is being disseminated.  And, of course, such trite little sigs are even more annoying because, while the sig is allowed, addressing it is not.

Yup, that's a major reason I don't look at sigs. I don't want to be goaded into posting something, or creating a counter-sig of my own. This isn't the place. (Good post, Hurin.)

As for what to do, I agree with those who say that political content in sigs should be banned. The Presidential race is heating up and it's going to be very polarizing.

As for how to distinguish between political content or not: I'd say that if there's any doubt, the mods can consider whether there's a link or reference to a group which contributes to a party or candidate, or which sponsors ads specificially endorsing or attacking a party/candidate/ballot measure.

This site could be a guide: http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.asp

This might also help: http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat/

Basically, I think that 527 committees and PACs should probably be off-limits, maybe some other groups. That would mean that both MoveOn and the Swift Boats group would be excluded since they're both 527's. The NRA has PAC, the PVF. So do NRLC and NARAL.

The mods are also equipped with common sense. A simple test is, if you talk to someone about their sig and they start crying about political censorship, chances are it was political.

Whatever people see on Macross World isn't going to affect the fate of the Republic; there are plenty of other venues for political discussion and advertising elsewhere on the net, on editorial pages, at the water cooler, talk radio, etc. Let's try to focus on Macross. There's no great need for anyone to grind their political ax here.

[yellowlightman]

NRA - well, I think we're all aware of Graham's fondness for guns... Nah. I don't see the NRA as being a one party group. I can't imagine that it would potentially offend half the members here, unlike ChrisB's sig.

Hey, I'm personally offended by the idea of firearms. Don't put your labels on me!

The way I see it, sigs are still part of the message board... No reason to let them have political stuff. Ultimately, I'd say err on the side of caution and just prohibit any and all things that could be construed as politically-related. Playing it safe won't offend anybody, and for crying out loud this is Macross World not Macross and the Fan's Who Like Macross' Personal Views World.

[Agent ONE]

...

Hey, I'm personally offended by the idea of firearms. Don't put your labels on me!

....

I only like guns when they kill innocent people.

[ewilen]

I'd say err on the side of caution and just prohibit any and all things that could be construed as politically-related. Playing it safe won't offend anybody, and for crying out loud this is Macross World not Macross and the Fan's Who Like Macross' Personal Views World.

Hmmm. Problem is, there's some stuff that borders on political, like some of the comments that come up when we're talking about military aircraft procurement and such. I'd hate to see that go.

And for that matter, I don't think there's a problem with occasional airing of opinions, not to argue, but just to say where you stand. It's more of an issue when people make political claims or assertions in a fashion that invites or provokes a response.

Hate to say it, because it's such a subjective standard, but maybe the litmus test in borderline cases should indeed be whether someone is offended enough to complain.

I mean, if I put a link to the ASPCA web site...it seems pretty innocuous, but there are people who consider the ASPCA to be a radical "animal rights" organization equivalent to PETA. Regardless of what I think of people who see things that way, I'd have to admit that (a) since they do, it's a political issue, and (b) it has nothing to do with Macross, sci-fi, or anime. So I think it'd be appropriate for a mod to tell me to get rid of the link if there was a complaint.

Thinking about all this, I've got to say, I don't want to be a mod.

[Agent ONE]

Incase you guys missed it before:

www.dont-be-a-girlieman.com

[ewilen]

Meh.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think I used too obvious of political groups in my second post but Ewilen illustrated it much better with his use of the ASPCA. There are tons of relatively nice and philanthropic groups out there that do a lot of good but also carry a very heavy "political" stigma about them.

To quote Hicks from Aliens: Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Or in backwards speak: allow no links to any "groups" at all in sigs.

It is being far too politically correct but that is all some people understand sometimes. Eliminate everyone's speach in order to protect someone else's. One man's "fun and games" is always another man's political or socio hotbutton. This thread (and the scores like it in the past) have shown me time and again that lots of MW members very staunchly disagree with many of my own personal views, even to the point of attack... and if I were to put links or slogans from what I consider to be "potentially political" things in my sig then who is to say they will not be insulted or feel the need to attack me and my views? And on the flip side who is to say someone else will not put in something I really, really get set off by and that I will want to confront? Hell, this extends to all the "assualt" sigs I see and many of the other insult and ridicule sigs there are.

The main question still remains: at what point is the line drawn? Seeing as no mods or admins have posted here I can assume they are summing the argument and will post a response. We can only hope it is a judicious one that does not curtail the style of sigs we can have too drastically.

Because I really want to post an anti-dogs, pro-cats sig but someone will be insulted by it.

[ChristopherB]

It's definitely not meant to be political, so let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Although I did not anticipate such a response from such a small group of non-supportive people, I do now recognize that during this politically heightened atmosphere, that the aforementioned individuals have unfortunately taken offense with my innocuous and modest reference. Please read on as I attempt to assuage the fragile egos of the miniscule group who interpreted something completely foreign to the motive of the creator. (Sarcasm aside, the number of those making an issue does not dimish their inherent validity. )

I'm a military veteran and proud of that, and one of my family members served on a swift boat in Vietnam. He's a member of Swift Boat Veterans, which has no political affiliation whatsoever. Not that it matters, but he doesn't support GB.

I cannot control what you personally associate with the group, but for me it is nothing more than a non-profit veterans' organization, anything beyond that is purely conjecture and speculation. Argument one way or the other will constitute political debate, which is not allowed.

Last time I checked, there is nothing wrong with being pro-veteran.

While I'm at it, I also support www.DAV.org (Disabled American Veterans), which I'm a member of. They are also a non-profit group, with a legislative section, but they also have no political association. Let's not forget the American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Veterans' of Foreign Wars.

By the way, I do not have a "link" in my thread. I have a combination of letters, which spell something. Try clicking on it, and you won't get anywhere. You would have to copy and paste it into your browser.

Let's not argue, but I work for the VA and help hundreds of disabled WWII veterans every year. Just because some movie coined the term, "Band of Brothers" does not mean that WWII veterans associate it with themselves, and immediately become offended by it's use. They are dying by the thousands, and were called the Greatest Generation for a reason. Unless you polled a bunch of WWII veterans, you shouldn't assume that they are offended by something, which I personally know they aren't.

A completely innocent reference to a veteran's group has resulted in a waste of a lot of time and energy in my humble opinion. There is a lot more important things to worry about and discuss. People should not assume and make an ass out of themselves.

I appreciate the fact that in our society nowadays, there is unfortunately the propensity to offend anyone, just by saying just about anything, no matter how hard you try to be politically correct. In light of the fact that some overly sensitive individuals might miscontrue my signature due to their own preconceived bias, I have changed my signature voluntarily. I'm all about community as validated by my longstanding membership here without any problems or one single comment by a moderator. I fear that one day our society will become that which was foretold by George Orwell.

Edited September 8, 2004 by ChristopherB

[ewilen]

(Nevermind--posted before ChristopherB edited his post.)

Edited September 8, 2004 by ewilen

[JsARCLIGHT]

If it makes any difference here I myself am also a vet and am also active in veterains' affairs in my area (albeit not to your level). I myself took no offence or political slant to your sig but I think the issue we stumbled upon is that some people do.

To me, this is the same issue MW has every five weeks or so in that one member posts or types something seemingly innocent that some other member just blows waaaaaay out of proportion followed by the typical debaters of policy and law (such as myself) who step in and muse the grey areas of a topic that may or may not have any signifigance any longer. In this world we live in I could say "I likes me some black jellybeans" and someone out there will think to themselves "Ronald Regan also professed such love for black jellybeans ergo this man must be pro-Regan and forcing his views on me!". It just so happens that the mass media got ahold of that particular group you had and turned them into a political football... the same thing could happen to anything in this day and age. Tomorrow one of the cannidates could come out and say something crass like "I likes me some Peach Pie" and some group will rise up called "Moms who make Peach Pie against -blank-" and BAM you have a political hotbutton topic about even the remote mention of peach pie. But it does not stop at politics, it happens all the time with other such "he said, she saids" that arise.

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to believe that the membership in general just needs to "keep it under out hat" rather than step out into the ledge all the time. My usualy rule of thumb when posting on the internet is to only post what I'm thinking about at the time and nothing more... try to keep it on topic and away from societal landmines. UNLESS someone or something just gets my goat. The problem is that everyone has that goat that eventually gets gotten (bad english, I know). After the mods come back with their ruling (peeks into jury room) perhaps we should all just double think before posting or inserting things that could be taken very very badly by others. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[ChristopherB]

It's a masterpiece in progess, my apologies.

[ChristopherB]

JsARCLIGHT,

Not sure if you saw it, but I mentioned the same in my post.

Perhaps I added it while you were still typing. Here it is:

"I do now recognize that during this politically heightened atmosphere, that the aforementioned individuals have unfortunately taken offense with my innocuous and modest reference."

Sincerely,

Christopher

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think we hit enter at the same time.

[ewilen]

Okay, some of us might want to continue this thread but regardless of any residual commentary, the main point has been dealt with. Unless and until the mods step in with an official ruling.

[Nightbat]

Incase you guys missed it before:

www.dont-be-a-girlieman.com

LOVE IT!

[ChristopherB]

Yeah, the thread is moot now I suppose, because I did the easy thing, and probably the right thing by just changing my signature.

As long as I've been here, no one needs to preach to me about the "way" MW should operate, but this is not a vacuum.

For now on, the starter of this thread should try something simple, and that's the PM. If he had a problem he should have contacted me like a man, and said something.

I did the right thing on my own and although I did not agree and changed my signature. It takes a lot of courage and fortitude to acknowledge that you might have accidentally offended someone with an innocent signature, and then voluntarily change it.

In my honest to God opinion, if someone had a problem they should have PM'ed me. You're nothing buy a whiny little girly man who started a thread and wasted a lot of time that could have been easily addressed by short simple and courteous message, but no, you had to start a crusade. You should always address things at the lowest level, and man to man, but that's kinda hard when you're not one, isn't it?

Anyway, if you're intention was to find out the answer to a generic question, "Are references to non-profit veterans groups with politcal stigmas allowed?" All you had to was PM a moderator. But once again, you had an axe to grind and wanted to make a point.

I don't hold grudges, but I hope you'll make an effort in the future to contact the person personally that you want to "bitch" about, try to resolve it like fellow MW fans, and if that fails contact a Moderator via PM. If you have a generic policy question, just pose the question in a non-specific manner, and get your answer.

So, I guess that means I'll be using the leave I've saved up to travel out to where the "White Drew Carey" lives, because....I'M CALLING YOU OUT!!!

Seriously though, it pisses me off, because there was no need to start this stupid thread, when no one even bothered to have the decency to contact me first. Only p*ssies do sh*t like that in my opinion.

Edited September 8, 2004 by ChristopherB

[ewilen]

Sneh.

Edited September 8, 2004 by ewilen

[the white drew carey]

ChrisB- as I've stated before, it wasn't the content of your sig which offended me. It just piqued my interest in this matter. As I have noted that people have included possibly "incorrect" links and info in their sigs before, yours just made me finally get up off of my ass and ask the Mods about it (curiously, none of which replied at all, seemingly letting MW's members sort it out for themselves.)

That is the main reason I posted here for all to see instead of PM'ing you. This was never a personal battle between you and I. The content of your sig simply spurred me to ask the question that's been in the back of my mind for quite a while.

[GreatMoose]

You know, I've never really noticed it before, but people on this board get offended WAAAAAAY too easily (or worry about others being offended WAAAAY too much). People don't always agree. Deal with it. It's part of what makes us who we are. If I have a link in my sig to (for example) www.michaelmooreisabigfathairywoman.com, you at least know where I'm coming from. It's just life. Maybe we SHOULD allow political/relegious/whatever content in our sigs, just so people will grow a spine and lighten up. Maybe not. I'm just brain-farting here. Anyway, have a nice day.

[the white drew carey]

You know, I've never really noticed it before, but people on this board get offended WAAAAAAY too easily (or worry about others being offended WAAAAY too much).  People don't always agree.  Deal with it.  It's part of what makes us who we are.  If I have a link in my sig to (for example) www.michaelmooreisabigfathairywoman.com, you at least know where I'm coming from.  It's just life.  Maybe we SHOULD allow political/relegious/whatever content in our sigs, just so people will grow a spine and lighten up.  Maybe not.  I'm just brain-farting here.  Anyway, have a nice day.

I surely hoope you are not referring to me?

I have not once stated that the original link in ChrisB's thread offended me and, therefore, he should have removed it. All I've done is stated my opinion on the group itself when A1 asked if it offended me.

The intent of this thread is simply the broader question of politics in posts vs. politics in sigs.

In fact, you'll notice that I have never given my opinion on the matter itself. But I guess I should now:

I think it should be OK to post political items in your sigs, and I think that, in general political discussion should be permitted, given that it falls under one of the set MW catagories.

But I was curious if the "no politics" rule, in it's general vagueness, was being broken or bent, by including politics in the one place that is not generally open for discussion (ie- your sig).

edit- I accidentally called ChrisB "her" instead of "he"

Edited September 9, 2004 by the white drew carey