OT: What's with all the politics?!?

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/12/2006, 12:52 AM

I think the lack of V7 at NAB has caused an excess of political posting/counterposting/counter counter posting/ counter counter counter counter posting/ and the like.

What's the deal? - threads that are 100+ posts long almost exclusively about how someone hates bush and someone else hates that that person hates bush, or hates big oil, or doesn't think the war is right, or thinks the war is right, or the like.

Isn't this the kind of crap that got us in hot water last time?

Are we ever going to learn to leave the politics at the door?

"Hi, My name's Dave, and I've posted about or replied to political hot topics on non political forums"
"Hi Dave"

Comments

farss wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:08 AM

I think the threads in question are not only tolerated but in fact encouraged by Sony just so we don't waste time talking about what we should be talking about, Vegas !!

Bob.

Edward wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:51 AM

uh-oh... another conspiracy theory.

EVERYONE OVER HERE!...

lol.

ushere wrote on 6/12/2006, 2:28 AM

enough with the politics already....

let's talk abouit something really serious, like intelligent design...

in this case - vegas

leslie

rextilleon wrote on 6/12/2006, 6:23 AM

I think that what this board needs is a new version of Vegas! I mean think about it, its over a year and version 6.0 has been disected and analyzed ad nasueum.

craftech wrote on 6/12/2006, 6:26 AM

It's really not that big a deal Dave if people aren't actually angry at one another. I saw ONE instance of it by someone in those threads.

I was able to participate in those threads and still get my video abortion work done............................Darn it! I mean "editing".

John

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/12/2006, 10:03 AM

You guys care some funny fellows.

It's prolly not a terribly big deal, but I like to try discourage too much of the hot topic postings, because you never know when another BillyBoy will rear his ugly head.

and the last thing I need is to lose my precious forums.

Dave

mjroddy wrote on 6/12/2006, 10:12 AM

Yeah, those OT political threads are long. But that means that folk are interested in it and it seems to be cool. If it got heated or personal, I think the thread would be crushed like they used to get. Personally, as long as the main gist of this forum is ON Topic, I like having a liberty to vent every once in a while.
Now, I have to admit, when I see those massive threads that are so off topic, I never click on them and can't say for sure that they're not getting personal, but if they are still amicable, why not leave them alone? If we don't want to read them, we don't click on them.
In the mean time, free speach and sharing something of ourselves, in my worthless opinion, only brings this community closer - as long as we all respect one another and play nicely together.

Coursedesign wrote on 6/12/2006, 10:14 AM

threads that are 100+ posts long almost exclusively about how someone hates bush

I didn't read that into those posts.

Just because someone criticizes some part of the government, they don't have to be Bush haters.

I would even guess that the vast majority of people who criticize the government or offer suggestions for how to do something better, are in fact not Bush haters.

I can't remember seeing this phenomenon of describing constructive criticism/debate as "hatred" before.

At one time, many people were in a snit about Ronald Reagan, but I don't recall hearing "why do you hate Reagan?" It was taken for granted that people were talking about his policies, not the person.

And it'snot always "Bush hater" either.

Somebody suggests that U.S. military resources are wasted in Iraq.

The immediate response is, "Why do you hate America?"

What happened to the thought that perhaps these people love America, so they don't want it to go under from having squandered its vast resources?

rmack350 wrote on 6/12/2006, 10:56 AM

I have to say that once a thread gets past 20 or 30 posts I stop reading it. So I couldn't say if the thread was amicable all the way through, but it seems like the threads are fairly self-defeating after a while because they're just unreadable.

Can you imagine the hell your life would be if this was actually a political forum? I can't imagine wanting to have those discussions and nothing else. Seems like it'd take a pretty sick and compulsive mind to want to do that exclusively.

Rob Mack

Coursedesign wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:05 PM

FrigidND had it right.

The debate on almost every political issue has become very polarized, with locked positions rejecting any information that doesn't come from their own camp.

Juliet Eilperin has just come out with a new book, "Fight Club Politics", that analyzes the change inside the House of Representatives especially.

She says the current warlike tactics originated with Newt Gingrich in 1994, and she describes this change in great detail. Juliet is a very well-connected long term political reporter in D.C. who pulled a lot of background material for her book.

I heard an interview with her, she seemed very clear and focused.

Edward wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:35 PM

Juliet Eilperin doesn't know diddly squat about politics. In 1989 she was arrested for purgery in a 1988 testimony. According to Newsmax/Newworthy.com/Morenews.com/ and EvenMoreNews.com.....

nah, just kiddn'. lol, curious on the look on your face before you knew i was...

i know... i'm an idiot.

Coursedesign wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:45 PM

Did you say Morenews.com or Moorenews.com?

:O)

It also seems to be widespread on both the red side and the blue side to think that the media is firmly on the other side...

Where does this "red" and "blue" come from anyway?

In other parts of the world, blue is the color of conservatism and red is the color of the leftists.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/12/2006, 1:55 PM

The debate on almost every political issue has become very polarized, with locked positions rejecting any information that doesn't come from their own camp.

And that is exactly what they're counting on, too! The masses are so busy straining at gnats, they are allowing the powers that be to shove camels down their throats.

Whatever you do, don't think! Don't be opened-minded enough to give any consideration to an alternative thought!

busterkeaton wrote on 6/12/2006, 2:02 PM

It was just how who ever decided to fill in the election maps chose the colors. Probably chose it because it looked good on video.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/12/2006, 4:53 PM

"Where does this "red" and "blue" come from anyway?"

Cuz neither side was innocent enough to be the "white"

Dave

Serena wrote on 6/12/2006, 6:14 PM

Well on that other thread it did cross my mind that billyboy had registered under a new name. Actually the poster mentioned that he'd been on-site longer than his current registration, so I guess such things remain a mystery. If people are just going to throw mud pies, foul language and insults back and forth then there is no point what-so-ever to those posts. To be worth any time it has to be an expression of reasoned ideas based on substance with a readiness of everyone to properly listen (or read) before responding. Democracy relies on knowledge, listening and intelligence. Just gathering around a flag is lazy thinking.

craftech wrote on 6/12/2006, 6:22 PM

"Where does this "red" and "blue" come from anyway?"

Cuz neither side was innocent enough to be the "white"

Dave
============
The media after the advent of color television except that the colors of the parties were reversed (Republicans Blue/Democrats Red) until I think around 1992 when the networks began playing with other colors including yellow.

In 2000 with the Bush/Gore race the media decided to make Republicans Red and Democrats Blue. It's that recent. I was watching Fox News after the 2004 election and heard Sean Hannity declare:
"Look, it's all red" pointing to the electoral map of the United States. I laughed because he was counting upon his viewers not knowing how the electoral system works. He was probably right.

John

PS Dave: "White" is the Reform party.

vitalforce wrote on 6/12/2006, 9:18 PM

I think Sony takes a much dimmer view of personal attacks between posters, and I don't really see this since a certain feud was snuffed out last year.

Aside from that and religious topics (which becomes personal very quickly), I don't think Sony is too worried about occasional political debates. Hey--the urge to debate politics is American.

mattockenfels wrote on 6/12/2006, 10:56 PM

"I don't think Sony is too worried about occasional political debates. Hey--the urge to debate politics is American."

As is the propensity to not enforce your own rules.

From the forum "Terms and Conditions":

You agree not to do any of the following actions while using any Services:
6. Post topics unrelated to the specific subject of the forum including but not limited to rumors or speculations about existing or unreleased Sony products, discussions of Sony policy and procedures, and non-constructive complaints or petitions.

I though the specific topic of THIS forum is "Vegas - Video"

Isn't complaining about OT posts also an OT post?

Just trying to keep things lively.

Cheers!

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/12/2006, 11:31 PM

"including but not limited to rumors or speculations about existing or unreleased Sony products"

Yea - that'll happen

Dave

Stonefield wrote on 6/13/2006, 1:16 AM

.
.
.
.
......anyone wanna talk about women ?

farss wrote on 6/13/2006, 1:53 AM

Absolutely,
and the ladies present are more than welcome to discuss men, not that we're much to talk about.
Bob.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/13/2006, 3:21 AM

LOL - speak for yourself there Bob. There's a LOT of me to talk about.

Dave

farss wrote on 6/13/2006, 3:36 AM

Trust me cobber there's a LOT of me to talk about too, too much according to the misses. Need to shed a few pounds me thinks, maybe I should give up editing and become a Steadycam operator.

Bob. (or is it Blob?)