Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Your input requested – How should “Controversial Topics” be handled?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 17621 reads   134 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 134 total)
  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 05:25pm

    #1

    DrKrbyLuv

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 10 2008

    Posts: 354

    count placeholder

    Your input requested – How should “Controversial Topics” be handled?

Background: 

Moderator Jason said:  We are not interested in silencing discussion among veteran users, or in squelching free investigation of new theories and ideas.  But we believe it is at least reasonable that there should be order to the way that the website is presented, particularly to new users.  Creating different folders for different types of discussions is part of this process.

Discussion on this is more than welcome.  All ideas will be considered.  If anybody wanted to create a thread in the main forums to discuss the pro’s and con’s of how information can be effectively arranged on the site, that might be an excellent idea.

Site missions:  (Defined by Jason)

  1. Have the Crash Course viewed as widely as possible
  2. Move people towards personal responsibility for the future and actions

Definition of a controversial topic:

Moderator Jason said:  The current plan is that in the future, the moderators will allow new threads covering the following topics to be created only in the CT folder:

  • Guns
  • Religion
  • Global conspiracy theories
  • Global Warming
  • 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
  • Other things which are possibly interesting but not directly related to the mission(s) of the site

Opening comments:

It is a difficult balancing act for a mission oriented website, like this, to promote a message while allowing unbridled free speech.  The credibility of the CC message is something that we all want to enhance and protect especially with new people.

Many of us agree and support the CM message and also want a forum to discuss controversial subjects as part of our preparation.  For some of us, controversial topics are an integral part of understanding the "how and why."     

So, what might be done to allow some of these "advanced" (controversial) discussions while still protecting this forum?  Is it possible?

My suggestion:

First, I welcome our opportunity to provide some input on this matter and I accept whatever management deems as a "controversial topic."  I agree that controversial topics should be partitioned by a warning and a disclaimer.  But I don’t think it should be hidden at the bottom of the forum page.

Why not move "Controversial Topics" link bar directly underneath the "General Discussion and Questions" category.  This allows us to easily monitor the category while still being partitioned with a disclaimer.

And I suggest that the Enrolled Members Only category should be moved to the top.  In case you haven’t tried it yet, this is the best part of the website (assuming you have graduated from the CC).  Real time analysis that you will not get anywhere else.  I’ve learned a ton watching the heavy hitters react and analyze events with Chris.

 

Your comments are greatly appreciated in advance…

Larry

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 08:44pm

    #2
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

Personally, I find the emphasis on polite discourse to be a bit stifling, but helpful in some situations. The forums would be much more active and well attended if these rules were less rigid. Perhaps that isn’t the goal of the site, in which case, I would have to retract that statement.

As far as the CT file goes, it should be more immediately obvious to those who first encounter the site. I imagine new viewers who read this site, notice the lack of apparent interest in the 911 subject, for instance, and simply move on. Rather than the content of the site being tarnished by a perception of "kookiness", it might be seen as being out of the loop, excessively conservative, and tragically unhip. It’s too bad, because, if this is the case,  perception  management  is lagging the demographic reality, rather than keeping up with it.  Most people in the U.S. are conspiracy theorists now, and are interested in discussing it. The site shouldn’t be creating a ghetto for these kinds of topic/topics, but a site that attracts discussion of such, along with people who have background, experience, and can articulate how covert programs actually work, to illuminate the rest of you/us.

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 08:49pm

    #3
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

I think that, as far as rules go, if people can take someone to task colourfully, their input should be allowed. If HL Mencken were on this site with Warren Harding, he would be severly reprimanded and his description of Warren Harding’s speeches wouldn’t be allowed. This would be deleted, and it would be a shame:

"It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up to the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 08:59pm

    #4
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

 no offence agitating prop, you made use of some interesting lines and a bit decorative quotes embellished with poetic style

but i think i dont quite trace the gist out of summation in all of your wording, would you be bit speciefic in points or point that you are trying to outline

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 09:46pm

    #5
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

I agree wholeheartedly with Moderator Jason.

Anything that gets peoples blood pressure up should be kept seperate from the main message of the Crash Course.
All of the topics listed represent topics that when viewed represent a political orientation, and it is my belief that the Crash Course and it’s corollary discussions should be kept as politically neutral as possible; obviously not entirely possible, considering the bi-partisan efforts to relieve us of the heavy burden of our bank accounts.

In addition, it’ll foster good discipline and keep the conversations cordial and mature, with a "drinking table" for all the other topics.
When Joe2Baba suggested we move the Definitive Firearms Thread, I agreed wholeheartedly.

My basic thinking is if I wouldn’t discuss it around the dinner table with guests, I’d probably save it for a "special" venue.
That said, people are interested in these topics, and they should be banished with a broad brush.
Perhaps several smaller "subforums" dedicated to certain lines of conversation would be beneficial, such as the Markets section is divided into regions etc.

Cheers,

Aaron

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 11:50pm

    #6
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

[quote=kelvinetts]

 no offence agitating prop, you made use of some interesting lines and a bit decorative quotes embellished with poetic style

but i think i dont quite trace the gist out of summation in all of your wording, would you be bit speciefic in points or point that you are trying to outline

[/quote]

If you could be more specific about what you didn’t understand I can try to explain it further.

Forums offer people the opportunity to do what is never done in popular culture, and that is to write as well as they can.  It’s most appropriate when handling someone who has been offensive, boorish, or purposely twisted your words. Controversial topics like "conspiracy theory" are matters best handled with reason, rather than being consigned to a place on the forum that seems to purposely obscure them. I think readership would increase if the forums were a bit more free…that doesn’t have to translate to a wasp’s nest of ranting lunatics.

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 11:51pm

    #7
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

You asked for input, so here it goes:

1) The Definitive Firearm Thread should not be lumped in with the other Controversial Topics. Though I’m not pro-gun by any measure, and will probably never purchase a firearm, I have never found a more mature and informative conservation about firearms in my life. Even though guns are controversial by nature, the firearm thread is something this site should be proud of, not hide from view. And its relevant to the general discussion of taking action and making preparations because what good does it do a person to prepare his or her family if they have no means of protecting their way of life.

2) Though in the past I have been quite the collector of Conspiracy Theories (CT) because I find it fascinating, it ultimately holds no value to me than just entertainment. Its my experience that in most people, CTs elicit emotional reactions that in turn lead to dumb decisions. Not to mention that I see new posters often ridiculed by older posters because their post implied a lack of understanding of the "latest" CT speculation. Nobody wants to look stupid, especially if they are new to a community. To me, the stupid ones are those that allow themselves to become involved in this speculation to the extent that its no longer just entertainment to them. I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time, energy, and health. Whether its true or not, what can you do about it? Nothing. Therefore I think the site should segregate this speculation.

3) As for the rest of the controversial topics I have no opinion.

 

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2009 - 11:58pm

    #8
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

[quote=Aaron Moyer]

I agree wholeheartedly with Moderator Jason.

Anything that gets peoples blood pressure up should be kept seperate from the main message of the Crash Course.
All of the topics listed represent topics that when viewed represent a political orientation, and it is my belief that the Crash Course and it’s corollary discussions should be kept as politically neutral as possible; obviously not entirely possible, considering the bi-partisan efforts to relieve us of the heavy burden of our bank accounts.

In addition, it’ll foster good discipline and keep the conversations cordial and mature, with a "drinking table" for all the other topics.
When Joe2Baba suggested we move the Definitive Firearms Thread, I agreed wholeheartedly.

My basic thinking is if I wouldn’t discuss it around the dinner table with guests, I’d probably save it for a "special" venue.
That said, people are interested in these topics, and they should be banished with a broad brush.
Perhaps several smaller "subforums" dedicated to certain lines of conversation would be beneficial, such as the Markets section is divided into regions etc.

Cheers,

Aaron

[/quote]

It could be like a polite dinner table conversation, or it could be like a visit to a mausoleum. You have to attract people to a site by allowing a little liveliness in…but I agree you have to draw the line somewhere. For my tastes, and I’m sure I speak for many, the lines are way too tightly drawn here.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2009 - 12:04am

    #9
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

Ok my $0.02

It’s Chris site, he makes the rules, it’s not a democracy.

Controversial is in the eye of the beholder, personally I would discuss firearms around the dinner table, and probably a lot more controversial subjects, the Constitution, politics, religion, the best recipe for pineapple upside down cake, people don’t sit at my dinner table who can’t take it and dish it back out. This is not my call, however.

I do love a good debate, and Prop is a good example, yes he has made my blood pressure rise, but that’s no bad thing, views and perspectives of everyone differs, we all have different experiences, so have differing viewpoints. That allows us to create a 3 dimensional map of an idea, since it’s illuminated from all sides, showing the contours, not just the perceived 2 dimensional shape.

However I do understand Chris primary intent of the site, which is to get across the 3E’s and the Crash course, so it’s his ballgame, in his ballpark, and I’ll abide by those rules.

However I do find that the site is a little stagnant at the moment, maybe this is partially because of the cracking down on certain subjects, or the perception of this, and some of the more colorful characters have been quiet for a while. Anyway if I want to post something controversial I can do it on our family blog. So whatever…

 

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2009 - 12:07am

    #10
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

[quote=JAG]

You asked for input, so here it goes:

1) The Definitive Firearm Thread should not be lumped in with the other Controversial Topics. Though I’m not pro-gun by any measure, and will probably never purchase a firearm, I have never found a more mature and informative conservation about firearms in my life. Even though guns are controversial by nature, the firearm thread is something this site should be proud of, not hide from view. And its relevant to the general discussion of taking action and making preparations because what good does it do a person to prepare his or her family if they have no means of protecting their way of life.

2) Though in the past I have been quite the collector of Conspiracy Theories (CT) because I find it fascinating, it ultimately holds no value to me than just entertainment. Its my experience that in most people, CTs elicit emotional reactions that in turn lead to dumb decisions. Not to mention that I see new posters often ridiculed by older posters because their post implied a lack of understanding of the "latest" CT speculation. Nobody wants to look stupid, especially if they are new to a community. To me, the stupid ones are those that allow themselves to become involved in this speculation to the extent that its no longer just entertainment to them. I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time, energy, and health. Whether its true or not, what can you do about it? Nothing. Therefore I think the site should segregate this speculation.

3) As for the rest of the controversial topics I have no opinion.

 

[/quote]

Problem with that is we can’t understand the economic matrix we live in without understanding conspiracy. We may not all agree on the details, but we can certainly find common cause in that basic idea. You may have trouble finding indisputable facts to support your own particular theory, but you should be allowed to try to build a strong circumstantiall case to support your point of view. That’s interesting. That’s what people want to read— and if it is both entertaining and educating, why consign it to a hard to find area?

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 134 total)

Login or Register to post comments