Your input requested - How should "Controversial Topics" be handled?

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
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

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
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.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
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."

kelvinetts's picture
kelvinetts
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 27 2009
Posts: 2
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

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
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

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
kelvinetts wrote:

 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

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.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
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.

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
Aaron Moyer wrote:

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

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.

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
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...

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
JAG wrote:

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.

 

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?

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
Gungnir wrote:

Ok my $0.02

I do love a good debate, and Prop is a good example, yes he has made my blood pressure rise

Hey Dude, I'm a girl! I know we're probably not supposed to talk about sex on this particular forum, but sheesh...

 

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

I used the term "he" to imply either gender.

(Is that a sufficiently lame save...)

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
agitating prop wrote:

Problem with that is we can't understand the economic matrix we live in without understanding conspiracy.

I disagree. Your (anyone's) belief in a conspiracy theory, and the emotions engendered by that belief, taints your perception of the reality before your eyes. A stupid decision or overreaction comes next.

That's what people want to read--- and if it is both entertaining and educating, why consign it to a hard to find area?

I agree its entertaining, but to say I've been educated by speculation of this sort is a stretch. 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

Prop,

I agree that things get a bit "dry" around here.
Broadening the topics from just the economy might help squish that a bit.
Not *everything* needs to go into the Dungeon, but I roll my eyes and move on to other things when all I see is conspiracy theories.

Where are the threads about *doing* something about it?
Where are the pictorial discussions about planting gardens, taking care of livestock, or landscaping?
Playing music? 
I'm sure there are a lot more things than just this, but I'm kind of narrow minded.

There is an awful lot of intelligence here, and it could be better spent devising ways of sidestepping the catastrophes than just worrying about the monetary and socio-political banter.

Some of that is both good and healthy, and I have no problem with people discussing whatever they want; in the appropriate place.

Like Gungnir, I'd talk most anything over my table. But this isn't my house. It's Dr. Martenson's.
I'll abide his rules, and respect his wishes.

Cheers,

Aaron

PS - Establishing Legitimacy amongst sources would probably go a long way in weeding out "Conspiracy Speculation" and allowing theory to be tested against an unbiased source.

That said, who to trust is far too complicated to really establish. For example, government sources all have an agenda. Tabloid journalists (Alex Jones) all have agendas. Corporate news sources all have agendas.

Thinking out loud here, but if we cut loose of the fringes (Alex and the Government) we can interpolate reasonable conclusions based on consistentcy of the reporting agents.

Anything inconsistent is suspect, anything verified by multiple sources can be observed as either fact or "event" - as such events may have happened, but that doesn't mean their representation has been factual.

Sheesh. My brain hertz.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
JAG wrote:
agitating prop wrote:

Problem with that is we can't understand the economic matrix we live in without understanding conspiracy.

I disagree. Your (anyone's) belief in a conspiracy theory, and the emotions engendered by that belief, taints your perception of the reality before your eyes. A stupid decision or overreaction comes next.

That's what people want to read--- and if it is both entertaining and educating, why consign it to a hard to find area?

I agree its entertaining, but to say I've been educated by speculation of this sort is a stretch. 

I don't doubt that's your experience, and has merit. I wouldn't advocate you take a strict stand on shape shifting aliens and live in a pyramid. My experience has been  different. What some would call a conspiratorial mind set has served me pretty well. I quintupled the money I originally put in my IRA, based on paranoid hunches and a lot of reading across a wide spectrum. After 911, I left the U.S. with my husband--a good move, both financially and psychologically. I plan on leaving Canada too, if things devolve more into a police state here. If I had not been able to find the ideas, online,  that prompted these decisions, because they were stuck in subforum gulags, I may have lost all of my money, by following my broker's advice. I'd be homeless and without healthcare. Not to labour a point, but different points of view are important, and one person's conspiracy theory is another person's conspiracy fact. I was reading about derivatives in 2001, and it seemed completely nuts to me at first,  just theory, just someone's little rant, but it turned out to be true.

You use the term "belief", as if ideas outside of the mainstream are just that, while ideas within the mainstream or within the arena of polite discourse, are more valid. Each "belief" has to be weighed, analysed on it's own merits, on a case by case basis, whether it is considered peripheral or frivolous or considered the general consensus point of view.

I think more than anything it's important to remember that we form opinions and accept sets of "facts" that support our own experiences. Once this feature of epistemology is accepted, respect generally follows. You can't argue in a mean spirited fashion with someone's experiences. We're all victims or beneficiaries of a different aspect of the total picture, as Aaron Moyer explains.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
agitating prop wrote:

You use the term "belief", as if ideas outside of the mainstream are just that, while ideas within the mainstream or within the arena of polite discourse, are more valid. 

Hi Prop,

You have valid points and I respect your point of view. I have no significant argument with your input on this matter, I was simply offering my input. Honestly, my use of the word "belief" was intended to represent an idea or concept that has been incorporated into one's self-image, and thus engenders an emotional response. Its inherit to mainstream thinkers and outside-the-box thinkers equally. Its not really a criticism, just an observation on human nature. I apologize for not communicating this more accurately. 

As is typical of him, Aaron did a much better job of communicating my perspective on this matter than I.

Thanks.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
JAG wrote:
agitating prop wrote:

You use the term "belief", as if ideas outside of the mainstream are just that, while ideas within the mainstream or within the arena of polite discourse, are more valid. 

Hi Prop,

You have valid points and I respect your point of view. I have no significant argument with your input on this matter, I was simply offering my input. Honestly, my use of the word "belief" was intended to represent an idea or concept that has been incorporated into one's self-image, and thus engenders an emotional response. Its inherit to mainstream thinkers and outside-the-box thinkers equally. Its not really a criticism, just an observation on human nature. I apologize for not communicating this more accurately. 

As is typical of him, Aaron did a much better job of communicating my perspective on this matter than I.

Thanks.

No need to apologize. You were just expressing your point of view and you weren't rude about it, just emphatic, and that's okay. I have to agree with you that a lot of conspiracy theories are entertaining but pretty much devoid of merit.  I just like to look at them fairly closely before making that determination. I really could have been in big trouble if I had lumped them all together and not taken some of them seriously.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
Aaron Moyer wrote:

PS - Establishing Legitimacy amongst sources would probably go a long way in weeding out "Conspiracy Speculation" and allowing theory to be tested against an unbiased source.

That said, who to trust is far too complicated to really establish. For example, government sources all have an agenda. Tabloid journalists (Alex Jones) all have agendas. Corporate news sources all have agendas.

Thinking out loud here, but if we cut loose of the fringes (Alex and the Government) we can interpolate reasonable conclusions based on consistentcy of the reporting agents.

Anything inconsistent is suspect, anything verified by multiple sources can be observed as either fact or "event" - as such events may have happened, but that doesn't mean their representation has been factual.

Sheesh. My brain hertz.

Yep. Mine too. How do you personally establish who to trust? I have an automatic negative reaction to Alex Jones, because he shouts all the time and rants and raves. It's schtick, it's carnival barker, and it undermines whatever it is he's trying to say. I liked Mike Ruppert, initially, but his ego seemed to take center stage and I don't think he could ever say, like a lot of these guys, "I may have gotten this a bit wrong, or this detail wasn't right", or "I apologize for going off on so and so". You know?

The people whose opinions I trust the most, are people who don't have their ego too tied up in their point of view. The other thing I like is analysts who lay out what they think is going on and then list more than one possible future scenario, based on their analysis. A little uncertainty is quite charming. Because life is like that, just a little uncertain. Multiple sources for information that is more concrete and fact based should be a base requirement. But multiple sources to support assumptions that  could be part of a consensual dream, should be taken with a grain of salt.

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

I think that broad discussion should be allowed, because discussion is always good.  But I also agree it is absolutely vital to the site's mission of education that it remain accessible to the mainstream.

A financial advisor, for example, should be able to mention the site to his clients.  A mayor should be able to reference this site in a speech to the finance committee.  This means arranging the forums so that the first-time visitor doesn't get the wrong impression of the site.

I'm not saying that any thread should go away.  I enjoy reading the Definitive firearms thread, for example.  But this site has an important educational mission to accomplish. 

Town treasurers, county commissioners, judges, many members of state government, and university professors, for example, are just as interested as anybody else in learning, and they are willing to be educated.

But these people, and many others who could give powerful assistance, are "tragically unhip" (to use prop's term) almost by definition.  They often wonder what people would think of them if they openly recommended a website with "kooky" ideas featured on the main page, and so they just keep it to themselves and their closest friends. 

It doesn't have to be this way.  There are many people in public positions, newspaper columnists, etc, who would recommend sites like this, if only they didn't have to worry about it biting them in the butt.  The economic issues by themselves aren't controversial.  It's the other stuff. ...good stuff, but it hinders the mainstream penetration of the site. 

Chris' message is already fighting a major uphill battle for acceptance: why make it more difficult if it doesn't have to be?

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

Agreed entirely.
Alex Jones reminds me of Billy Mays.

He's going to shout at you until you either leave or buy his product to shut him up.

No thanks. And I'll be filing away "Carnival Barker".
Comic Gold.

I used to like Glen Beck until he called Ron Paul supporters "Terrorists", then, became an ardent libertarian when it suited his needs. Lou Dobbs still seems like a decent character.
That damned Bill O'Reilly is a dirtbag, and only serves as a provocatuer.
He's the infirm, balding, male version of Rachel Maddows.
CNN strikes me as the most "balanced" of the corporate forces, but it's undoubtably tainted with politics.

I suppose that I'm past the point of being interested in journalistic credibility.
If I didn't see it, I generally don't believe anything about it until I speak with someone who was there.

If it bleeds, it reads. Reality seems to be far less dramatic than the "news" would like you to believe.

Cheers,

Aaron

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
jrf29 wrote:

Chris' message is already fighting a major uphill battle for acceptance: why make it more difficult if it doesn't have to be?

I'm curious, what part of Chris's message is radical? 5 years ago, maybe, but not today. My brother is a columnist for a fairly conservative big city paper, and he claims most writers automatically self censor. You wouldn't get an idea of what they're really thinking from what they write. Most professionals have two jobs, their own, and looking over their shoulders to keep within the acceptable parameters. The newspapers are going out of business, because people who read are becoming rightfully suspicious, more conspiracy minded, and they're not subscribing anymore. It's up to the online community to lead, with intelligent conversation, not suppression anywhere along the lines of the failed mainstream media.

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...
agitating prop wrote:

I'm curious, what part of Chris's message is radical?

Well, I don't think that Chris' message itself is radical at all, at least not in the sense I think you mean. When I said that the economic issues by themselves weren't controversial, I meant Chris' writing and also most of the user commentary which relates to it. 

I do think that there is a uphill battle, if only in the number of people who must be educated, and the sheer amount of mental inertia as demonstrated by the types of solutions which are commonly proposed. The mainstream is becoming aware of the economic problem: debt, China, social security, the baby boomers, etc. They are also becoming aware of the energy problem: oil, the limitations of currently available alternative energies, etc. The natural resource problem is still a bit beyond the radar, and nobody seems to understand any of these problems in a broader historical perspective. The problems are talked about separately, but I don't see anybody pointing out connections between them.

agitating prop wrote:

My brother is a columnist for a fairly conservative big city paper, and he claims most writers automatically self censor . . . Most professionals have two jobs, their own, and looking over their shoulders to keep within the acceptable parameters.

That's probably true. Most professional people who hold any kind of public position have competitors who would be more than happy for the opportunity to portray them as being involved in bizarre or extremist thought, even if those competitors think the same way themselves. Writers may censor themselves, but they also get into trouble when they do not.  I'm not sure that newspapers are going out of business because they aren't bold or radical enough; they can't compete with the internet which offers unlimited opportunities for niche opinion and reporting. Once a website attracts its own little group of fiercely loyal devotees, it can be as radical as it likes: each website has a global pool of like-minded radicals to draw from.

The newspapers have to play the center because they must appeal to everybody: people do have a taste for the radical, but there is no single radicalgroup large enough to support them on its own.

That said, it would be a shame it PeakProsperity.com were to become a niche site. Niche sites are entertaining to the groups of people who like them, but they still can't reach the greater mass of people.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

Global Warming controversial?  Only in America guys.......

Mike

foote2777's picture
foote2777
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 65
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

As a relative newby to the site I guess I can give the thoughts from the angle that most have postulated about what kind of reaction a new member would get.

First off, I am one that tends to go more toward CT than away. I have an underlying mistrust of government and a belief in the ruling oligarchy/Illuminati etc. That said, I was attracted to the CC for it's information about the 3 E's. full stop. There is places like Infowars, prison planet, YouTube, etc, etc where I can go to get all the CT stuff I want. over time I joined in the forums and enjoyed the fact that I was among intellegent people who demanded proof while at the same time not just accepting the standard media drivel. I stumbled across the CT thread by accident and quite enjoyed a great deal of the topics being brought up, but recently have noticed that there is either not a lot of new stuff or not many of the old threads are being discussed. It is kind of disapointing that more doesn't get discussed because I think a lot of these CT are like the cancer beneth the mole. We quite often discuss the mole here on CM, but not the cancer because we can't see it, therefore can't prove it.

I totally agree in the fact that there is potential that a new member would get put off it they were confronted with a lot of CT talk straight away. I, in my many attempts with friends, have come to realise that the sledge hammer approach does not work and people need to get to CT in their own time, if they so choose. Keeping the CT threads as is, is Dr Martensons choice, it is his site and it's the right move, more people will be kept here to learn more that way. If you are the type of person who goes to dinner at someone elses house and takes over the conversation, chances are you want be asked back. This is Dr M's house. I'm just glad he has invited us here, and may I say, in 95% of the cases it is a fine bunch of people.

Lets not let our egos get the better of us and think we can dictate the rules by which someone else should run their site.

Anyway, the CT thread it not exactly hard to find. you just have to scroll down.

Jon

 

 

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

My turn,

I think this website runs contrary to mainstram thought yes?

The most important thing would be to not turn off new comers.

So folks, I am sorry to say, partitioning off really "out there" discussion is necessary.

I must admit, when I read all of the contraversy that comes up on some of the threads, I just invision the poster as a white middle-aged male sitting in his underware at his computer in his mother's basement. it gives me a laugh and I move on.

I agree with all that has been said about it being Chris' pool. Play nice, no "dunking" or wild splashing. Pee in the pool and you will be asked to leave.

As for CT, I have found over the years 2 things, follow the money and you will find the real person calling the shots and if there is no money to be found the purpose is power. if the later is found (power hog) find him and he will lead you to the money and therefore the real person in charge.

FWIW - C.

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

This discussion is a little confusing to me.  Is "CT" meant to stand for Controversial Topics or Conspiracy Theory?  Once a conspiracy is proven it stops being a theory, if most people agree about something it is not controversial and probably not discussed. 

The great thing about the forums for me is to learn that things I had no idea were controversial actually have intelligent arguments and proponents on the other side.  For people who read this site, some conspiracy theories are not controversial at all, the FEDs secret activities being a great example--we don't know all the things the FED is really doing or for whose benefit--but the main stream of America, or the majority opinion, is probably not concerned about that and if someone asked me for details I couldn't give them because at the moment the FEDs activities are secret.  I would still like to hear about what intelligent people can infer about what is going on.  I like to see the data they are using to make the inferences.  It seems to me that CM does that by his analysis of the partial numbers the FED does give out combined with other facts he finds.  It is a great example of how controversial conspiracy topics can be handled well to lead to deeper understanding of the current state of affairs, recognizing that actual proof and confessions are not available and the controversial conspiracy is ongoing.

If by controversial or conspiracy we really mean unsubstantiated speculation, then it seems like that kind of stuff is better put on a side street instead of being the first thing someone finds in the forums.  But if the arguments and data substantiate the inference being made and are presented in a logical way and the topic relates to the concerns of this site (the three Es, community, power etc) then lets not hide it just because its controversial or points out well a conspiracy that might be in the headlines next year once more proof is available.  But maybe I just like to get my conspiracies early when they might do me some good as I negotiate the tangles life is full of these days.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

Global Warming controversial?  Only in America guys.......

Mike

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

Global Warming controversial?  Only in America guys.......

Mike

Lakhota's picture
Lakhota
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 44
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

I believe Dr. Martenson has already stated what type of material he wants posted and discussed in the forefront of his site.

I realize Mr. Jason encouraged discussion on the issue, but in the end, we should respect Dr. Martenson's wishes.  As many of you have pointed out, this is his tipi, his 'house' and we should all be well-mannered guests.

I have read many of the forum topics with much interest and have learned a great deal.  I have observed though that there are three distinct groups of readers.  There are those that post with great emotion of topics which are in the realm of Conspiracy.  It is clear that these people believe in the underlying Conspiracy, but I am not sure which is talking louder; their beliefs or the proof they provide.  There is another group, the group that demands 100%, incontrovertible, objective and measurable proof.  Neither side can provide proof to this degree either for or against the theory so there is always going to be conflict.  In many cases this conflict is respectful and in the end the participants 'agree to disagree'. 

As a side note, there is no accurate Lakota translation for this wasicu phrase. "Wecala ekta wecala sni" is the literal translation, but does not capture the complexity of this most curious expression.

However, many of the discussions turn ugly.  Unfortunately, we saw on a thread yesterday a very unnecessary personal and provocative attack by two posters against another that has apparently resulted in some or all of them being removed from the site.

The third group never involves themselves in these contoversial subjects and are likely the most intelligent of all.

Some responders to this thread have called for more friction in the posts and discussions.  Some have called for open discussion in side forums.  In the end, it doesn't matter what we think.  We should follow the ground rules set by Dr. Martenson on how he wants his site to function.  If we can't do that we should leave or not be surprised when forced to do so.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

One thing that I have noticed, every person that I have referred to this site, if they come at all, all they do is watch the crash course, they never join or even look at the forums. So this issue might not be such a big deal, anyways. 

Global Warming controversial?  Only in America guys....... x3

Mike, are you sitting in your underwear in mother's basement?

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Your input requested - How should "Controversial ...

I don't think we will ever agree on a working definition of a "Controversial Topic."  It's very subjective.  Our host has defined the parameters and that's fine by me. 

My question is should Controversial Topics be partitioned or hidden or both?  I agree that a warning and disclaimer (partition) is in order but I don't think this category should be hidden at the bottom of the page.  

My suggestion is that the Controversial Topics should be accessible and easy to monitor.  For example, below (sorry it's so small) is sample menu.

  • Enrolled Members Forum
  • CM Discussions
  • Controversial Topics

Conspiracy Theories

It's too bad these two words have almost been made into one word.

Conspiracy - an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. (Legal definition)

From my perspective, this is happening on a grand scale.  I think it is becoming evident that many in government and wall street have been conspiring to loot main street.

One may want to discuss and explore conspiracies without being a theorist.

JAG said - One thing that I have noticed, every person that I have referred to this site, if they come at all, all they do is watch the crash course, they never join or even look at the forums. So this issue might not be such a big deal, anyways.

I agree, most never come here, and if they do, they most likely understand that posts on a forum are totally separate from the mission or service of the website.

Larry 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments