Personal Opinions Invalidate Political News Items?

[Giambattista]

So threads are automatically obliterated without warning because someone expresses a politically incorrect opinion, I guess?

You start a thread about something that was all over the news that morning, thinking it was interesting. Then, you express your opinion about the news item, or the central subject of that news item. Not too long after, the entire thread is cesspooled and locked because that one opinion is apparently unacceptable.
No warning is given. No calls for clarification. No attempt to reason. No requests to tone down any apparent bias. No questions asked about possible motives. No time allotted for any answers. No reconciliation sought.

Because of a personal opinion, entire subject is deemed a useless trifle of no import. No questions asked.

So this is the standard operating procedure?

[Anarcho Union]

Yep. (some) Mods apperently take their personal feelings to be more important than the thread rules, and as soon as there offended they will close the thread out of spite. Its ridicuals, and they know theres nothing we can do.

[Giambattista]

Yep. (some) Mods apperently take their personal feelings to be more important than the thread rules, and as soon as there offended they will close the thread out of spite. Its ridicuals, and they know theres nothing we can do.

Well, I'd like to think there isn't bias in such situations, but it really must be ruled out.

Again, it seems no warning or request or justification is asked for or given.

[spidergoat]

I agree with Giambattista.

[Giambattista]

I agree with Giambattista.

A sign of the Apocalypse!

It is a completely arbitrary, unmethodical manner in which censorship is applied to political issues at Sciforums.

To reiterate, a better course of action instead of immediate locking and cesspooling something deemed offensive would be to at least give a warning, or request one to clarify whether a news item has been posted with the sole intent of being inflammatory.

That would be impossible to prove and a rather ridiculous charge when the story in question involves an internationally known figure and is in the news, and front center on a major tabloid, for what it's worth. Or do all tabloids only carry nonsense fiction? Nay, they are capable of running valid headlines, and occasionally can be credited with being the first to scoop up a lead.

Seems to me that plenty of personal opinions are continually left standing for personal reasons, regardless of political bias or offensiveness. Oh, and topics far more pointless are allowed to continue indefinitely.

[Giambattista]

Come to think of it, doesn't the title of this thread in itself require no explanation. Like, duh! Politics? Opinions? The two are inseparable.

[Giambattista]

It would be helpful if you would enumerate your objections to or questions about the issues I explained: #2570697/83

Part of the point of keeping a public record is that people might inquire about those actions if they are so inclined, and I might clarify for them accordingly.

Did you just come up with that post? I didn't see that earlier.
I put it in that forum because I felt it belonged in the Ethics and Morality category as much or more than Politics.

As for reasons it shouldn't have been hastily closed...

My objection is that discussion of current events should not be stifled just because someone has an opinion about it. There were all sorts of issues to be debated: the global warming awareness campaign and how this will affect it, the morality of being overly flirtatious, the ethics of masseurs as it relates to other physical services, the morality of legal prostitution, the issue of public figures being immune from prosecution, self censorship, the oversexualized nature of some public figures...

Anyone of those was a valid discussion. Shutting it down because of my personal opinion (which, I believe, was actually a response to a previous post after the OP) was not valid, at least not the way it was done.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102513

“ Originally Posted by spidergoat
The right wing is going to go nuts over this, although it's not really a new story. ”

Although I generally hate petty politics, I think Al Gore is a fraud, so I hope they put him through the ringer.

Okay, thank you to whoever it was who pointed out we are talking about a "wringer", not ringer.

That was the 5th post that I said that. There were no "petty" remarks about Mr. Gore's validity as person until that point. Certainly I think any case for saying that the thread's sole purpose was a baseless attack against Al Gore has very little merit.

But what would anyone expect about a prominent, controversial politician who has just gotten a divorce (or initiated one) and now has a weird sex scandal come out? Does anyone think it is off limits or absurd for someone to say "See, I knew this guy was no good." ??? MedicineWoman seemed to be of that opinion.

*************
M*W: Funny thing that his break with Tipper was carefully planned before this stuff erupted. I always had my doubts about him and his squeaky clean persona! I never believed it was sincere. He's just a scumbag like all the rest. I bet he had a field day when he was VP. And they used to say he was so "wooden." Now we know it was because he kept getting woodies.

And another "petty" political jab from a non-Battista:

Spidergoat:“ He was a millionare before he started. His work is giving something back to the people. ”

Giving back tons of emissions from all that energy gorged by his mansion?

You do know the man lives in a mansion, owns plenty of property, as well as multiple cars?

And then someone got offended and stepped in and well... when you're talking about a personal sex scandal of a celebrity, it is inevitable that personal opinions of the person are going to come into the discussion. That fact doesn't invalidate it as a newsworthy item.
Personal flaws do matter in politics, believe it or not. If someone misbehaves in one way (especially this way, if true) what does that say about them, if you put other bits of the character into the picture?

Someone going to tell me that a character assessment of this kind is fundamentally wrong? Can someone even prove that this thread was all about Giambattista's obsession with proving al gore a fraud and pervert?

Ethics and Morality was as good a place as any to host that thread.

[Giambattista]

Hell, it would have been just fine in Human Science for all I care.

The reason for closing it was bogus.

If someone wanted a clearer direction for that thread, a simple suggestion was all that was really needed. But no! Cut off its head without trial.