Politics?

[Shawn-O]

I personally didn't send you a warning, though I did delete a handful of posts in a political discussion that included broad-stroke derogatory political stereotypes. If you did receive a warning for which you need clarification, reply to the moderator who sent it to you. If a post was deleted that didn't fall into the above description, it likely quoted such a post or was otherwise in the midst of such a discussion; if that's the case, I apologize for the collateral damage.

There shouldn't be any topics on politics. However, posts wouldn't necessarily have been deleted unless it was a particularly egregious case (such as above). There's no question that we don't read everything in real-time, so if such a topic is open, just point it out and we'll take care of it!

We should probably blow up the Sioux Name forum in that case.

[krangodance]

I like a good political discussion. The problem with internet discussions on political issues is that they quickly turn into name-calling and child like responses. It is hard to argue points with someone who has little knowledge of what is going on the world, but want to assign blame to one party or the other for personal reasons. If you read through some of the comments here, you will see what I mean. I posted what I thought was a thoughtful comment. I had one person read it and respond favorably. The remainder of the comments around it were like a big food fight. Please keep it away from SiouxSports.com.

insightful post.

another road block to healthy debate on message boards is the existence of posters who try to "pigeonhole" the debate by not accepting that one's opinions might expand beyond his/her original feelings on a matter based on conditions that are out of his/her hands.

for example, let's say the u.s. is considering going into battle with another country. let's assume i am against the proposed war and post my reasoning on a message board. certainly others are going to come along and engage me in debate, which is perfectly fine and i invite such debates provided both sides are respectful of the other's opinions.

now, let's say a decision is made to go to war with the aformentioned country. at some point during the war i may have an opinion on how we should handle a certain aspect of the war. well, without a doubt, one of the posters who originally engaged me in debate will come along and post something like "wait, first your agasint the war, now you're telling everybody how it should be fought?" to which i would reply with something like "well, yeah, i didn't want to go to war to begin with, but now that we're there, i just want to see it handled properly so as to minimize collateral damage and maximize the positives that could ultimately come from this war".

fair logic, right? i mean, most people would understand, and probably accept, such an explanation. however, there is alwasy one or two people out there who will say something like "whatever, you're just flip-flopping so you don't look stupid when this war proves to have been beneficial".

obviously any logical thinking person would realize i haven't flip-flopped, i was simply forced to adjust my thinking because of conditions outside of my control. should those conditions create an opportunity that i hadn't considered, that's great as far as i see it, but that one guy or those few guys (or gals) won't hear of it. i was originally againt the war so anything i say after that will be judged accordingly in their minds.

that's what i call pigeonholing the debate. those individuals who engage in such tactics are also notorious for making assumptions of others personalities and/or motives, which is just plain rude and uncalled for, but what are you gonna do?

eventually you just have to realize what these people are doing and let it go. the rest of the board knows that those folks are annoying anyways and don't assign much weight to their words.

fortunately, most people on ss.com seem cool to me and are willing to accept that another has a different view of things and, sometimes, people will even change their opinion on a matter based on solid logic presented by another.

[Old Time Hockey]

We should probably blow up the Sioux Name forum in that case.

What does politics have to do with the nickname???

[Let'sGoHawks!]

I just want to be a part of this thread before it gets closed...

Hi everyone!

[jimdahl]

I just want to be a part of this thread before it gets closed...

Hi everyone!

Unlike a lot of forums, I don't know that we've ever closed a thread for discussing or being critical of our policies, though we do sometimes move them here.

The nickname forum is an interesting one right now, in that local politicians are involved and some view the nickname battle to be one of "political correctness", which is often ideologically bundled with particular political leanings. However, it's undoubtedly UND-relevant and self-contained, so I don't see it as falling in the same bucket as an anti-Bush or anti-Obama rant in a hockey forum.