Throwing Around Ideas, Only?

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:

This forum is just for throwing ideas around.

Click to expand...

And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:



And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

Click to expand...

What kind of action would you like to take place?

Individual said:

What kind of action would you like to take place?

Click to expand...

I do not think I should offer that specific post from where I drew that quote from, as that would be impolite. Maybe that member will offer permission here later.

But you are asking for an example, maybe?

Individual, would you think that asking some community members here to form a new political party could be viewed as beyond the scope of why members participate in discussion here in this community?

Would you respond to that with something like that isn't why we are here?

We're just here to BS and we sure shouldn't take any of this BS seriously. Would that be your take on why we are here? Just for the BS?

Now I also must admit to offering in one of my posts that I understood this community/platform was primarily for entertainment for most members, but I think I did also write that I thought some might be more seriously inclined in their participation in this community. But I am writing this post from memory, so if I am erring, I offer my apology.

medi said:

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

Click to expand...

The member who said the platform is for throwing ideas around expressed an opinion that you apparently do not share. Any member here who wants to take action on an idea that comes up in discussion here is free to do so. Without a survey/poll of members, you have no idea at present how many are already engaged in activities related to topics here. And most important is the fact that people will either agree, disagree, or remain neutral on any idea proposed on any topic and they speak only for themselves and do not speak for others here. I fail to see the issue.

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:



And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

Click to expand...

You have a bizarre idea of how internet forums work.

I suppose it is correct that I presented this thread as relaying an "issue" and I should address that point.

I was caught off guard a few days ago when I first saw that opinion that we are here to simply throw around ideas.

The reason I was caught off guard was because I was of the opinion we had some true activists as members of this community and not just a bunch of do-nothings.

And this thread is basically asking what you covered in your second sentence, Argent.

Argent said:

Without a survey/poll of members, you have no idea at present how many are already engaged in activities related to topics here.

Click to expand...

And, Argent, I don't appreciate being insulted, as was done in this part of you post:

Argent said:

And most important is the fact that people will either agree, disagree, or remain neutral on any idea proposed on any topic and they speak only for themselves and do not speak for others here.

Click to expand...

That you felt it was necessary to educate me on that "fact" informs me that you and I are no longer able to engage in discourse on future matters. Very unfortunate, possibly. On the other hand, insults in this community are frequently seen in communications between members, as if insulting another human is no big deal because it is just the Internet and nobody takes any of this communication seriously. Kind of reminds me not so long ago when a member here stated I was lying and when I stated that was an insult I was informed I was incorrect and it was stated again that I was lying. Humans have been shot dead for that style communications in the brick-and-mortar world. We even had a member here post a threat against the life of a president of a nation and nobody cares and management didn't even remove that post. I have doubts as to whether free speech rights allows that in the nation where this site has its server. I also wonder what the U.S. State Department might think about that as it seems this is a U.S. site? But I slid off-topic, didn't I? It's just that crude and rude is so common around here. Just as it is becoming so common on other platforms on the Net. It's becoming the norm, not the exception. Also becoming the key way to make money on the Net.

Hamish Howl said:

You have a bizarre idea of how internet forums work.

Click to expand...

You posted too early. Post #7 is even more bizarre.

medi said:

That you felt it was necessary to educate me on that "fact" informs me that you and I are no longer able to engage in discourse on future matters.

Click to expand...

Ohhh, I get it now. You ask for input and when you don't like a response you play victim and disengage. You appear dissatisfied with DP. I look forward to your efforts to make it a better place.

medi said:

I do not think I should offer that specific post from where I drew that quote from, as that would be impolite. Maybe that member will offer permission here later.

But you are asking for an example, maybe?

Individual, would you think that asking some community members here to form a new political party could be viewed as beyond the scope of why members participate in discussion here in this community?

Would you respond to that with something like that isn't why we are here?

We're just here to BS and we sure shouldn't take any of this BS seriously. Would that be your take on why we are here? Just for the BS?

Click to expand...

First, to answer your question about my question, Yes, I am asking what kind of action YOU would like to take place here.

I see no problem with asking to form a new political party, though I would prefer eliminating political parties, at least at the National level of government.

Answered above.

It would appear a large number are here for little more than to BS, complain, or denigrate others.
Unable to speak for anyone other than myself, I am here hoping to discuss changes that could be made in our government to resolve some issues I and others find needing to be resolved in a more reasoned and rational way.

Complex issues, IMO, are seldom if ever solved by debate, but much more likely to be solved in a more acceptable way through discussion.
Our Federal individual tax code is the primary issue I would like to see resolved. Perhaps you will run across some of my suggestions on that issue and respond.

Thank you for offering some of your thought processes here, Individual. And I will certainly make the time to locate your posts related to tax codes.

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:



And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

Click to expand...

Debate Politics is a "discussion" forum...not an "action" forum.

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:



And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

Click to expand...

This is not an activist site. It's a place for people to express themselves in a controlled environment.

Furthermore, opinion pieces are frowned on by many here. So to expect any meaningful action resulting from our opinions is a fools errand.

medi said:

On the other hand, insults in this community are frequently seen in communications between members, as if insulting another human is no big deal because it is just the Internet and nobody takes any of this communication seriously.

Click to expand...

A agree with you in part. I have found its pretty easy to determine the age of someone here by how they engage in conversation. What sounds like an insult to reasonable people may not be so for others.

There are 2 types of people. Those who engage in digital conversation who throw around rude insults and those who don't.

Those who do grew up behind a screen name. They frown upon face to face engagements and prefer the internet to communicate.

That is why the young demographic speaks differently on the internet than they do in person.

Now how would you suggest we take this conundrum to the community in hopes of corrective action?

VySky said:

Now how would you suggest we take this conundrum to the community in hopes of corrective action?

Click to expand...

What came to me after a fair bit of time giving thought to your last question in your post is whether the rules of this community allow us to openly form groups within the community? And by asking "openly form groups" I am implying the recruitment of new members with a given group, because it is declared to be a certain group for a certain purpose and is open to new like minded members. Has this been done here in the past? Is this idea presently against any community rules? Might anyone feel if this is not presently against community rules, that could change and be made a no-go after it was started?

VySky said:

A agree with you in part. I have found its pretty easy to determine the age of someone here by how they engage in conversation. What sounds like an insult to reasonable people may not be so for others.

There are 2 types of people. Those who engage in digital conversation who throw around rude insults and those who don't.

Those who do grew up behind a screen name. They frown upon face to face engagements and prefer the internet to communicate.

That is why the young demographic speaks differently on the internet than they do in person.

Now how would you suggest we take this conundrum to the community in hopes of corrective action?

Click to expand...

By the way, there's much more in your post I wish to have more time to think about. Please allow me extra time.

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:

This forum is just for throwing ideas around.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I dispute your premise. I found no such post from any member, using those words, going back to 2011.

AND:

Mycroft said:

not an "action" forum.

Click to expand...

VySky said:

not an activist site.

Click to expand...

WHY?

ASHES said:

I dispute your premise. I found no such post from any member, using those words, going back to 2011.

Click to expand...

I have a copy of the post and it was there about ten minutes before I started this thread. And it was in response to one of my posts not too many days ago. If it has been removed in the past few hours, I haven't been aware of that.

I didn't provide a link to the post because that seemed impolite to the member who wrote it. The member will see this thread sooner or later and may confirm the post. But I suppose I should go check and see if it is still there.

medi said:

I have a copy of the post and it was there about ten minutes before I started this thread. And it was in response to one of my posts not too many days ago. If it has been removed in the past few hours, I haven't been aware of that.

I didn't provide a link to the post because that seemed impolite to the member who wrote it. The member will see this thread sooner or later and may confirm the post. But I suppose I should go check and see if it is still there.

Click to expand...

It doesn't exist. Afaict, it never existed. This is a thread of nothing.

ASHES said:

It doesn't exist. Afaict, it never existed. This is a thread of nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if this is one of those clever cop tricks to cause me to break a forum rule so I can then be banned, but the post exists; I have the link and we'll just have to wait for the member who posted it to give permission to post the link. Or somebody tells me there is not a rule against posting the link.

I do hope, ASHES, that you fully understood in the OP the context I wrote about that being the first sentence qualifying the second sentence that immediately follows it.

Actually, other posts here have made the topic valid, as well. Why you have such fear of this topic is interesting. Post #18 summarizes earlier posts on the topic.

medi said:

The following is a quote from a member in good standing in this community:



And that was the first of two sentences, and it was a qualifier for why a request to engage in a specific activity in that thread was not to be. Was not to be done. Was a bad idea.

MEANING, this DebatePolitics platform is simply for "throwing ideas around" but not for any concrete action.

I am asking how many of the members here, and management/owners, agree that this platform, this community, is not meant to cause any concrete action to take place outside of this community.

You know, the Congress of the United States does "throw around ideas" but uses that to perform concrete actions. But not here?

Our monthly VFW post meetings throw around ideas, but also engages in concrete actions that arise from ideas that come up in our meetings. But not here?

How many of you agree with: "But not here."?

Click to expand...

But what could be done. This is anonymous. Perhaps a bit of brain-storming. Hatching ideas.

And I do object to the characterization that all we are doing is 'throwing around ideas."

It can be very informative to participate in a proactive way. A topic is raised. Frequently there is a link. The prudent thing to do is go online, do a little research, use different sources, learn more about it. Then one is able to come back to the forum and make well-informed comments. And along the way the forum user gets better informed.

Brain-storming is possible in the forum. People can take things learned here into local politics and act on their own. There might be a reluctance to come back in the forum with specifics because that could compromise the anonymity of this place. The anonymity is important to preserve because it allows more expression of tangy positions without real life repercussions.

One idea that keeps swirling around is the beauty of the exchange of thoughts and the power of working together to try to solve problems, or at least come up with proposed solutions. One problem is our non-representative government. We are supposed to have a representative government, but that has not been realized to it's logical potential, given the modern methods of communication.

Typically, if a constituent tries to contact their representative with an idea of a concern it is simply not possible. The representative is not about to get on the phone with just anybody, text somebody, nor even respond to an email. They don't even have regular email addresses that can be used by the public. Instead, there is a website with a form to be filled out. The constituent fills out the form, pours out their thoughts and ideas and clicks send. What happens next is a travesty. Those ideas are essentially flushed down the toilet. A staffer will scan the message and decide which form letter response is the most likely match and then send off the form letter. That is all that happens.

End of 'communication.' There is no communication. There is no two-way conversation. If you don't have big money, you are not getting the attention of your representative. They spend most of their time courting the rich for donations.

So here's the idea. (Really dumb and naive idea.)

Create a well moderated online forum similar to this, except the forum is for constituents and representatives. Verified constituents make their comments. Representatives are placed on the spot to respond or face recrimination for avoiding sensitive subjects.

Constituent: "Why can't we do this? (idea.)"

Representative: "Because (pooh pooh answer.)"

Of course, what would really be a representative government would be an idea is hatched in the proposed forum, others inject their own perspective and unique considerations, the idea evolves. Through brain storming, the idea could actually rise to the level of something which should be debated in Congress for possible new policy.

But no. Nothing as functional as that could ever happen. Our government is legally corrupted by big powerful money. Big money controls what government does and steers it toward policy beneficial to big money. That's that. We can't have real representative government until we get the big money out of government. (Which can and will be done in time - if you don't agree, ask me how.)

medi said:

Well, I don't know if this is one of those clever cop tricks to cause me to break a forum rule so I can then be banned, but the post exists; I have the link and we'll just have to wait for the member who posted it to give permission to post the link. Or somebody tells me there is not a rule against posting the link.

I do hope, ASHES, that you fully understood in the OP the context I wrote about that being the first sentence qualifying the second sentence that immediately follows it.

Actually, other posts here have made the topic valid, as well. Why you have such fear of this topic is interesting. Post #18 summarizes earlier posts on the topic.

Click to expand...

What is the point of a thesis with a faulty premise? I can't examine your claim that it was a member in good standing, regardless of whether the quote exists or not (it doesn't.) You don't need anyone's permission to quote them, just don't violate Vegas. If it would violate Vegas, PM it.

@medi, all you have to do is tag the poster like I just did you to get the person's attention and give him/her an opportunity to join the discussion.