We've had several off-topic discussions flagged in the last couple days. While I share deep skepticism about Zero Hedge
as a source (not particularly because of their investment perspective), I don't have the authority to eliminate posts based on their point-of-view. My best understanding from our lawyer is that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
gives the owners of forums such as this legal protection so long as we're not responsible for the content of the board. Even given that authority, I wouldn't want to spend my days acting as Arbiter of Idiocy.
The options that occur to me:
1. I can shut down off-topic until January 2021. I would never do that unilaterally but would listen for consensus on it.
2. I can encourage folks to avoid "rage scrolling" by focusing on the other two boards: mutual funds and other investing.
3. I can encourage folks to reflect on why they're posting about a particular topic. If it's to express outrage or "rally the base," then they might reasonably anticipate - and accept as part of the price of admission - that others will do likewise. If it's to change minds, that might call for a less confrontative rhetoric.
All of which is your call. It is, after all, your community. You built it. You sustain it. And, as the fate of other boards shows (members of a certain age will remember the fight between Rob Brill and Salil Gangal that pretty much killed the MFI discussion board which was, until then, the web's most active), you can end it.
That's not an attempt to be apocalyptic. It's just a reminder of the truism, "words have consequences." (The cooler rendition of the idea is James Andrews' "a choice of words is a choice of worlds," a phrase which also gave rise to the title of his book on rhetorical criticism.)