Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
And for the benefit of a few, please know that when you criticize others harshly for their political choices or engage in name calling of their candidate of choice all you do is back them into a corner, arouse their natural defenses, and make them even more likely to vote for that candidate.
I agree with you completely if you are having a private conversation with someone whose politics you disagree with. But when someone with a particular political ideology posts false articles from a known propaganda web site in a public forum, it isn't just that person's viewpoint that is of concern. It is that of anyone reading those articles and potentially believing they might be true. You might opt to censor all political posts, even those from reliable sources, as a solution, but in this case especially such censorship is the express goal of the poster. I think criticism and exposure of falsehoods is better than censorship. Free and honest debate is the lifeblood of a democracy, but it has to be kept honest, and, preferably, civil.
But when someone with a particular political ideology posts false articles from a known propaganda web site in a public forum, it isn't just that person's viewpoint that is of concern.
+++LewisBraham. I'll go a step farther... furthering the cause of suspect sources trying to undermine our democracy just to press their own view point, even unwittingly, is damaging this country (as is the intent of these suspect sources). Everyone should investigate the sources they use in a debate, period.
I wasn’t talking about sources. I’m talking about calling other board members stupid or characterizing their viewpoint as misguided / irrational. I’m talking about putting a thread up labeled “The Orange Abortion.” Of course false information needs to be called out as such. The poster being referenced I think by LB has been carpet bombing the board with what appear to be grossly distorted, irrational or delusional attacks on Joe Biden. I haven’t opened even one of those. Why read such garbage? But it’s illuminating, I suppose, that some of you have gone a step further and looked at the source. I appreciate that you’ve done that.
In defense of said poster, I know him to be normally a rational constructive member of the MFO community. I can’t explain the recent behavior. At first it reminded me of the time I got mad at Ted for something and “got even“ by carpet posting about 25 links of my own all at once - mostly all from Reuters. It ticked Ted off. But I just did it once, only for one day. If said poster is expressing a view thru that behavior that overtly political threads shouldn’t be initiated here, I’d have to agree up to that point, but not with the methods employed and the disrespect shown (whether intentional or unintentional) towards the entire community here.
@LewisBraham, We can all play the “linkage” game to justify anything as you seem wont to do. Politics affects the economy ... which affects business ... which affects stocks ... which affects mutual funds ... which affects my IRA. Therefore, we should discuss politics at MFO. And numbers do “lie” if a dishonest individual chooses to distort, misrepresent or mischaracterize them. Therefore, numbers are not to be trusted. OK.
And for the benefit of a few, please know that when you criticize others harshly for their political choices or engage in name calling of their candidate of choice all you do is back them into a corner, arouse their natural defenses, and make them even more likely to vote for that candidate.
but in this case especially such censorship is the express goal of the poster.
#1 Please. Get back to the fundamental mission of this site. MFO has gone way off track and is not enjoyable is the present form. Many great mutual fund posters have gone elsewhere.
@WABAC, Some will put spin on what was written to try to benefit their position as in this case LewisBraham did in his post which I have copied and pasted below. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ LewisBraham said: @hank
And for the benefit of a few, please know that when you criticize others harshly for their political choices or engage in name calling of their candidate of choice all you do is back them into a corner, arouse their natural defenses, and make them even more likely to vote for that candidate. but in this case especially such censorship is the express goal of the poster.
Where did Old_Skeet say that?
________________________________________________________________________________________________ Exactly ... I did not write that. Here is what I actually wrote ... "Crash, and others, I have not written emblishment about you for making your choice. I ask the same of you, going forward, towards me." Skeet ________________________________________________________________________________________________
From my perspective ... this is the actions by a typical liberal democrat.
Hey there Old Skeet. I like to think of myself as a typical liberal Democrat.
From my perspective it's a tactic used by people desperate to score points. It's not hard to find to find examples all over the spectrum. What's more difficult is finding people willing to admit it.
Again, I do not think that @Old_Skeet or anyone else should be faced with a headline here on MFO such as "More from the Orange Abortion at 1600".
Not only is it in extremely poor taste, but all that it accomplishes is to cause readers to lose sight of the facts in a discussion. It is deliberately inflammatory and demeaning, but possibly even worse, it is totally self-defeating.
One of the reasons that many people, including myself, have no use for the present administration is because the current occupant of the White House frequently initiates similar insulting language. I don't like it from there, and I don't like it from the other side either.
censorship is the express goal of the poster. Where did Old_Skeet say that? _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Exactly ... I did not write that.
Yet on this thread you say:
This is an Investment Board ... So, shutdown "Off Topic" and Ban Political Post.
And you say you are posting this carpetbomb Zerohedge propaganda merely because you hate the anti-Trump posts and will counter them every time to get them to stop: "Let it be known ...If post about Trump continue I in return will continue to put up post related to Biden." The fact that you so readily say "Ban Political Post" after that indicates censorship is the goal, not to have any real discussion on these topics. Such carpetbomb attacks are what trolls typically do to shut people they dislike up.
It has been pointed out how inextricably politics are in everything we do, so my inclination is to keep things as they are, as after the election the traffic will likely diminish. I have come to trust several of the posters here, starting with investment topics and expanding into other realms, and on occasion, have even asked for their take on a question. To my mind more is better, more info, more discussion, more evidence, more participation. Give me more and I’ll do my own sorting. Leave your guns at the door, mind your manners and lets discuss how to proceed. As to the pretzel benders that can make a Möbius strip out of all things political, economical, or societal, you don’t need a button to ignore them, I find comic relief in their consistency.
Thread is getting hard to follow. To clear the air, I did write “And for the benefit of a few, please know that when you criticize others harshly for their political choices or engage in name calling of their candidate of choice all you do is back them into a corner, arouse their natural defenses, and make them even more likely to vote for that candidate.”
It was a generalized observation based on life experiences and participation in too many threads here over the years. It was expressly not directed at Ol’Skeet, nor was it meant to be an exact quotation - simply a broad characterization of that kind of combative approach.
Interestingly, @LewisBraham draws a distinction between interactions face to face (conversation) and on a forum like this. To me that is the heart of the issue. Folks are more aggressive and less considerate in this new-fangled mode of conversing. Their behavior often and regrettably is not what it would be were they conversing with a neighbor on the street corner or the clerk at the local grocery. It’s a shame we’ve sunken so low.
Again, I do not think that @Old_Skeet or anyone else should be faced with a headline here on MFO such as "More from the Orange Abortion at 1600".
Well said and thank you OJ. I vaguely referenced that as well in my earlier post but “butchered“ the exact wording. Not to single out the particular poster ... That type of stuff “flies“ all the time all across the internet. I’ve probably engaged in similar at some point in the past. But it is wrong.
@hank While it's true people act more aggressively online, my point regarding public dissemination of false information online is this and specifically Figure 2.2 on page 13 (numbered) or 31 (in Acrobat) in it: https://rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/RR2237/RAND_RR2237.pdf It's one thing for a friend or family member to promote a kooky conspiracy theory to oppose a political candidate when talking with you directly in private. You are correct that scolding them will do no good and they may dig in their heels as a result. It is another thing entirely for the same person to spread that theory with false news sources in a public forum that can influence any number of other people. To criticize someone harshly for doing that may cause that person to dig in their heels but it could also prevent many other people from believing the lies being intentionally or unwittingly spread by that person that are meant to undermine our democracy.
To Old_Skeet and other Trump supporters: The anti-Trump posts here are rooted in anguish. These people are patriots. It is love of one's county and its institutions that is motivating these posts. It is also a love and respect for moral behavior that causes one to make these posts. Do you not see that?
I have chimed in before without much effect but will do so again.
I don't think eliminating Off Topic will do anything other than have people post political junk in other forums. I have made my opinion obvious and try to call out this junk when I see insulting comments and derisive mud slinging.
There is enough of the latter pouring out of the White House as it is. I am also depressed and upset about how our National Experiment has been degraded by one individual.
Anyone who stoops to his level is in fact just telling the world what they are really made of.
We can have a rational discussion of policies, procedures and legislation without calling each other names. People who don't believe this and are unable to do so should just keep quiet.
You folks know that I'm not afraid to engage in battle when challenged. But surely we can have even major differences of opinion on specific national issues without lowering MFO to the infantile name-calling favored by the present occupier of the White House.
You are correct that scolding them will do no good and they may dig in their heels as a result. It is another thing entirely for the same person to spread that theory with false news sources in a public forum that can influence any number of other people. To criticize someone harshly for doing that may cause that person to dig in their heels but it could also prevent many other people from believing the lies being intentionally or unwittingly spread by that person that are meant to undermine our democracy.
If the concern is influencing other readers why would the reader be in a position to be influenced? Why would a person not have formed an opinion? Because they lack the knowledge? Because they may not feel they are qualified to do so? Because they tune out the incessant bickering that surrounds so many topics? There are probably other reasons
This morning Old_Skeet started a thread about Dr. Giuseppe Tritto's book on the origin of the new corona virus. It's getting a lot of attention in conservative circles. But Old_Skeet linked to the coverage at zerohedge.
I could have called Old_Skeet a liar, or a fool, for peddling propaganda from a Bulgarian shill for Putin. Or I could find out what I could write about Tritto's qualifications, and offer a few opinions about how scientists argue things out. And then I could have called Old_Skeet a liar, or a fool.
But with that hypothetical influenceable reader in mind, I don't see the need to address why Old_Skeet posted the article to begin with. Old_Skeet is not the issue.
But as long as I am on the topic I'll just say that I never look at human motivation as binary. I don't know Old_Skeet well enough to attribute any other motive to him than the ones he has expressed himself.
Old_Skeet, and several other posters, have expressed a desire to go back to some period of time when politics wasn't discussed here. I don't know how accurate that is. I got here after "Ted" died. Maybe "Ted" didn't allow that stuff.
I do find it possible to appreciate why people may want a forum without politics without feeling the need to pillory them for censorship.
I do find it possible to appreciate why people may want a forum without politics without feeling the need to pillory them for censorship.
And I find carpetbombing the site with fake news from Zerohedge to achieve that goal as deeply reprehensible. The site wasn't littered with political posts until Old_Skeet made it thus as a form of retaliation for a handful of posts with anti-Trump ideologies he disliked, posts he could've easily ignored if he chose to. Also, intially as I did again in the above referenced post on coronavirus, I pointed out that Zerohedge is a Russian asset propaganda site. I never made any ad hominem attacks regarding motivation, calling O_S specifically "a liar, or a fool." His response to myself and others pointing out that the Zerohedge site is Russian propaganda was to bombard this site with innumerable posts from Zerohedge. I'm not fond of personal attacks either, but he is at this point knowingly disseminating propaganda. And to say where is the personal responsibility of the readers seeing that propaganda, that we shouldn't call it out as such but should just use our own judgment and keep quiet about it, is to disregard all the historical evidence from the 2016 election that such propaganda is in fact dangerous and does lead to false impressions with many readers who don't recognize it is from a propaganda site? It deserves to be roundly criticized. And all of that said, I would defend O_S's right to make such posts and my and everyone else's to call them out as nonsense propaganda.
Keep MFO an investment site, close down the politics. Social media bombards is with political pollution, and I’ve always found this site to be a safe haven for posting investment ideas in a more accepting and less critical manner. If I want to read or watch political pollution, I know where to go. Please, not here!
The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular dangerous speech not to protect the safe speech everyone agrees on. Yet that protection only exists in the public sector or spaces by law. On a privately-owned site like this one, pretty much anything goes rules-wise. But make no mistake, getting rid of political speech here is a form of censorship. Call it what it is.
Corralling political speech in a corner of the site that would require an affirmative request to view still seems to be a good middle ground to try out. (Off-Topic could be renamed Off-Topic, No Politics)
Slow thinker, but I’ve had an idea. How about keeping things pretty much as they are but requiring posters to label clearly on the topic line that the thread is political in nature.
Like this : Biden Campaign Contributions See Record Inflows - POLITICAL This would be enforced by deleting political posts not so labeled once someone flagged it - pending moderator review of course.
Furthermore - Limit each poster to a certain number of politically related posts daily or weekly - perhaps one daily. This part would be on an honors system - as I think everyone would want to play fair once rules were established.
Just trying to think of an easier way to go about it than Lewis’s excellent suggestion. May I add that I think the off topic section is valuable in many respects, including building camaraderie among members and filling the gap during weekends and slow financial days - so would hate to have to ignore it just because some are loading it up with political baggage (to use the nicer term).
@davfor - Yours is a great idea if workable. Geez - Would hate to have to turn off-topic into a political rumble for the next how many (?) months.
Considering that any format change requires the least amount of time spent by the site administrators probably the cleanest approach would be an "Off-Topic-Political" section.
Vanguard? You mean that organization with no shareholders, where the customers ("clients") own the company and any profits made go to the customers in the form of lower prices?
Virtually any comment has, or can be read to have, political undertones. Especially when it comes to money. ISTM what's important is keeping discussion civil. As far as undertones in seemingly apolitical posts are concerned, one can disregard them or politely consider them as one sees fit.
If Vanguard were a food co-op,they would make us work a certain number of hours a month say answering the phones. The would also have to publish what they paid their top executives
I have been in several co-ops over the years. Believe me if any of the mangers were making what the mangers at Vanguard make, there would be riots
Keeping politics off of a discussion group on investing in mutual funds -- it simply cannot be done. Sorry. Too many investing decisions are based upon political realities.
What can be done is to delete offensive ad hominen posties and warn the posters of such. If they persist in being rude and offensive to other posters, ban them for a month. Hey, I've been warned before on the parent of this site so it doesn't hurt and I'm still here. I just had to start being nicer.
The moderator cannot possibly authenticate all the posts and sites. Don't ask. The members of the board are responsible to call out bullshit when they see it. That's always been the beauty of this board. When someone posts something that's wrong about investing, a dozen peeps step and disagree. WTF can't this happen with bullshit sites about politics? Just disagree with the argument - not the person.
I have an e mail group of seven open end bond fund traders/investors. It is an active group and on some days generates more posts than this board or over at Morningstar. I am biased of course but think it has some of the best traders and investors on the Internet. But never once is politics discussed or even hinted at. It is about making money based on price action as well as the fundamentals. behind such price action. We all get along splendidly although I am sure if it were known we share very divergent political views. I see no need to let politics pollute investment forums. It is just an unnecessary distraction.
Comments
In defense of said poster, I know him to be normally a rational constructive member of the MFO community. I can’t explain the recent behavior. At first it reminded me of the time I got mad at Ted for something and “got even“ by carpet posting about 25 links of my own all at once - mostly all from Reuters. It ticked Ted off. But I just did it once, only for one day. If said poster is expressing a view thru that behavior that overtly political threads shouldn’t be initiated here, I’d have to agree up to that point, but not with the methods employed and the disrespect shown (whether intentional or unintentional) towards the entire community here.
@LewisBraham, We can all play the “linkage” game to justify anything as you seem wont to do. Politics affects the economy ... which affects business ... which affects stocks ... which affects mutual funds ... which affects my IRA. Therefore, we should discuss politics at MFO. And numbers do “lie” if a dishonest individual chooses to distort, misrepresent or mischaracterize them. Therefore, numbers are not to be trusted. OK.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
LewisBraham said:
@hank
And for the benefit of a few, please know that when you criticize others harshly for their political choices or engage in name calling of their candidate of choice all you do is back them into a corner, arouse their natural defenses, and make them even more likely to vote for that candidate.
but in this case especially such censorship is the express goal of the poster.
Where did Old_Skeet say that?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exactly ... I did not write that. Here is what I actually wrote ... "Crash, and others, I have not written emblishment about you for making your choice. I ask the same of you, going forward, towards me." Skeet ________________________________________________________________________________________________
From my perspective ... this is the actions by a typical liberal democrat.
Old_Skeet
From my perspective it's a tactic used by people desperate to score points. It's not hard to find to find examples all over the spectrum. What's more difficult is finding people willing to admit it.
Not only is it in extremely poor taste, but all that it accomplishes is to cause readers to lose sight of the facts in a discussion. It is deliberately inflammatory and demeaning, but possibly even worse, it is totally self-defeating.
One of the reasons that many people, including myself, have no use for the present administration is because the current occupant of the White House frequently initiates similar insulting language. I don't like it from there, and I don't like it from the other side either.
Leave your guns at the door, mind your manners and lets discuss how to proceed.
As to the pretzel benders that can make a Möbius strip out of all things political, economical, or societal, you don’t need a button to ignore them, I find comic relief in their consistency.
It was a generalized observation based on life experiences and participation in too many threads here over the years. It was expressly not directed at Ol’Skeet, nor was it meant to be an exact quotation - simply a broad characterization of that kind of combative approach.
Interestingly, @LewisBraham draws a distinction between interactions face to face (conversation) and on a forum like this. To me that is the heart of the issue. Folks are more aggressive and less considerate in this new-fangled mode of conversing. Their behavior often and regrettably is not what it would be were they conversing with a neighbor on the street corner or the clerk at the local grocery. It’s a shame we’ve sunken so low.
https://rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/RR2237/RAND_RR2237.pdf
It's one thing for a friend or family member to promote a kooky conspiracy theory to oppose a political candidate when talking with you directly in private. You are correct that scolding them will do no good and they may dig in their heels as a result. It is another thing entirely for the same person to spread that theory with false news sources in a public forum that can influence any number of other people. To criticize someone harshly for doing that may cause that person to dig in their heels but it could also prevent many other people from believing the lies being intentionally or unwittingly spread by that person that are meant to undermine our democracy.
I don't think eliminating Off Topic will do anything other than have people post political junk in other forums. I have made my opinion obvious and try to call out this junk when I see insulting comments and derisive mud slinging.
There is enough of the latter pouring out of the White House as it is. I am also depressed and upset about how our National Experiment has been degraded by one individual.
Anyone who stoops to his level is in fact just telling the world what they are really made of.
We can have a rational discussion of policies, procedures and legislation without calling each other names. People who don't believe this and are unable to do so should just keep quiet.
Well said, and thanks, @sma3.
This morning Old_Skeet started a thread about Dr. Giuseppe Tritto's book on the origin of the new corona virus. It's getting a lot of attention in conservative circles. But Old_Skeet linked to the coverage at zerohedge.
I could have called Old_Skeet a liar, or a fool, for peddling propaganda from a Bulgarian shill for Putin. Or I could find out what I could write about Tritto's qualifications, and offer a few opinions about how scientists argue things out. And then I could have called Old_Skeet a liar, or a fool.
But with that hypothetical influenceable reader in mind, I don't see the need to address why Old_Skeet posted the article to begin with. Old_Skeet is not the issue.
But as long as I am on the topic I'll just say that I never look at human motivation as binary. I don't know Old_Skeet well enough to attribute any other motive to him than the ones he has expressed himself.
Old_Skeet, and several other posters, have expressed a desire to go back to some period of time when politics wasn't discussed here. I don't know how accurate that is. I got here after "Ted" died. Maybe "Ted" didn't allow that stuff.
I do find it possible to appreciate why people may want a forum without politics without feeling the need to pillory them for censorship.
Your mileage may vary.
Like this : Biden Campaign Contributions See Record Inflows - POLITICAL
This would be enforced by deleting political posts not so labeled once someone flagged it - pending moderator review of course.
Furthermore - Limit each poster to a certain number of politically related posts daily or weekly - perhaps one daily. This part would be on an honors system - as I think everyone would want to play fair once rules were established.
Just trying to think of an easier way to go about it than Lewis’s excellent suggestion. May I add that I think the off topic section is valuable in many respects, including building camaraderie among members and filling the gap during weekends and slow financial days - so would hate to have to ignore it just because some are loading it up with political baggage (to use the nicer term).
@davfor - Yours is a great idea if workable. Geez - Would hate to have to turn off-topic into a political rumble for the next how many (?) months.
You'd think they were running a food co-op.
https://www.commonground.coop/get-the-scoop/blog/cooperatives-and-socialism
Virtually any comment has, or can be read to have, political undertones. Especially when it comes to money. ISTM what's important is keeping discussion civil. As far as undertones in seemingly apolitical posts are concerned, one can disregard them or politely consider them as one sees fit.
If Vanguard were a food co-op,they would make us work a certain number of hours a month say answering the phones. The would also have to publish what they paid their top executives
I have been in several co-ops over the years. Believe me if any of the mangers were making what the mangers at Vanguard make, there would be riots
Keeping politics off of a discussion group on investing in mutual funds -- it simply cannot be done. Sorry. Too many investing decisions are based upon political realities.
What can be done is to delete offensive ad hominen posties and warn the posters of such. If they persist in being rude and offensive to other posters, ban them for a month. Hey, I've been warned before on the parent of this site so it doesn't hurt and I'm still here. I just had to start being nicer.
The moderator cannot possibly authenticate all the posts and sites. Don't ask. The members of the board are responsible to call out bullshit when they see it. That's always been the beauty of this board. When someone posts something that's wrong about investing, a dozen peeps step and disagree. WTF can't this happen with bullshit sites about politics? Just disagree with the argument - not the person.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the masks,
rono
Derf