Politics and Road Posts

[Brandon]

***NOTICE***
-> This is not for the discussion of politics.  This is for the discussion of what types of political comments/commentary may or may not go into a post.

I've seen a lot of issues with the insertion of politics into road posts over my time here.  Politics will enter our discussions as political entities do make rules for roads and apportion funds for their construction/reconstruction.  It is inevitable.  That said, do we have any real rules as to how far one should go with political comments in a post.  I can see the following as OK:

"The bridge will be named after Rep. Whatsitsname, and I don't like it as Rep. Whatsitsname is still a Congressman and still with the living."

I can see the following as not OK:

"Rep. Whatsitsname is an asshole.  He's done nothing for the past 400 years and doesn't deserve a bridge named after him."

I can also see insults given (a certain poster was famous for them) about one political party or the other as prohibited.

What rules do we have, and what rules should the moderators make clear or clear up?

[J N Winkler]

Aside from a general prohibition against coarseness, which I think is already in the rules, I don't think we are well served by having detailed rules on political discussion since so much depends on context and tone.

Take the second of your two examples:  a moderator is more likely to take action against someone who says "Rep. Whatshisname is an asshole" than someone else who says "Rep. Whatshisname has an undistinguished record of public service."  The two sentences mean essentially the same thing (or at least they could be taken to mean the same thing within the context of a bridge naming discussion), but the first sentence sounds angry and invites an angry response, which in turn attracts moderator attention.

Taking things further, the moderators would be more likely to take action against "Rep. Whatshisname has an undistinguished record of public service" than, say, a more thoroughly elaborated argument along the lines of:  "Rep. Whatshisname can claim so few concrete accomplishments compared to another local boy, former Sen. Whatsthisguy, who was largely responsible for promoting Whatsthisbill, which had a transformative effect on Whatsthatsector, that it is strange a new bridge should be named after the former rather than the latter."  Both statements are implicitly political arguments since do-nothingism (which is the main element of an "undistinguished record of public service" argument) often has a partisan dimension.  However, the second is less likely to attract intervention from the moderators since it looks like a well-formed argument in favor of a clear alternative that gives the superficial impression of being decidable on objective criteria.

[Zeffy]

The official guidelines say:

-Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned, but members are instructed to remember that this forum is frequented by many people with diverse political beliefs, and strive to avoid protracted debate on the subject. The staff reserves the right to limit debate on political topics if a moderator judges the topic to be too divisive.

So, my guess is that the following would warrant moderator attention (among others):

* Blame {insert party of politician(s) here} for x

* I hate {insert politician here} and he deserves to get relieved of his duties

[J N Winkler]

So, my guess is that the following would warrant moderator attention (among others):

* Blame {insert party of politician(s) here} for x

* I hate {insert politician here} and he deserves to get relieved of his duties

You would think so, but in fact a lot of threads have had comments of both kinds ("blame Republicans for making it impossible to raise the gas tax"; "Governor Voldemort" as an insulting nickname for Rick Scott of Florida; Ed Rendell as a "truly horrible human being"--NB, none of these are direct quotes) without the threads being locked or the posters being sanctioned.  I think the moderators look at the effect more than what is actually said when deciding whether to intervene.

When I post on political topics, I usually proceed on the premise that I am more likely to be brought up short for expressions of disdain for specific politicians (of either party) than for psephology or neutrally phrased, factual discussion of the implications of particular policy options.

[hbelkins]

Look no farther than the discussions on Chris Christie and "Bridgegate" or the comments on the US 460 Petersburg-to-Hampton Roads freeway (or, Bud Shuster and I-99 or Robert Byrd and every new road in West Virginia) on how things can progress.

Around here, I think it would be more likely to draw a sanction from the moderators if one complimented Shuster instead of criticizing him. :-p

[Zeffy]

Look no farther than the discussions on Chris Christie and "Bridgegate"...

You wouldn't believe the amount of crap I read on NJ.com involving those two things right there.

[Alps]

Some of it may just depend on which mod reads which thread at what time. Sometimes by the time I find a political topic raised, it's already buried under 8 other posts and I can just ignore it. In general, I look for political references to stay objective. What did this person actually do in office? Especially relating to roads/transportation/infrastructure? I don't want to see opinions, or reference to other people's opinions ("no one wants to see a bridge named after a Kennedy").

[Pete from Boston]

In one of those threads I made a point I'll make again -- the biggest roads-related story in national news in a long time was also the biggest political story of the year in NJ.  So it's a tough call.  Props to the mods who have to steer between scylla and charybdis (and all users that minimize the waves).

I find it easiest when I look at politics as objectively as I can, namely to recognize that nearly politicians are all representing the people that $upport them, with all other mandates coming second.  This also helps with civility, unless there are any politicians on the board. 

[Alps]

In one of those threads I made a point I'll make again -- the biggest roads-related story in national news in a long time was also the biggest political story of the year in NJ.  So it's a tough call.  Props to the mods who have to steer between scylla and charybdis (and all users that minimize the waves).

I find it easiest when I look at politics as objectively as I can, namely to recognize that nearly politicians are all representing the people that $upport them, with all other mandates coming second.  This also helps with civility, unless there are any politicians on the board. 

Re: Bridgegate or similar - Limit discussion to the topic at hand. Any past or current known scandals. Similar scandals from the past. Stick to facts or at least news articles, and don't inject your feelings about the politician in question.

[Scott5114]

I'd like to echo Steve's comment's here. If a topic goes briefly political, doesn't cross any boundaries, but goes back on-topic before I run across it, I'm likely to leave it be since any admonishment would only serve to turn attention back to the political topic.

The most likely thing to get moderated is partisan tirades since those are, in my experience, most likely to provoke an emotional response. A longer, well-supported argument is appreciated if it's on-topic (i.e. germane to the topic of transportation in general) but if it's not, it is likely to be moderated primarily for being off-topic. In general, use your head–is what you're posting likely to get someone's dander up because they are of a different political leaning than you?

If you're ever unsure if something is permissible or not, you can always PM a mod to get their opinion before posting it.

[mrsman]

It seems to me that most of us at least are adults and even though people tend to act more immature in these anonymous internet forums, every one should just follow the golden rule: do unto others as you'd have done to you.

As far as politics goes, you can have a position.  And you can be passionate about your position, but still be civil.  You may not like a specific individual, but have a good reason.  Attack the congressman for his record, his postions on issues, or similar fashion.  Leave the personal stuff aside.  No ad hominem attacks and no cusswords.

If people can't abide by a simple code like that, then the moderators can lock the thread.  But  I hope that most people here can have a civil discussion and delve into politics to the extent that it is relevant to road issues in an appropriate fashion.

[roadman65]

I can tell that my comment about the Hugh Carey Tunnel and RFK Bridge inspired this discussion, I was not making attacks on their parties at all when I made the comment.  With Hugh L. Carey, I had no idea what his party was, as I did not know it because I was a child when he was in office, but pointing out the fact that no one has every considered naming the Tunnel after those on 9/11 being its location was close to Ground Zero.

The same for Brendan Byrne, who I was knocking because the fact he did something during his tenor as Governor of NJ not because again he was of a certain party either.  In fact many people at the time of Byrne in the NJ Capital, did not like him in general and the tone was rather harsh against.

About a Kennedy, that was ignorance on my part as I had always assumed that everyone thought that that particular family was put too high on a pedestal for their name as it is common for them to be considered royalty.  Believe it or not, I have never seen the Kennedy's position on politics or their association with one of the big two being the strike that many have against them.  Where I came from and those who enter discussions about something one of the family members did it was always about their character and the fact their name gives them certain privileges over the average person in society.  Only Rush Limbaugh, and maybe Hannity ever bring up things about them because of their party only because the nature of their  talk shows are leaned more for the right side of the political forum and for that sole purpose.  However in normal talk, anything about the Kennedy's said is more about merit and certain things they themselves do than common politics.  If you think otherwise, or maybe people in your neighborhood when talking about them are always about their affiliations, then I am sorry on that one. 

The point is in my everyday talk, I do mention the fact that I believe personally that Hollywood should quit fraternizing with their own kind, and maybe start marrying ordinary people not of the high profile.  Does that mean I am talking about the Democratic party when I do so being Hollywood is stereotyped of being to the Left?  Of course not, I would be making this point because actresses like Jennifer Anniston only get romantically involved with people like Bradd Pitt (married and divorced with him) and having a liaison with rock performer John Mayer for a short spell and never with a common non celebrity.  Even John Mayer who went from Jennifer to Katy Perry who is also someone that we all know of, but it seems when you have a Hollywood type married to someone not famous except for the fact that their married to someone famous, they seem to be married for years without problems. 

The same things can go for politicians as they too are celebrities!  And yes we see their lives just as much as we see Music and Film people and their actions always be judged as well.  That is all I was trying to make with the naming of bridges and tunnels.  If it sounded political or I was putting down ideals, I do apologize for it, but it was not to support any party or my own political views at all.