Why has this thread been locked? While the thread title may be a little aggressive, none of the posts I’ve seen (through 4/14) have seen are in any way offensive or otherwise objectionable. It seems to have been locked after Sam1’s 4/14 post, but I don’t seen anything in that post which should have caused the thread to be locked.
Probably because the purpose of the forums is trains and not politics. While I support the Gov and keeping government hands our of our pockets for any of these projects it really shouldn’t be on these type of forums. Religion, politics and sex don’t mix with hobbies or most other things that people converse in.
Yes I agree there should be no discussion of politics and that means no discussion of Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail. These topics do not belong on a forum about trains.
Why should there be no discussion of Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail? Politics mean politics. Words mean things. These were all just from one topic:
“Given the political climate in and 's attitude toward the “great unwashed”, I would suggest the the last person to leave turn the lights out.”
[quote user=“JRPett”]
Bucyrus:
Yes I agree there should be no discussion of politics and that means no discussion of Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail. These topics do not belong on a forum about trains.
Why should there be no discussion of Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail? Politics mean politics. Words mean things. These were all just from one topic:
“Given the political climate in Wisconsin and Walker’s attitude toward the “great unwashed”, I would suggest the the last person to leave Wisconsin turn the lights out.”
I posted this on the locked/unlocked Walker thread, but probably belongs here:
For example, Bucyrus and I don’t agree about much, except we both will defend open discussions, as long as personal insults are avoided. Allowing a discussion to be locked b/c a number of people don’t like the topic (it’s even worse when the topic is highway grade crossings) is allowing a tyranny over freedom of speech by popular acclaim. Our moderators seem to have a philosophy of locking political discussions on the grounds that they might become heated, ad hominem in tone, etc.
I think both sides on the HSR issue hold strong POV’s, but that doesn’t mean I would want to complain to the moderators every time someone posted a comment that is opposed to HSR on any grounds.
There were certainly some posts on this thread (generally earlier ones) which had more to do with someone’s like or dislike for Mr. Walker in general than they did with passenger train issues and the political issues surrounding them. And I agree with those who say that opinions like this, whatever validity they may have, are only tangentially relevant to trains. But Mr. Walker’s policies and philosopy on publically financed passenger trains - like them or not - are highly relevant to the future of passenger service in his state. As I said in another thread, politics are the 800 pound gorilla when you’re talking about HSR or any other rail passenger service except, possibly, tourist roads. That’s because these passenger services can’t exist without public support, and the decision of whether to provide that support is essentially a political decision.
Further, while some of the posts on this thread may have gone a little over the edge on expressing general distaste for Mr.Walker, the thread also had lots of posts dealing with the economics and history of passenger services. I could see locking a thread if it had degenerated into opposing political rants. But this one had actually moved away from that as it went on. The posts in the days immeidiately preceding the locking were not political rants.
Threads being locked because of political discussion? If the standards applied here were applied to the magazine, much of what passes for editorial comment would not make it into print. I can think of one columnist in particular who they would have to drop in a heartbeat. No shortage of political opinion there, and very little of it substantiated by facts.
There are many forum posters who can discuss the political implications of things like HSR policy without a thread degenerating into talk radio-esque mudslinging…
There are a few who are more interested in debating political ideology than discussing railroading…
Often (but I grant not always) it is the later type of heated rhetoric that causes threads to be locked…
I have often wondered about that. The magazine is obviously editorially liberal. That is their prerogative, and to be fair, there is nothing that says they can’t have one policy for the magazine and another for the forum. But still, one might wonder why they would do that.
A point to consider is that there is a fundamental structural difference between the magazine and the forum. The magazine is informational content projected to the public from a fixed group of originators, while the forum is a rambling exchange of information between members of the public. With either format, the public receives information.
Being a Moderator on another website, my conclusion would be the thread was closed because another Forum member complained. I seriously doubt Trains magazine is getting idealogical here. If you ever volunteer for Moderator on a website, you’ll see a great many Internet posters have ulterior motives, complain a lot about trivial matters, etc. Maintaining peace on a discussion forum is not as easy as it looks.
Trains Magazine is HQ’d in Waukesha, next to the district State Patrol HQ. Really not a hotbed of Liberalism there.[8D]
I think you are right about why the thread was locke
Because in the published Magazine the text is either fact checked via an Editorial process OR placed in a Editorial Opinion Column and the publication places it’s reputation on the line. This does not happen with user submitted content on a public internet forum in a lot of cases. Users are responsible for their posted content here. However, user submitted content thats not Moderated can reflect almost just as badly as content in the publication thats not fact checked.
Not sure if thats clear or not BUT thats my personal opinion.
The entire forum has to be considered to be opinion by its nature. The issue here is the question of why Kalmbach does not allow political opinions in the forum while they do allow them in the magazine, both within the editorial pieces, and in the articles themselves.
Where did TRAINS ever label all opposed to HSR as train haters?
Of course some upposed to HSR are train haters. But how small a minority of those opposed to HSR are such is an open question.