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.
Springfield PA
Hamltnblue 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.
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."
and
"From the prank call Walker unknowingly participated in....he comes off sounding like a toy for the ultra-right ultra wealthy....not much of a original thinker at all."
"Walker may well be toast after all this." - this statement was made immediately after the preceeding quote, so it appears to me to be more than just "rail" related.
"Walker March 1: 43% approve ; 54% disapprove
Scott March 29: 32% approve; 52% disapprove
Kasich March 23: 30% approve; 46% disapprove
Looks like the people in those three states have strongly turned against the policies of the governors they elected just five months ago."
"Leadership is not always popular. To bad there are not more people like these guys."
followed up with:
"Let me know if you still feel that way in ten years."
I guess that I must not be a master of the obvious. What do the preceeding statements have to do with Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail? They are political opinions and statements. Pure and simple. And that's what gets threads locked.
--John in WI
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." and "From the prank call Walker unknowingly participated in....he comes off sounding like a toy for the ultra-right ultra wealthy....not much of a original thinker at all." and "Walker may well be toast after all this." - this statement was made immediately after the preceeding quote, so it appears to me to be more than just "rail" related. and "Walker March 1: 43% approve ; 54% disapprove Scott March 29: 32% approve; 52% disapprove Kasich March 23: 30% approve; 46% disapprove Looks like the people in those three states have strongly turned against the policies of the governors they elected just five months ago." and "Leadership is not always popular. To bad there are not more people like these guys." followed up with: "Let me know if you still feel that way in ten years." I guess that I must not be a master of the obvious. What do the preceeding statements have to do with Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail? They are political opinions and statements. Pure and simple. And that's what gets threads locked. --John in WI
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.
John,
You ask, “What do the preceding statements have to do with Amtrak, HSR, or any other form of nationalized passenger rail?” I would say that all of the statements you cite have a lot to do with HSR. They are all expressions of disdain for someone who refused to fund it.
My main point was in reacting to the comments made by poster Hamltnblue. While he objects to any political discussion, I don’t think he sees discussion of public rail as being political. Granted, it doesn’t have to be political if it is limited to discussion about hardware, routes, etc. But it is indeed political if it is about needs, future expansion, and funding, which it most often is. In fact HSR in particular is so political, that I do not regard it as being about trains. It is the “Chevy Volt” of rail transportation. It is not about serving a public need. It is about a public obligation to save the planet.
As I mentioned in a post on the previous page, it is easier for public passenger rail proponents to see no politics in their advocacy while complaining that those with the opposite view are violating the rules of the forum.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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 Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Bruce Kelly 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.
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.
However, with the magazine, the editors can select the information projected, but with the forum they cannot.
Therefore, if the editors of the magazine hold a political view and want only that view to be projected to the public, they can control that through the content they originate and publish in the magazine. However, the forum originates its own content, and it is just as likely to project political views that disagree with the magazine, as it is views that agree with the magazine. So, in order to prevent the forum from projecting political views that conflict with the ideology of the magazine, they could ban political discussion from the forum.
That would be one explanation for the magazine promoting a political view, while prohibiting political discussion on the forum. But another possible explanation would be that the magazine simply does not see that they are projecting a political viewpoint. They might have a No Politics rule for the magazine, and just not see the advocacy for HSR as being political.
Bernard Goldberg of CBS wrote a book called Bias, in which he made a case that CBS news did not see themselves as having a liberal bias because their worldview was liberal. They don’t see liberalism as being just one pole of a political duality. To them, liberalism is just normally what is.
Bucyrus 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.
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.
CMStPnP Bucyrus: 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. 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.
Bucyrus: 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.
I think you are right about why the thread was locked. But my point was responding to the previous poster who wonderd why the magazine has a political ideology while prohibiting politics on the forum.
Bucyrus But my point was responding to the previous poster who wonderd why the magazine has a political ideology while prohibiting politics on the forum.
But my point was responding to the previous poster who wonderd why the magazine has a political ideology while prohibiting politics on the forum.
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.
CMStPnP Bucyrus: But my point was responding to the previous poster who wonderd why the magazine has a political ideology while prohibiting politics on the forum. 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.
Bucyrus: But my point was responding to the previous poster who wonderd why the magazine has a political ideology while prohibiting politics on the forum.
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.
The issue of fact checking seems to be somewhat beside the point because political opinions can and are conveyed within material that is fact checked and gives true and accurate facts. Omitting certain facts while stating other facts can just as easily convey opinions.
Certainly, the magazine’s advocacy of HSR as a nationalized transportation system, while labeling those who oppose it as “train haters” is political.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.