Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ETA Okay, I'm persuaded.

I've been thinking about what people are saying about the intensely divisive nature of the current political scene and I think I'm going to sequester any political content which ranges beyond British politics behind a filter

(really, I don't care who I offend with the British political stuff because as far as that goes? I believe I'm right, dammit *g*)

So if you'd like to be on the filter, hit the button. If not or you can't be arsed, ignore.

Do you want to be on the politics filter



( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 31st, 2004 01:25 pm (UTC)
I know I voted, but I rather wish you wouldn't do this.

Because we all of us need to not HIDE behind things, and sequester ourselves from voices we'd rather not here. We need to learn to listen. That's on the principle of the thing.

On the more personal side, I don't think you're nearly as likely to offend people as you seem to think. And your political posts are well-spoken, and funny as hell, and I do wish you'd continue to share them with the rest of the world.

I see from the poll that someone actually clicked "no", and... ::sigh:: I dunno.

Isn't this what cut-tags are for?

I expect I'm not being very clear about this, but it really distresses me to see people HIDE their thoughts this way, thoughts on big important issues. We all have the choice not to read them.

Aug. 31st, 2004 01:28 pm (UTC)
What she said?


Besides, you're outside of it all--and I like that perspective. Even if we agree that they're all a bunch of wankers.

Well, especially then :)
Aug. 31st, 2004 01:28 pm (UTC)
Isn't this what cut-tags are for?

I completely agree.

And you -- {points at infinitemonkeys} -- count me in. Your rants are so excellently written that even if I disagree I enjoy reading them.
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 31st, 2004 02:08 pm (UTC)
Except only people who come across this post, today, will get to read K's posts. Nobody outside that small universe will read them.

Also? Sometimes I'm not in the mood for politics. So when qowf or denyeverything1 or leadensky posts a rant with a cut tag, I scroll on past. And then, sometimes, I go back and click on it.

I like to have the option of reading it all, even if I'm not in the mood. And this filtering takes that option away from someone who might choose to read K's posts on another day. I know it's self-selecting, but again, we control our own reading and we all have the choice not to read.

I don't know if that makes any sense. I don't want to automate the process, I guess, and take away the opportunity someone might have to change their mind later.

Am I making any sense?
Aug. 31st, 2004 02:27 pm (UTC)
Am I making any sense?

Yes, and I agree with the wholeness of my heart.
Aug. 31st, 2004 02:31 pm (UTC)
Although I now want to apologize to K for making this a public policy discussion in her own journal.

Sorry, hon. ::sheepish looks::
Aug. 31st, 2004 02:32 pm (UTC)
By which I mean, it's your decision, K, and I'm afraid I'm belaboring the point so I'm just gonna shut up now.
Aug. 31st, 2004 02:44 pm (UTC)
You're okay, I never mind discussion. My reasons are complicated. I don't mean that in a "sweeps locks from the forehead of the agonised artiste" way, just that I am very aware of the perspective from which I observe. I think I may bore the tits off everyone with an explanation later, when I'm done listening to Callie Khouri and trying to work out how to screencap a very young Brad Pitt.
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 31st, 2004 05:13 pm (UTC)
You know, I get that.

I do.

I just... I guess it's the predetermined nature of it. We've all posted things filtered to avoid pissing off LJer X or for other reasons.

But this, I dunno, presupposes that LJer X will always be pissed off by x topic, no matter how civil or considered a discourse. You know?

Choosing not to hurt someone, yup. Choosing to exclude them from all discussion on a topic that might be controversial? Not so much.

And yeah, K has her own reasons and whatever she has to say I'm always happy to hear it.
Aug. 31st, 2004 04:19 pm (UTC)
I know about eleven people have already agreed with your "Isn't that what cut-tags are for?" question,b ut I just had to add my agreement as well. Because I'm a sheep.

It's InfiniteMonkeys' blog, and she shouldn't have to censor herself here or filter her opinions so that only the people who already agree with them can read them. The ones you want to reach are the ones who *don't* already agree. For courtesy's sake, long posts get cut-tags, but beyond that if people don't want to read about your political opinions, they don't have to click the cut tag, and they don't have to read your posts. If they disagree with you, they can either ignore you, or they can post a dissenting reply and engage you in debate. There are people on my flist who post things I disagree with. I would never expect them to filter their thoughts to avoid offending me by telling me what they really think. Some of the most interesting discussions I've had on LJ have been with people I politely disagree with.
Aug. 31st, 2004 03:16 pm (UTC)
For some reason my damned browser is not allowing me to say I want to hear what you have to say about politics.

Keep me in the loop.
Aug. 31st, 2004 05:06 pm (UTC)
not on my account
More or less, what cofax said. Double.

(except I totally get the loathing rutabagas analogy. I don't agree that it warrents a filter, but I am completely familar with the stomach-grinding ache that results.)

If this is still up for discussion, my vote is, "don't filter". The mind you change might be your own. *g*

If I have a request, it's that people don't cuss out Republicans or conservatives or call us names except behind a cut tag. (But I've put up with that for so damn long on lj I wonder why I bother to even ask.)

- hg

Sep. 1st, 2004 12:23 am (UTC)
Filter not necessary :D
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )