Post New

Never thought I'd live to see the day.

Hallelujah! Saints be praised! :) A funny thing happened on the way to the atheist board.

What are you referring to? Many of our "leaders" [cough] insert religion into their policy as much as the can. See the recent IVF ruling, for example.

Ohhh...nevermind. I see it.

But we talk about a LOT of other stuff than just US Policy. Seems this is a less accurate heading.

It's a Festivus miracle! ...In March.

What are you referring to? Many of our "leaders" [cough] insert religion into their policy as much as the can. See the recent IVF ruling, for example.

Many, if not most, planks of the QOP have to be sanctified by the evangelist white christian nationalist racist bigots and misogynists.

Then there are the self-hating Jews, like Steven Miller directing Orange Jesus from behind the spraytanned comb-over of a curtain, to be considered.

Atheist, Asylum or US policy board, discussing that reality from the atheist's perspective attracts MAGAts like white on rice.

But we talk about a LOT of other stuff than just US Policy. Seems this is a less accurate heading.

The heading of US Policy is far more accurate for the majority of posts, than Atheist Shrewds.

Clicking over 40 random posts covering a wide period (such as viewing first post shown using the feature to move 7 days backwards through the posts) I counted 2 posts that were not without US political references. One other was mostly about another topic but still referenced “Dems” twice.

That matches my earlier observation that over 95% of the posts are suitable for a board named US Policy.

There are a lot of interesting and very intelligent people in this community and politics is a fine subject, so there shouldn’t be any avoidance of posting about politics whatsoever.. we have an increasing sense in the modern world of being mere "spectators" and not "participators" and that is made worse in recent years when you write a sincere YouTube comment that is increasingly auto-deleted… thank goodness, this board helps us to feel as participating - raising ideas to others is a fundamental, even crucial, act of participating. Heck, merely expressing oneself (whether intellectually, aesthetically or creatively) amongst a familiar community is a psychologically necessary human activity. Shrewdm provides an atmosphere of more depth of attention towards the ideas, and each other, then you generally get with today’s Snapchat Twitter Instagram InstantStimili OneSecondThought addiction tech services, where depth of attention is actively discouraged.

The 3-board restructuring was just done to allow posts to resemble their board title far more closely.

The wonderful whimsical ponderings and philosophical discussions should continue on the Atheist Shrewds board here:
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?bid=117

Posts relating to US politics should stay here.

- Manlobbi

I'm OK with that. But, as -I think- sano mused, what about cross-overs between religion and politics. Especially in the US, they are hard to separate with any consistency. Consider the IVF ruling in AL. It was political/legal, but the opinion of one judge was riddled with Biblical/theistic references. And that's just the first example I could come up with off the top of my head. Another would be a Speaker (of the House) that has a history of delivering sermons instead of political speeches, even in political settings.

How does one approach that in terms of board selection? I don't want to be a pain, and I do want to follow policy. But I think maybe this separation is going to cause more confusion.

One example I can come up with regarding confusion is the existence of the "astronomy" board and the "science, technology and engineering" board. Astronomy is science. So mostly I put those posts on (what I call) "the science board". Also, the "health and nutrition" board is somewhat subjective. If I'm linking an article, it will almost certainly contain summaries from scientific studies...so, again, "the science board". That's just how I parse it. It's all "the science board" for me.

Again, not complaining. Just points for consideration and/or discussion. It's your sandbox, and I do want to abide (as much as possible) by your rules.

ManThat matches my earlier observation that over 95% of the posts are suitable for a board named US Policy.

I doubt that. If you include Dope and Wilton Knight then 10% of the posts are gibberish where you get a vague sense of something, but not enough to go by.

I may be oversimplifying this whole debate, but if the board is about investing, which is about economics then it is fundamentally anout politics.

economics = the pie
politics = how is the pie shared.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.