Metadiscussion re: Democrats and civil society

Post Reply New Topic

In the separate thread Democrats and the need to rebuild civil society, I wrote here:

kokopelli replied to an earlier version of the above post:


As Cornflake has told us numerous times, Wrong Planet has an informal policy of allowing the OP to specify the scope of topicality of a thread.

I just want to avoid distracting debates in the above-linked thread, because debates about any specific political issues have a strong likelihood of completely swamping out the thread's original intended topic.

This certainly doesn't stop people from voicing "any expression that does not match your personal views" in other threads. I'm not asking anyone to limit what they say, just where they say it, to keep some particular discussions better focused.

Not all discussions here need to be focused. Some discussions are fine being more wide-ranging. But some discussions, and I think the above-linked thread is one of them, are likely to get completely buried in distractions if they aren't kept pretty strictly on-topic.

Also, when I request that a thread be focused on a particular topic, I would appreciate it very much if you would NOT reply, within that same thread, by disputing my request. Such disputes too are yet another distracting digression, which likewise belong in a separate thread.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 06 Jan 2025, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

In other words, all you want is discussions about how fantastic your opinions are.

No true discussions in which anyone is allowed to disagree are allowed.

^ I think you’ve missed the point.

It’s perfectly reasonable for OPs to request posts stay on-topic, especially in serious threads that are worth exploring in a meaningful way. Otherwise, they get off-track with debating side issues and the original purpose is lost. If people want to talk about a side issue, nothing is stopping them from making their own thread on it, provided that they aren’t breaking the rules here.

Disagreeing is fine although debates or bringing up side issues aren’t appropriate for every thread.

The title of the video was "The Secret Reason the Dems Keep Losing".

Is it somehow magically off topic for someone to present other possible reasons for their losing?

I'd even disagree with the notion that they keep losing. They win some and they lose some. There is no reasons to expect the Democrats to win every election -- the only way that they could win every election would just about have to be fraudulent.

For what it's worth, I consider videos to be for entertainment purposes only. That is especially true if they are trying to push some agenda since such videos only presents what they want people to think. Somehow, watching a video seems to draw people in and give whatever is being pushed the air of authority.

The title of the thread is: “Democrats And The Need To Rebuild Civil Society.” There may be a video in the OP, but with threads on complex topics like that, more research is typically added in subsequent posts.

Bringing up contentious side points almost always gets threads off-track on WP which is particularly frustrating when the goal is about mutual learning and, perhaps, creating a convenient source for future reference. Various threads talk about very specific aspects of the Israel/Gaza war for example. They are very convenient to reference, especially when they aren’t bogged down in off-topic arguments (often the same ones that have come up repeatedly). Then one can synthesize the reference material with something else and arrive at something new or, at least, a more nuanced understanding.

No, that's not the point.

For example, a disagreement with the premise of the thread -- that civil society organizations have a crucial role in politics -- would be on-topic. So too would a disagreement about the possible political significance of the kinds of nonpolitical groups and activities mentioned in the article quoted here and in other articles quoted in this thread.

What you are saying then is that nobody is permitted to post anything that disagrees with your view.

Bolding and underlining added.


Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I wrote. Re-read the above.

I specifically said that disagreements with certain categories of things I agree with are on-topic.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 06 Jan 2025, 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

But the title of the thread is "Democrats and the need to rebuild civil society."

The basic premise of both the video and the subsequent article I posted is that the decline of civil society, over the past half-century or so, is bad for democracy in general and especially bad for the Democratic Party (because the relatively few remaining civil society organizations, e.g. today's churches and the NRA, tend to be right-wing-leaning).


Most of these "other possible reasons" are a lot more contentious, hence likely to completely drown out the intended topic if discussed in that thread.


Over the past decade, Democrats have lost quite a bit more than they've won. Democrats have lost enough that, for example, the Supreme Court has become completely dominated by Republican-appointed judges. And Republicans will now control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Neither party should win every election, but things are well-nigh catastrophic for the Democratic party these days.


I don't regard videos as being "for entertainment purposes only." But, other factors being equal, I too prefer text articles to videos. When I do post videos (which I've been doing more than usual lately, because I've been watching YouTube more than usual lately), I usually quote the description or otherwise post some brief text-based introduction, to help people decide whether they think the video is worth watching.