Packers Huddle

Then don't define it and just stay away from it. The problem is also that people start it without provocation simple because they disagree.

I think your notion of male bonding is WAY out of whack. Good natured razzing is not the same as inflammatory rhetoric. Even good natured smack talk can go too far. That can be especially true on a written forum where other conversation cues are nonexistent.

I think this very thread shows exactly what the worry is. People do not really want to have an authentic discussion.

I'd like to ask "the proponents of no politics at all" to tell me how to handle issues that have inevitable overlap with politics. Resolve how the community could discuss this imaginary situation under zero-politics rules: "A Packers superstar player refuses to travel to play in Washington due to that team's name."

I wouldn't say no politics at all, but only those that have their "basis" in the NFL. Those topics that align with the Packers or NFL are then used to discuss that situation, with great emphasis on discuss.

Things like Kaepernick and Brees and the BLM movement within the NFL would be fine, but tightly monitored.

This would limit the threads and need for moderation.

Very similar to what is happening now.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 16:29

Then don't define it and just stay away from it. The problem is also that people start it without provocation simple because they disagree.

I think your notion of male bonding is WAY out of whack. Good natured razzing is not the same as inflammatory rhetoric. Even good natured smack talk can go too far. That can be especially true on a written forum where other conversation cues are nonexistent.

Look, different people react differently to different levels of inflammatory rhetoric (and it's also dependent on who they are interacting with as well, i.e. I might put up with harsh rhetoric from one person, but less so another).

What is true is what I originally said- that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't equate to enemies. Some people just don't take it personally, and that needs to be stated. I think a lot of the people who don't want a Podium are the same people who have lower thresholds for inflammatory rhetoric, so when they see Yoop write an angry rant and then I lay down the law, they think it's some huge deal, when in reality, I have no problems with yoop (and I don't think he has any problems with me). And the same can be said for many of the people who typically post politics. I don't use inflammatory rhetoric with everyone here, but some people I do.

I think you're right about how good natured smack talk can go too far, especially on an all-text forum. I don't think I am WAY out of whack though, because like I said, some people do just fine with rhetoric that others would be appalled by.

But regardless, this was just an aside. I didn't mean to make a huge debate about it, I just wanted to point out that just because you see 2 people interacting in an apparently harsh way towards one another, that doesn't mean that they're enemies or even really have any resentment at all. Some people are unaware of this. I used to have huge boisterous debates with my roommate in college (one of the loudest and most noteworthy in fact about Ryan Grant's declining skills as our starting RB) that caused the RA to want to bring in counselors, when in reality, he was (and still probably is) my best friend. We both sort of just laughed at the RA and told him to mind his own business.

What is the need for intentionally trying to !@#$ someone off or get under their skin?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 17:50

What is the need for intentionally trying to !@#$ someone off or get under their skin?

Who said anything about that?

There is a case being made for it to remain/continue.

texas wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 18:47

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 17:50

What is the need for intentionally trying to !@#$ someone off or get under their skin?

Who said anything about that?

Freudian slip...


Damn it! Guilty!!

I genuinely don't understand the need or desire for this. Do y'all not have facebook and/or twitter? Do you not have friends? Do you NEED more political talk in your lives? Is politics right now something that helps bring people together and build a community, which is what everyone is saying they want here.

I get that sometimes it overlaps a little into football, but for the most part, I just genuinely don't understand why everyone has this burning lust to get into it with every group of people they interact with.

And don't even start with this "people asking for no political talk don't have thick skin" crap. I went to grad school for Public Policy, live in the DC area, work in the government, and probably spend most of my day delving into political realms. It's not about dodging political talk in my LIFE. It's just that when you CAN separate it and ignore it to talk about something else, the notion of ASKING to bring it along into that realm, as well is just... I dunno, it's like some weird obsession

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 23:25

I genuinely don't understand the need or desire for this. Do y'all not have facebook and/or twitter? Do you not have friends? Do you NEED more political talk in your lives? Is politics right now something that helps bring people together and build a community, which is what everyone is saying they want here.

I get that sometimes it overlaps a little into football, but for the most part, I just genuinely don't understand why everyone has this burning lust to get into it with every group of people they interact with.

And don't even start with this "people asking for no political talk don't have thick skin" crap. I went to grad school for Public Policy, live in the DC area, work in the government, and probably spend most of my day delving into political realms. It's not about dodging political talk in my LIFE. It's just that when you CAN separate it and ignore it to talk about something else, the notion of ASKING to bring it along into that realm, as well is just... I dunno, it's like some weird obsession

You must hold mainstream/mob views if you think that facebook is a viable place to share political opinions. People who hold views like me (despite making up 50% of the country) simply can't share right now or else the mob comes after them.

Since it's mostly anonymous and mostly uncensored, the Podium is really one of the only places where you can get honest discourse. And I am not the only person who has made this point. Most of the discussions are significantly better than what you find on social media.

Also, I don't think anyone has a "burning lust". I think I am probably the most outspoken in favor of bringing it back, and I certainly don't have a burning lust or anything close to it. I 100% agree about having places to go to escape politics, and that's why the main forum has a No Politics rule and everyone agrees with that, and those who wish to get away from it all can choose to stay out.

So far I only see 2 possibly valid issues with The Podium: 1) Animosity spilling over into the main forum (which I think, given the degree to which it happens, is an insufficient reason to ditch it); 2) The Moderators' time being wasted on moderating it.

So as far as I can see, if #2 can be overcome (or if the Mods decide that the workload is worth it) then I think there should be a Podium again.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 23:25

I genuinely don't understand the need or desire for this. Do y'all not have facebook and/or twitter? Do you not have friends? Do you NEED more political talk in your lives? Is politics right now something that helps bring people together and build a community, which is what everyone is saying they want here.

I get that sometimes it overlaps a little into football, but for the most part, I just genuinely don't understand why everyone has this burning lust to get into it with every group of people they interact with.

And don't even start with this "people asking for no political talk don't have thick skin" crap. I went to grad school for Public Policy, live in the DC area, work in the government, and probably spend most of my day delving into political realms. It's not about dodging political talk in my LIFE. It's just that when you CAN separate it and ignore it to talk about something else, the notion of ASKING to bring it along into that realm, as well is just... I dunno, it's like some weird obsession

Doesn't that apply to JustJeff's, too?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 23:25

I genuinely don't understand the need or desire for this. Do y'all not have facebook and/or twitter? Do you not have friends? Do you NEED more political talk in your lives? Is politics right now something that helps bring people together and build a community, which is what everyone is saying they want here.

I get that sometimes it overlaps a little into football, but for the most part, I just genuinely don't understand why everyone has this burning lust to get into it with every group of people they interact with.

And don't even start with this "people asking for no political talk don't have thick skin" crap. I went to grad school for Public Policy, live in the DC area, work in the government, and probably spend most of my day delving into political realms. It's not about dodging political talk in my LIFE. It's just that when you CAN separate it and ignore it to talk about something else, the notion of ASKING to bring it along into that realm, as well is just... I dunno, it's like some weird obsession

From someone who never really participated on the podium, yet supports its existence...who cares what the reason someone would want it is? Who cares if they dont have friends? or like me dont discuss politics on facebook because only a certain type of person seems to do that on my feed? Its a little basement of the website, and helps fill boredom. Thats what all of this really is anyways isnt it? I mean i could say the same thing about every topic on this site that is not packers related, "Do you not have another place to discuss this stuff"...but some of us do get bored at work, we are all "internet friends", so why not have a place to discuss a topic there is interest in discussing?

I guess i am just so free speech that if their is an appetite for it, why not? Would be my stance. But again, it really doesnt matter to me. I just dont see the harm in it. I believe i can guess peoples politics by their opinions on a million other things ( most of the time)..before they even mention politics. Political spectrum's are about worldviews, and worldviews reveal themselves in many ways besides just a political opinion. So it never makes me hate anyone. I just think debate is fun.

texas wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 18:47

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 17:50

What is the need for intentionally trying to !@#$ someone off or get under their skin?

Who said anything about that?

I am really curious what you think the word inflammatory means.

texas wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 00:43

So far I only see 2 possibly valid issues with The Podium: 1) Animosity spilling over into the main forum (which I think, given the degree to which it happens, is an insufficient reason to ditch it); 2) The Moderators' time being wasted on moderating it.

So as far as I can see, if #2 can be overcome (or if the Mods decide that the workload is worth it) then I think there should be a Podium again.

I think no. 2 is not as much of an issue now or in recent times as it was in the past. At this point we all know who is going to have what stance on an issue, so I think there are/have been fewer insults and more of just pointing out inaccuracies and such.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 08:03

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 23:25

I genuinely don't understand the need or desire for this. Do y'all not have facebook and/or twitter? Do you not have friends? Do you NEED more political talk in your lives? Is politics right now something that helps bring people together and build a community, which is what everyone is saying they want here.

I get that sometimes it overlaps a little into football, but for the most part, I just genuinely don't understand why everyone has this burning lust to get into it with every group of people they interact with.

And don't even start with this "people asking for no political talk don't have thick skin" crap. I went to grad school for Public Policy, live in the DC area, work in the government, and probably spend most of my day delving into political realms. It's not about dodging political talk in my LIFE. It's just that when you CAN separate it and ignore it to talk about something else, the notion of ASKING to bring it along into that realm, as well is just... I dunno, it's like some weird obsession

Doesn't that apply to JustJeff's, too?

This is interesting.

I live in the policy world, both geographic proximity/peer group and my job.

But I lack a community of Packers fans because I live far from them. I see this community as a place where the politics that I spend my whole day talking about doesn't have to exist.

Most of you (not all), live in Wisconsin, where there is no shortage of Packers fans. You are on this board because you've chosen a specific group of Packers fans that you enjoy interacting with and talking with. But as your jobs and peer groups may not make friends and social media a great place for political discussions, you seek other avenues for those discussions, and figure an online forum where you already know the cast of characters and debate is frequent makes as much sense as anywhere else.

It makes sense, I suppose.

My vote remains no politics, consistent with my interests. But I guess I get it.

Mendeleev wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 09:46

texas wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 18:47

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 17:50

What is the need for intentionally trying to !@#$ someone off or get under their skin?

Who said anything about that?

I am really curious what you think the word inflammatory means.

I'm also curious about that [mention]texas[/mention] .

How is it different from direct/indirect personal attacks? Do you think some degree of the latter should be allowed?

Also, the idea of people simply having varying degrees of skin thickness when is comes to insults or inflammatory talk completely ignores the fact even the toughest people may have touchy points about particular subjects. Especially due to bad things in their past. In those cases "just growing a thicker skin" isn't really an option.

All one has to do is go back to the old forum Podium to find a plethora of mocking, shaming, insulting posts. It's even in the first handful of topics. Did that die down over the years? Of course it did, because people were mocked and insulted out of the place. There are a plethora of political forums, "private" even, to express ones political views. There are not many Packers forums.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/forums/
https://conservativesforum.boards.net/
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Liberal- ... OLIB-1642/
https://www.liberalforum.org/
https://www.democratichub.com/forums
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/index.php

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 13:03

All one has to do is go back to the old forum Podium to find a plethora of mocking, shaming, insulting posts. It's even in the first handful of topics. Did that die down over the years? Of course it did, because people were mocked and insulted out of the place. There are a plethora of political forums, "private" even, to express ones political views. There are not many Packers forums.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/forums/
https://conservativesforum.boards.net/
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Liberal- ... OLIB-1642/
https://www.liberalforum.org/
https://www.democratichub.com/forums
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/index.php

salmar80 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 12:52

Mendeleev wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 09:46

texas wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2020 18:47

Who said anything about that?

I am really curious what you think the word inflammatory means.

I'm also curious about that @texas .

How is it different from direct/indirect personal attacks? Do you think some degree of the latter should be allowed?

Also, the idea of people simply having varying degrees of skin thickness when is comes to insults or inflammatory talk completely ignores the fact even the toughest people may have touchy points about particular subjects. Especially due to bad things in their past. In those cases "just growing a thicker skin" isn't really an option.

I don't have a good answer about what is considered inflammatory and what isn't, since it is almost totally dependent on the context. In other words, you're correct in that different people have different touchy spots (some people have touchy spots about everything, whereas others have none).

What I do know, based on 30 years of experience, is that I have a higher degree of tolerance for inflammatory rhetoric than most, however you define it.

Go back and read the founding fathers- many of them would definitely get snipped here (and that pales in comparison to what would happen if they shared their thoughts on facebook in 2020). Even the apostle Paul made a joke about how his opponents should be castrated.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 10:57

texas wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2020 00:43

So far I only see 2 possibly valid issues with The Podium: 1) Animosity spilling over into the main forum (which I think, given the degree to which it happens, is an insufficient reason to ditch it); 2) The Moderators' time being wasted on moderating it.

So as far as I can see, if #2 can be overcome (or if the Mods decide that the workload is worth it) then I think there should be a Podium again.

I think no. 2 is not as much of an issue now or in recent times as it was in the past. At this point we all know who is going to have what stance on an issue, so I think there are/have been fewer insults and more of just pointing out inaccuracies and such.

I mean, I have been in favor of just cutting to the chase and acknowledging that this whole thing is about yoop

How I imagine some members have been since launching Packers Huddle with no Podium: