News & Current Affairs - A New Subscription Board

Provision of this board is an experiment. Because discussion of politics (particularly over the past year or two) often causes upset, we decided during the US Presidential election of 2016 to temporarily disallow such topics at the forum. Discussion of politics remains very contentious of course. However, we try to allow for very wide discussion at BB and from a variety of viewpoints across all subjects, not just benzodiazepine use and withdrawal. Though, we remain committed to our core values as outlined in our numerous policy documents. Support for fellow Buddies going through withdrawal should be at the forefront of all our interactions within this community. Having said this, most of us enjoy distraction and the opportunity to discuss topics other than those relating to benzodiazepines.

The News & Current Affairs board is an application-subscription board. Access (and continued access) is not automatic. Though, access will be normally provided to you. However, this type of subscription board allows us to easily remove access too. Please use this space wisely and refrain from personal attacks upon your interlocutors.

To access the Politics & News board, go to:

Profile >> Modify Profile >> Group Membership >> '[Access] Politics, News and Current Affairs' (click 'Request Membership') >> click 'Submit Request'.

Rules of Engagement:

• Do not resort to personal attacks. Discussion of politics and current affairs can become very heated. Please keep a cool head. Many of you are more fragile than the wider population and might be more prone to losing composure because of difficulties associated with withdrawal from benzodiazepines. We understand this. But as a practical matter, we must insist that discourse on this board is kept civil. Expect to have your ability to post curtailed or access to this board revoked if you habitually cause moderation problems.
   
   
  
• All sources must be referenced.
   
   
  
• Cite only reliable sources. Referencing of publications and websites which promote conspiracy theories, propaganda, and/or hate speech are expressly disallowed. As a general rule, if your source believes that the 'Mainstream Media' (MSM) are the problem or enemy, they are highly unlikely to be an independent, legitimate source of fact-based information. Legitimate sources base their reporting upon facts, or clearly differentiate between factual reporting and opinion. An exception to this rule is allowed in the referencing of propaganda or conspiracy theory sources for the purposes of debunking. The deliberate dissemination of lies is a despicable act and deserves to be addressed. One final point: media sources which acknowledge their mistakes are orders of magnitude more reliable than sources which routinely peddle disinformation and are incapable of admitting error.
   
   
  
• If your favourite sources fall foul of these requirements, we make no apologies for these posting restrictions. We respectfully suggest that you reassess how you access reliable information.
   
   
  
• With these guidelines in mind, please use this space to discuss and express your opinions and frustrations with politics and news.

No problem, Morreweg. I  hope it works out for everyone.

A Merry Christmas to you too.

Yes, benzofoe, I think it strikes the right balance. We did not like to so restrict about these type of discussions when we originally made the decision (during the US Presidential election) - it was in response too much upset being caused on the forum and was the right decision at the time. It was never our intention to make the restriction permanent. I hope this setup works out too. I think it will.

Let us know if you wish access yourself.

Thank you Colin and Merry Christmas.

And thank you for all that you do .

 

Thank you Colin and Merry Christmas.

 

And thank you for all that you do .

Thank you, brave rabbit. And a Merry Christmas to you too.

Though, frankly, I don't do that much around here these days (and have not for years now). Most of the work is performed by the Moderators and Administrators. I just post the occasional announcement, twiddle the odd setting from time-to-time, and try to look more important and active than I am in reality.

I appreciate the effort to allow wider discussions but the language concerns me.

Referencing of publications and websites which promote conspiracy theories, propaganda, and/or hate speech are expressly disallowed. As a general rule, if your source believes that the 'Mainstream Media' (MSM) are the problem or enemy, they are highly unlikely to be an independent, legitimate source of fact-based information.

I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the world but in the USA the environment is hostile to the conservative message. Many things that are not politically correct according to the current trend are labeled as hate speech, even if it is based on objective facts. What is the criteria used to determine what is or is not hate speech?

Also, folks need to keep in mind that the subject of benzo withdrawal might be considered by many to be a conspiracy theory or propaganda. Every other commercial on tv is for a prescription drug. Does anyone here believe that you can really trust the mainstream media to be unbiased on this subject when they derive a big chunk of their ad revenue from pharmaceutical companies? If you can't trust them on this matter, how can you trust them to deliver an accurate, unbiased message with everything else?

I will give it a shot but it sounds like there is already an anti-conservative bias, and that disappoints me.

I appreciate the effort to allow wider discussions but the language concerns me.

 

Referencing of publications and websites which promote conspiracy theories, propaganda, and/or hate speech are expressly disallowed. As a general rule, if your source believes that the 'Mainstream Media' (MSM) are the problem or enemy, they are highly unlikely to be an independent, legitimate source of fact-based information.

 

I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the world but in the USA the environment is hostile to the conservative message. Many things that are not politically correct according to the current trend are labeled as hate speech, even if it is based on objective facts. What is the criteria used to determine what is or is not hate speech?

'Hate speech' has always be disallowed at BB. Moderators operate 'good judgement' in tricky to define areas. If the moderation question is less than black and white to the moderator, they will typically start a moderation discussion and seek a consensus view. If a post is removed hastily, it probably will be returned by an Admin if this is their determination.

I will tell you this: I will not operate forum which allows 'hate' content. I do not draw overly strict lines about these matters as I believe discussion of the issue is the best way to enlighten people. But in obvious cases of 'hate speech' I expect the content to be challenged and/or removed if particularly offensive. The common cause of our members are problems associated with benzodiazepine withdrawal; and our common aim is to become benzo-free. I will not allow content which alienates members on trivial, benign or cultural differences. This cuts both ways of course. I expect members who belong to minorities to be tolerant of other members and minorities too.

Also, folks need to keep in mind that the subject of benzo withdrawal might be considered by many to be a conspiracy theory or propaganda. Every other commercial on tv is for a prescription drug. Does anyone here believe that you can really trust the mainstream media to be unbiased on this subject when they derive a big chunk of their ad revenue from pharmaceutical companies? If you can't trust them on this matter, how can you trust them to deliver an accurate, unbiased message with everything else?

Not in any normal definitions of 'conspiracy theory' or 'propaganda'. Differences of opinion do not equate to one (or both) sides falling into such categories.

I will give it a shot but it sounds like there is already an anti-conservative bias, and that disappoints me.

That's a puzzling remark, as there is no mention of particular sources or conservatism in any of the guidelines. You will note that many from both 'the right' and 'the left' regularly portray MSM as the enemy.

'Hate speech' has always be disallowed at BB. Moderators operate 'good judgement' in tricky to define areas. If the moderation question is less than black and white to the moderator, they will typically start a moderation discussion and seek a consensus view. If a post is removed hastily, it probably will be returned by an Admin if this is their determination.

 

I will tell you this: I will not operate forum which allows 'hate' content. I do not draw overly strict lines about these matters as I believe discussion of the issue is the best way to enlighten people. But in obvious cases of 'hate speech' I expect the content to be challenged and/or removed if particularly offensive. The common cause of our members are problems associated with benzodiazepine withdrawal; and our common aim is to become benzo-free. I will not allow content which alienates members on trivial, benign or cultural differences.

It's just disturbing to me how in the US this label is used (and used effectively in most cases) to silence unpopular opinions and more concerning, it is used to cover up facts. And it only seems to go one way. So when that is brought up it makes me wonder what the standards are and how they will be applied.

This cuts both ways of course. I expect members who belong to minorities to be tolerant of other members and minorities too

See, that's the problem. It doesn't usually cut both ways. I have seen posts here that disparage a certain group and no one bats an eye. But if anyone so much as mentions an uncomfortable statistic about any other group they are silenced.

Not in any normal definitions of 'conspiracy theory' or 'propaganda'. Differences of opinion do not equate to one (or both) sides falling into such categories.

My point was that if you automatically write off everything that society in general considers to be a conspiracy theory, you do so at your own peril.

Which brings us back to the question of what criteria is used to determine what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.

That's a puzzling remark, as there is no mention of particular sources or conservatism in any of the guidelines. You will note that many from both 'the right' and 'the left' regularly portray MSM as the enemy.

That may have been a little presumptuous on my part and if it was I apologize, but again, knowing what I know about how it is almost always the left accusing the right of hate speech and dismissing their claims that the mainstream media produces "fake news", that is how it sounded to me.

I think this new board is a terrible idea. It is an invitation to a brawl. It will produce nothing but division and hard feelings. It is contrary to the purpose of benzobuddies, which is to bring people together to help each other through withdrawal and recovery. Battle lines will be drawn, enemies will be made, grudges will be nursed, people will remember who was with them and who was against them on some issue that seemed important to them, and those various divisions and disagreements will be carried over onto every other board and thread at benzobuddies. People will refuse to help each other, based on those divisions.

Beyond benzobuddies there is a big internet, full of websites set up specifically for political discussion, organization, and even combat. People who have access to benzobuddies also have access to all those other websites. If they want to engage in debate, and if they think they are actually up to it, they can go to one of those websites, and nobody at benzobuddies will be any the wiser. There is no reason for us to expect benzobuddies to be everybody's everything. This is not Facebook. This is not YouTube. This is not Twitter. This is not an IRC Chat channel.

Of course, there are other boards at benzobuddies set up for non-benzo posts, but those posts are intended to divert, distract, amuse, and lessen the stress of this whole painful process. This new board will have precisely the opposite effect - and that effect is so obvious that it must have been intended. This will be the only board at benzobuddies specificially designed to provoke argument and conflict. And then, to add insult to injury, it is presented as a Christmas gift! You might as well stuff your children's stockings with loaded rifles.

Of course, I don't have to join this new board - and of course, I will not be joining it. But my absense from that board will not prevent the damage it will do to benzobuddies, to the morale of this community, to the spirit of mutual support and assistance. If I board an airplane where everyone is allowed to smoke cigarettes, it is worse than useless to tell me that I don't have to smoke. Oh, but, you see, we have a smokers' section on the airplane, and so.. well... uh....

The stench and the toxicity of this new board is bound to perfuse all of benzobuddies and ruin it even for those who don't subscribe to the new board. I really don't understand what you were thinking, Cousin Colin. But I hope you change your mind and shut this new board down, quickly.

An old business etiquette quote:

“Do not discuss politics or religion in general company. You probably would not convert your opponent, and he will not convert you. To discuss those topics is to arouse feeling without any good result.”

There’s some pretty polarized and imbedded viewpoints these days it seems. Food for thought.

I think this new board is a terrible idea. It is an invitation to a brawl.

It is whatever an individual makes it out to be. Some folks have a hard time discussing controversial topics in a civilized manner but since BB staff have the ability to revoke membership that should keep things civil.

It will produce nothing but division and hard feelings. It is contrary to the purpose of benzobuddies, which is to bring people together to help each other through withdrawal and recovery. Battle lines will be drawn, enemies will be made, grudges will be nursed, people will remember who was with them and who was against them on some issue that seemed important to them, and those various divisions and disagreements will be carried over onto every other board and thread at benzobuddies. People will refuse to help each other, based on those divisions.

 

Beyond benzobuddies there is a big internet, full of websites set up specifically for political discussion, organization, and even combat. People who have access to benzobuddies also have access to all those other websites. If they want to engage in debate, and if they think they are actually up to it, they can go to one of those websites, and nobody at benzobuddies will be any the wiser. There is no reason for us to expect benzobuddies to be everybody's everything. This is not Facebook. This is not YouTube. This is not Twitter. This is not an IRC Chat channel.

I don't share your prediction. BB is one of the only social outlets many of us have and there is no reason why adults can't be trusted to be adults while discussing sensitive issues. It's a subscription only board and this board in general is well moderated so I don't see why there would be a big problem.

Hi Red,

I'm only here for a few minutes - I might write more tomorrow. But for now, just to say, such discussions were only 'banned' at BB during the US presidential election. This temporary restriction was extended (more by stealth than an actual decision) up until a few days ago. BB has always allowed for wide discussion, and does not even push any particular benzo-agenda. So, this is more of a return to the status quo. But, because there continues to be strong divisions and unrest in political discourse (in the US and the UK), I took the precaution of labeling the new board 'an experiment', make it an application-subscription board, and made very clear what is expected from participants.

What apparently underpins your comments (that our members - as a group - are more vulnerable than the general population) was why we imposed those temporary restrictions in the first place. At the same time, though, I do not wish to place any kind of restrictions upon content and views (not unless I can help it). Most benzo-forums (in the past) were very restrictive of content and views expressed by members. Another forum went completely in the other direction (a free-for-all with no effective moderation at all): they all closed. So, I think I (and we) get most things right around here. Now, maybe this new board will not work out, but I think it is worth a try. I disliked like the situation (before the opening of the new board) where a member posts a thread (or wanders in to discussion) about politics, gun control, etc., only to be met by a moderator telling them that they cannot discuss those things at BB. Yes, BB members may be (on average) more fragile than the general population, but they are all adults too. We treat them as such.

I understand from where you are coming from, but I think you are wrong. Even if the board should prove to be unsuccessful, I still think you are wrong, because it is right to try. Part of the problem with US and UK politics is that people are not talking with each other (they are shouting, but not talking). I understand reluctance to not engaging with strangers about certain matters (I am generally hesitant too), but not engaging is not the answer. For what it is worth, I have strong political views, and I think the other side is very wrong, but I am trying to converse with them (when I can), and to resist shouting at them too.

Why is this one of the only social outlets many of you have?

You want the long version or the short version?

Aw hell....I'll give you the medium version.

First off, I lost most of my friends over the past 7 years of being sick. I have a couple of friends but since I had to move in with my mom in a town where I don't have much in common with people and any friends I do have left are far away I don't get out much socially.

Secondly, this illness has been devastating to me and I no longer feel like I can relate as well to people in general. So on the rare occasion I do get to see friends not only do I not want to really delve into subjects that are too "deep", but I also don't want to get into that kind of thing in general with the few real life friends I have.

Not sure of your overall situation but I have been some degree of extremely sick for most of the past 7 years with an illness that no one in real life truly understands. That's a very isolating experience, even for people who do have a lot of people they call friends in real life.

Part of the problem with US and UK politics is that people are not talking with each other (they are shouting, but not talking). I understand reluctance to not engaging with strangers about certain matters (I am generally hesitant too), but not engaging is not the answer.

I agree. The worst thing we can do is avoid having a discussion.

I think this new board is a terrible idea. It is an invitation to a brawl.

 

It is whatever an individual makes it out to be. Some folks have a hard time discussing controversial topics in a civilized manner but since BB staff have the ability to revoke membership that should keep things civil.

 

It will produce nothing but division and hard feelings. It is contrary to the purpose of benzobuddies, which is to bring people together to help each other through withdrawal and recovery. Battle lines will be drawn, enemies will be made, grudges will be nursed, people will remember who was with them and who was against them on some issue that seemed important to them, and those various divisions and disagreements will be carried over onto every other board and thread at benzobuddies. People will refuse to help each other, based on those divisions.

 

Beyond benzobuddies there is a big internet, full of websites set up specifically for political discussion, organization, and even combat. People who have access to benzobuddies also have access to all those other websites. If they want to engage in debate, and if they think they are actually up to it, they can go to one of those websites, and nobody at benzobuddies will be any the wiser. There is no reason for us to expect benzobuddies to be everybody's everything. This is not Facebook. This is not YouTube. This is not Twitter. This is not an IRC Chat channel.

 

I don't share your prediction. BB is one of the only social outlets many of us have and there is no reason why adults can't be trusted to be adults while discussing sensitive issues. It's a subscription only board and this board in general is well moderated so I don't see why there would be a big problem.

I am with the FloridaGuy on this one. I really fail to see the problem with another section where people can discuss News and Current Events. First, it is subscription only, second, it is not visible to the public, and third, it is well-moderated just like any other board. Personally, I'd rather see some falling out in the new board, rather than in the other sections that are mostly suited for helping people recover from iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependence.

Also, benzodiazepine dependency does not happen in isolation from the outside world. For many people, the current or past events may have been a trigger that have landed them in a Doctor's office and with a bzd prescription. It has happened for many due to 9/11, Katrina, 2008 financial crisis, etc. etc. I am also sure that the same thing has happened to people outside of the United States in response to the crises in their own countries, as well.

Also, I think some of us who do not live in the UK have inadvertently missed out on volumes of research on the dangers of tranquilizers, and there is a chance that, had we in other parts of the world been exposed to more UK-based news, some of us may have been able to avert this problem and not have to face it in the first place. I am really grateful for the amazing research by Prof. Ashton and Prof. Lader and others on this issue, and some of us could have really benefited from that UK-based research, had we actually known where to look in the first place. Yes, the problem is easy to know if one knows where to look, but the sad reality is that most people have no idea where to look unless they know what exactly they are looking for. And how does a person look for what, at one point in their life seemed like a complete impossibility?

My personal experience is that at least, in the United States, benzo dependency has long been just lumped together with all other chemical addictions and has basically given the same treatment (N/A, 12 steps, detox centers), as any other chemical addictions. It is because of this model of thinking about benzos that most people have never truly grasped the chief danger of bzd's which is iatrogenic physical dependence, and a potentially long and painful tapering and recovery process.

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."

- Linus van Pelt

http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/linus-van-pelt-youre-in-love-charlie-brown-3.47.jpg

Part of the problem with US and UK politics is that people are not talking with each other (they are shouting, but not talking). I understand reluctance to not engaging with strangers about certain matters (I am generally hesitant too), but not engaging is not the answer.

 

I agree. The worst thing we can do is avoid having a discussion.

You've been around here a long time, FG - as have I - and I seem to remember that you were a pretty good moderator. But I'm afraid you've confused me here. You say the worst thing we can do is avoid having a discussion.  But just before that you said "on the rare occasion I do get to see friends not only do I not want to really delve into subjects that are too 'deep', but I also don't want to get into that kind of thing in general with the few real life friends I have."

So apparently you've figured out that discussing public affairs in real life is a good way to lose friends. Why would you think it's any different here at benzobuddies ? You can expect exactly the same result here as in real life. You will certainly lose friends.

When I asked why benzobuddies was one of the only social outlets you had left, I was actually wondering why you couldn't also have some other website as a social outlet. Benzobuddies has a defined mission of helping people through withdrawal and recovery. There's no reason why every other thing on earth should be on this one website.

Here's a short list of websites we can go to if we feel we must argue about current events:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/

http://www.politicalforum.com/

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/

http://democraticunderground.com/

http://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Society/ct-p/CurrentEvents

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/

http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/

https://politicspoliticalforum.com/

And that's just a small sample of the hundreds,  the thousands of such websites. You can find a list of internet forums at Wikipedia, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_forums

And if you know of another good online current-events forum, go ahead and post a link to that website.

If you join one of those forums, and you get into political arguments there, at least you won't alienate anyone here, at benzobuddies. You won't make an enemy of someone whose friendship and help you might need as you struggle through withdrawal and recovery.

But really, I would advise our members not even to do that, not even to argue politics somewhere else. If they're still here at benzobuddies, if they still need what benzobuddies has to offer, then they're probably still impaired: physically, mentally, and emotionally. To the extent possible, they should avoid all stressful situations - and debating current events these days is about the most stressful thing they can do. So why do it? Why put themselves through it? They will gain nothing, they will not be helping anyone else, and they will most definitely be slowing down their own recovery - or even reversing it - because of the stress such debates provoke.

You said earlier that there is no reason why adults can't be trusted to be adults while discussing sensitive issues. But have you seen the way adults in real life have been discussing public issues lately? I'm not talking about the way you may think adults should behave, but about how adults actually do behave these days. And presumably those adults, out there in real life, are not, most of them, on antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and God only knows what other meds; or suffering from derealization, depersonalization, depression, anxiety, paranoia, obsessive intrusive thoughts, fits of rage, delusions, and physical torture of every sort - as the adults here at benzobuddies are. So the discussions here have the potential to be even nastier than out there in real life, with or without moderators. The moderators' decisions will only add fuel to the fire. Their impartiality will be challenged. In fact, their impartiality has already been challenged, here, in this string:

I appreciate the effort to allow wider discussions but the language concerns me.

...

I will give it a shot but it sounds like there is already an anti-conservative bias, and that disappoints me.

Let me repeat my main point:

If you want to discuss current affairs, if you think it will be good for you (which I doubt), if you think you're up to it (which I also doubt) - well fine then. Go and do it.

But there's no reason why you have to do it here at benzobuddies.

There's no reason why you can't do it on some other website.

And there are plenty of good reasons why we should not be doing that here at benzobuddies.

And let me add this: If there is someone who is not able to find an actual public affairs forum on the internet, and join it, if they are still not recovered enough to handle that, then they should seriously consider the possibility that they are not yet recovered enough to be debating the great controversies of the day, anywhere, with anyone. As for the rest of us - well, I'd still think twice about it. But you know, it might actually do some of us some good to make some friends somewhere else, even if only on some other website. Now there's a thought.

OK, I'm done with this now. I've argued enough. That's a whole month's worth of stress for me in just a couple hours, and on Christmas Day, no less. I've shot my bolt. I've tried to prevent what I'm sure will be some very great damage. Now it's up to a Higher Power - by which I mean Colin, of course. I'm off to post some classical music or something. Good luck, everyone.

I think this new board is a terrible idea. It is an invitation to a brawl. It will produce nothing but division and hard feelings. It is contrary to the purpose of benzobuddies, which is to bring people together to help each other through withdrawal and recovery. Battle lines will be drawn, enemies will be made, grudges will be nursed, people will remember who was with them and who was against them on some issue that seemed important to them, and those various divisions and disagreements will be carried over onto every other board and thread at benzobuddies. People will refuse to help each other, based on those divisions.

 

Beyond benzobuddies there is a big internet, full of websites set up specifically for political discussion, organization, and even combat. People who have access to benzobuddies also have access to all those other websites. If they want to engage in debate, and if they think they are actually up to it, they can go to one of those websites, and nobody at benzobuddies will be any the wiser. There is no reason for us to expect benzobuddies to be everybody's everything. This is not Facebook. This is not YouTube. This is not Twitter. This is not an IRC Chat channel.

 

Of course, there are other boards at benzobuddies set up for non-benzo posts, but those posts are intended to divert, distract, amuse, and lessen the stress of this whole painful process. This new board will have precisely the opposite effect - and that effect is so obvious that it must have been intended. This will be the only board at benzobuddies specificially designed to provoke argument and conflict. And then, to add insult to injury, it is presented as a Christmas gift! You might as well stuff your children's stockings with loaded rifles.

 

Of course, I don't have to join this new board - and of course, I will not be joining it. But my absense from that board will not prevent the damage it will do to benzobuddies, to the morale of this community, to the spirit of mutual support and assistance. If I board an airplane where everyone is allowed to smoke cigarettes, it is worse than useless to tell me that I don't have to smoke. Oh, but, you see, we have a smokers' section on the airplane, and so.. well... uh....

 

The stench and the toxicity of this new board is bound to perfuse all of benzobuddies and ruin it even for those who don't subscribe to the new board. I really don't understand what you were thinking, Cousin Colin. But I hope you change your mind and shut this new board down, quickly.

That seems like a lot of projections into the future. Nobody here has a crystal ball, and nobody knows how this new board will turn out. Is this something you fear, based on the past experiences here? What do you base these assumptions on?

I've seen a fair amount of strong disagreements in miscellaneous threads over the years. Sometimes, there may be no rule or reason why these occur. Perhaps, someone is posting while in a wave to someone else who is feeling ok. Or vice versa. Sometimes things happen pretty randomly. Just like the neuronal healing is random, the debates can spark up out of nowhere and then just fade away, as the focus shifts to somewhere else.

And then, who has a magical yardstick to determine who's recovered enough to stay here or go to other forums?

It's like "othering people" and saying, "yes, you do have a right to discuss this, and no you don't". "Ah, you are only 6 months out? No discussions for you!"

Signing up here and posting is voluntary. Going to other forums is voluntary, too. I don't see a point in telling others to go elsewhere to discuss things. It should be up to individuals to decide.

Although I don't feel quite as vehement, I am with Redevan on the inadvisability of political "discussions" on a benzo withdrawal support board. 

She

 

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."

 

- Linus van Pelt

 

http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/linus-van-pelt-youre-in-love-charlie-brown-3.47.jpg

Well, we've always allowed for discussion of religion, and sex(ual dysfunction and relationship problems). And although a very contentious issue, we also always allowed members to engage in discussion of the pumpkin variety. The same was true for politics - only for the past 18 months or so was there a temporary hiatus in allowing political discussion at BB. Now, these types of discussion would often derail, but not often enough for to ban them outright. The last US election was an aberration for us - a temporary restriction.

We've always had a spacial area allowing members to discuss religion. Most forums, of course, do not provide for such spaces: 1) because it often leads to argument; and 2) for convenience (of moderation). BB, however, decided to provide the board because a (relatively) small number of members benefited from it. It should be noted that the Faith board would quite often attract zealots wishing proselytise their beliefs. We eventually made the Faith board into a subscription board and we've experienced no significant problems since (it must be about 4 years now). Interestingly, we've also experienced fewer problems with members proselytising to the rest of the forum too (I don't have an explanation for that). I don't know if it is the prospect of being bumped from the board, or just the act of having to apply for access, but the Faith board is now one of the least problematic areas of the forum for the moderation team.

The point is that we try our best to allow for all kinds of discussion. There are some obvious red lines of course, and I will not allow BB to be used as platform for the spreading of conspiracy theories and propaganda (both being types of lies). The new News board is application-subscription board - we can remove access for individuals who do not abide by the rules. I deliberately labelled the board as 'an experiment'.

Part of the problem with US and UK politics is that people are not talking with each other (they are shouting, but not talking). I understand reluctance to not engaging with strangers about certain matters (I am generally hesitant too), but not engaging is not the answer.

 

I agree. The worst thing we can do is avoid having a discussion.

 

You've been around here a long time, FG - as have I - and I seem to remember that you were a pretty good moderator. But I'm afraid you've confused me here. You say the worst thing we can do is avoid having a discussion.  But just before that you said "on the rare occasion I do get to see friends not only do I not want to really delve into subjects that are too 'deep', but I also don't want to get into that kind of thing in general with the few real life friends I have."

 

So apparently you've figured out that discussing public affairs in real life is a good way to lose friends. Why would you think it's any different here at benzobuddies ? You can expect exactly the same result here as in real life. You will certainly lose friends.

 

When I asked why benzobuddies was one of the only social outlets you had left, I was actually wondering why you couldn't also have some other website as a social outlet. Benzobuddies has a defined mission of helping people through withdrawal and recovery. There's no reason why every other thing on earth should be on this one website.

 

[sNIP]

 

Hi Redevan,

Well, this has all gone a bit meta! The only contentious discussion so far around this subject has been about whether or not we should allow the new News board for reasons of continuing a harmonious atmosphere at the forum. The actual board itself has experienced no heated discussion so far (I am not naive - I know that it will). But, as others have pointed out, this happens randomly across the forum anyway (just as it does at every forum).

I think many of our members are not members of other forums or participate little outside of BB. I really do not think we should be telling members where they should go to discuss certain topics. I think I understand your concerns, but I've been doing this a long time. We've always allowed for contentious discussion, and it has caused us no great headaches. I also feel that some members will benefit from the opportunity to flex their rhetorical skills, but in the knowledge that we will not allow a free-for-all.

OK, I'm done with this now. I've argued enough. That's a whole month's worth of stress for me in just a couple hours, and on Christmas Day, no less. I've shot my bolt. I've tried to prevent what I'm sure will be some very great damage. Now it's up to a Higher Power - by which I mean Colin, of course. I'm off to post some classical music or something. Good luck, everyone.

I just wanted to add, Redevan, please do not worry about the creation of the new board. There is no danger of this new board getting out of hand affecting the the rest of the forum in any appreciable kind of way. The team and I will not let this happen.