Dealing with political fragmentation

[tobes]

I don't have any concrete suggestions, but I think that the political fragmentation which is more or less out control in some places is worming its way into many threads which ought to be non-political.

It's very understandable, but not necessarily desirable.

I think awareness is best at present (rather than increased moderation/moving threads etc). i.e. it should be a community thing, where we just err on the side of not posting when the content is aimed at making a political point in the wrong spot; maybe politely just pointing this out to the poster where it happens.

Penny for everyone's thoughts....

[PadmaVonSamba]

I’m all for discussing politics, and political activism too,
As they relate to the Buddhist teachings.
If a discussion isn’t connected to Buddhism in some meaningful way, then what the point of posting it on a Buddhist forum when there’s already Reddit and a hundred other places on the web to argue and debate?
It seems like just making more work for administrators and taking up bandwidth, while distracting people from Dharma.

...

[Grigoris]

I’m all for discussing politics, and political activism too,
As they relate to the Buddhist teachings.
If a discussion isn’t connected to Buddhism in some meaningful way, then what the point of posting it on a Buddhist forum when there’s already Reddit and a hundred other places on the web to argue and debate?
It seems like just making more work for administrators and taking up bandwidth, while distracting people from Dharma.

...

How exactly is politics separate to Dharma?

[PadmaVonSamba]

I’m all for discussing politics, and political activism too,
As they relate to the Buddhist teachings.
If a discussion isn’t connected to Buddhism in some meaningful way, then what the point of posting it on a Buddhist forum when there’s already Reddit and a hundred other places on the web to argue and debate?
It seems like just making more work for administrators and taking up bandwidth, while distracting people from Dharma.

...

How exactly is politics separate to Dharma?

Two comments here:

1. In the context of a forum, politics is separate from Dharma l when the political topic is not being addressed specifically as it relates to a buddhist teaching. Otherwise, since ultimately everything is connected, to use the argument that ‘politics is intrinsically related to Dharma’ there is no such thing as a specifically “Buddhist” forum to begin with.
However, since there is one (even if it a made-up construct) then a specific context/criteria is implied.

2. “Politics” is just one of many filters through which phenomena can be considered. For example, an Apple. To a chef an apple is considered based on the criteria of flavor and use in recipes. To an artist, an apple is considered on the basis of its shape and color. To an economist, an apple is a factor of commerce. To a labor organizer, an apple represents the effort and time involved in picking it. To a Buddhist, well, that’s what a Buddhist forum explores.

One can say “everything is political, everything is Dharma, everything is related somehow to apples”. But then, it doesn’t mean anything. The designations “politics” “religion” “organic matter” likewise cease to function on their own. At this point one can’t really say, “Buddhism and politics” because then, neither category has any independent meaning. You can’t say, “everything is politics” and simultaneously say, “let’s look at things politically” because then you’re saying “let’s look at everything in terms of everything” and the label “politics” is moot. Redundant.



On the other hand, there’s a lot of ways politics and especially political activity can be looked at and participated in from a specifically Buddhist angle. For example, Buddhist teachings point to the commonalities among all sentient beings.

All I’m suggesting is, the question “what does that have to do with Buddhism?” might be appropriate to ask is a specifically Buddhist forum.

[Grigoris]

Two comments here:

1. In the context of a forum, politics is separate from Dharma l when the political topic is not being addressed specifically as it relates to a buddhist teaching. Otherwise, since ultimately everything is connected, to use the argument that ‘politics is intrinsically related to Dharma’ there is no such thing as a specifically “Buddhist” forum to begin with.
However, since there is one (even if it a made-up construct) then a specific context/criteria is implied.

2. “Politics” is just one of many filters through which phenomena can be considered. For example, an Apple. To a chef an apple is considered based on the criteria of flavor and use in recipes. To an artist, an apple is considered on the basis of its shape and color. To an economist, an apple is a factor of commerce. To a labor organizer, an apple represents the effort and time involved in picking it. To a Buddhist, well, that’s what a Buddhist forum explores.

One can say “everything is political, everything is Dharma, everything is related somehow to apples”. But then, it doesn’t mean anything. The designations “politics” “religion” “organic matter” likewise cease to function on their own. At this point one can’t really say, “Buddhism and politics” because then, neither category has any independent meaning. You can’t say, “everything is politics” and simultaneously say, “let’s look at things politically” because then you’re saying “let’s look at everything in terms of everything” and the label “politics” is moot. Redundant.



On the other hand, there’s a lot of ways politics and especially political activity can be looked at and participated in from a specifically Buddhist angle. For example, Buddhist teachings point to the commonalities among all sentient beings.

All I’m suggesting is, the question “what does that have to do with Buddhism?” might be appropriate to ask is a specifically Buddhist forum.

Compassionate action and wisdom (Bodhisattva ideals) are pretty broad and there are no specifically outlined actions that one must engage in or avoid, since they depend on personal motivation.

That makes Dharma and it's practice all-encompassing. That means every action is Dharma practice. Including politics.

If you want "do" and "don't", then maybe you should be practicing Theravada.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If you want "do" and "don't", then maybe you should be practicing Theravada.

Well, you missed my point completely, but that’s okay.

It has my own personal experience that you can hold a Buddhist-inspired war-(atrocity) awareness event lasting 60 hours that makes even uniformed military personnel stop, burn incense and pray that all beings be free from suffering (likely, before you were born).
Politics generally requires taking sides. The Buddhist path transcends all dualities. There’s a lot of room for creativity in that. It’s possible to redefine politics even more than it has been redefined by social media.

This has nothing to do with do’s and don’ts

...

[tobes]

I don't think Dharma exists is some separate sphere to politics.

What I am pointing out is that the political fragmentation inherent in many places is manifesting in discussions here where it is neither Dharmic, nor constructive, nor wholesome, nor fruitful.

It's a subtle thing. There are places on this forum to 'go there.' So let's free up the other spaces.

Otherwise we'll end up like the political contrary to Dhammawheel, where anyone with liberal-progressive views basically feels like they have to leave the forum. As I did.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I don't have any concrete suggestions, but I think that the political fragmentation which is more or less out control in some places is worming its way into many threads which ought to be non-political.

It's very understandable, but not necessarily desirable.

I think awareness is best at present (rather than increased moderation/moving threads etc). i.e. it should be a community thing, where we just err on the side of not posting when the content is aimed at making a political point in the wrong spot; maybe politely just pointing this out to the poster where it happens.

Penny for everyone's thoughts....

I've always been in the minority that thinks we'd be better off simply banning protracted political discussion, or keeping it strictly confined, but people are largely against that approach. There are good arguments both ways.

It's a crazy time, I've had to limit my own access to media, and avoid some conversations (in person and virtually) because I swing between extremes of wanting to cry and wanting to punch someone. I imagine it's not unusual to feel this way.

People like to poke at each other on the internet, it's not good, but I don't know how to avoid it. The consequence-free nature of taking a dump on some strangers beliefs is just too tempting.

[tobes]

I'm no different. In fact, I've always really, really enjoyed a good political argument (or something less noble). And there are important political arguments to be wagered now, no doubt about it.

But: one thing I have really meditated on is the difference between making an assertion to vanquish a political opponent (or their related tribe), and undertaking one which is genuinely dialogical or open hearted, where you really are prepared to listen.

The internet is aflame with the former, and now our everyday reality is as well. It's like the asuras have descended and they have everyone - across the spectrum - in their grip.

I feel we must resist this tendency in a Dharma space. We all have a choice: we can just put it down, take a breath and move on to something more constructive. Or if it must be said, for reasons of political justice, say "I'm taking it to the lounge" and post it there. It's not too hard.

[Grigoris]

But: one thing I have really meditated on is the difference between making an assertion to vanquish a political opponent (or their related tribe), and undertaking one which is genuinely dialogical or open hearted, where you really are prepared to listen.

How did the "genuinely dialogical' and "open hearted" approach work with the far-Right lunatics on DWT?

When people that have this political alignment come here and start expressing their views, people do try to engage them in proper debate and dialogue, but almost every single time it ends with them going off the deep end and ranting a bunch of putrid and hateful BS (since their views do not stand up to logical analysis) and they have to be banned.

Far-Right ideology is toxic and unfortunately the people drawn to it cannot be engaged in rational discussion.

Any rational discussion with them is for the benefit of the audience (who may be undecided about an issue), not the participant.

[Charlie123]

I don't have any concrete suggestions, but I think that the political fragmentation which is more or less out control in some places is worming its way into many threads which ought to be non-political.

It's very understandable, but not necessarily desirable.

I think awareness is best at present (rather than increased moderation/moving threads etc). i.e. it should be a community thing, where we just err on the side of not posting when the content is aimed at making a political point in the wrong spot; maybe politely just pointing this out to the poster where it happens.

Penny for everyone's thoughts....

I haven't noticed this trend, but there are some DW sub-forums I never check. Do you have any concrete examples of this happening?

[tobes]

But: one thing I have really meditated on is the difference between making an assertion to vanquish a political opponent (or their related tribe), and undertaking one which is genuinely dialogical or open hearted, where you really are prepared to listen.

How did the "genuinely dialogical' and "open hearted" approach work with the far-Right lunatics on DWT?

When people that have this political alignment come here and start expressing their views, people do try to engage them in proper debate and dialogue, but almost every single time it ends with them going off the deep end and ranting a bunch of putrid and hateful BS (since their views do not stand up to logical analysis) and they have to be banned.

Far-Right ideology is toxic and unfortunately the people drawn to it cannot be engaged in rational discussion.

Any rational discussion with them is for the benefit of the audience (who may be undecided about an issue), not the participant.

For sure - this is basically what happened at Dhammawheel. You used to live in Australia right? So, the cricket analogy: "let that go through to the keeper." One doesn't have to play every ball. A good leave is also a very important skill. When there's a rank toxic full toss: it usually wants to be clubbed, because It wants to feel something. The one thing it doesn't want is to be left alone. So, we can all do this a bit. Cricket version of 'don't feed the troll.'

I ain't saying leave everything.

[tobes]

I don't have any concrete suggestions, but I think that the political fragmentation which is more or less out control in some places is worming its way into many threads which ought to be non-political.

It's very understandable, but not necessarily desirable.

I think awareness is best at present (rather than increased moderation/moving threads etc). i.e. it should be a community thing, where we just err on the side of not posting when the content is aimed at making a political point in the wrong spot; maybe politely just pointing this out to the poster where it happens.

Penny for everyone's thoughts....

I haven't noticed this trend, but there are some DW sub-forums I never check. Do you have any concrete examples of this happening?

Actually it's more of a vague sentiment! There are examples to be found, maybe I'll look if I have some time tomoz. It's not a big worry in any case, it's more a case of nipping something small in the bud before it grows more potent.

[Grigoris]

But: one thing I have really meditated on is the difference between making an assertion to vanquish a political opponent (or their related tribe), and undertaking one which is genuinely dialogical or open hearted, where you really are prepared to listen.

How did the "genuinely dialogical' and "open hearted" approach work with the far-Right lunatics on DWT?

When people that have this political alignment come here and start expressing their views, people do try to engage them in proper debate and dialogue, but almost every single time it ends with them going off the deep end and ranting a bunch of putrid and hateful BS (since their views do not stand up to logical analysis) and they have to be banned.

Far-Right ideology is toxic and unfortunately the people drawn to it cannot be engaged in rational discussion.

Any rational discussion with them is for the benefit of the audience (who may be undecided about an issue), not the participant.

For sure - this is basically what happened at Dhammawheel. You used to live in Australia right? So, the cricket analogy: "let that go through to the keeper." One doesn't have to play every ball. A good leave is also a very important skill. When there's a rank toxic full toss: it usually wants to be clubbed, because It wants to feel something. The one thing it doesn't want is to be left alone. So, we can all do this a bit. Cricket version of 'don't feed the troll.'

I ain't saying leave everything.

Who is "the keeper" in this game?

Can you just leave it out there unanswered? What if somebody (who happens to be the object of the attack) comes and reads it and finds nobody countering it. How do you believe that will make them feel?

[tobes]

How did the "genuinely dialogical' and "open hearted" approach work with the far-Right lunatics on DWT?

When people that have this political alignment come here and start expressing their views, people do try to engage them in proper debate and dialogue, but almost every single time it ends with them going off the deep end and ranting a bunch of putrid and hateful BS (since their views do not stand up to logical analysis) and they have to be banned.

Far-Right ideology is toxic and unfortunately the people drawn to it cannot be engaged in rational discussion.

Any rational discussion with them is for the benefit of the audience (who may be undecided about an issue), not the participant.

For sure - this is basically what happened at Dhammawheel. You used to live in Australia right? So, the cricket analogy: "let that go through to the keeper." One doesn't have to play every ball. A good leave is also a very important skill. When there's a rank toxic full toss: it usually wants to be clubbed, because It wants to feel something. The one thing it doesn't want is to be left alone. So, we can all do this a bit. Cricket version of 'don't feed the troll.'

I ain't saying leave everything.

Who is "the keeper" in this game?

Can you just leave it out there unanswered? What if somebody (who happens to be the object of the attack) comes and reads it and finds nobody countering it. How do you believe that will make them feel?

The keeper is empty space; no one is harmed by letting some stupid sentences go through to that.

If an actual person is an object of attack, then this would probably be an instance of using the bat. As a few of us did a few weeks ago when someone started a thread with the sole purpose of besmirching you. I think this is also true of groups. When something needs to be defended, it should be defended.

[Grigoris]

The keeper is empty space; no one is harmed by letting some stupid sentences go through to that.

Really? So if somebody posts: "All ____________________ (insert oppressed minority of choice) are scum and deserve to die" we just let it hang there as nobody is harmed?

Am I missing something here?

[tobes]

The keeper is empty space; no one is harmed by letting some stupid sentences go through to that.

Really? So if somebody posts: "All ____________________ (insert oppressed minority of choice) are scum and deserve to die" we just let it hang there as nobody is harmed?

Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something. Please read my whole quote carefully. This is a good expression of the nature of the problem - too much haste in internet land, not enough listening. I wrote: I think this is also true of groups.

[Matt J]

This is actually a live question in Buddhist communities, and has been for some time. Should dharma be engaged in social, political, and other movements or not? Bernie Glassman, Thich Nhat Hanh, HHDL and others have suggested that it should.

All I’m suggesting is, the question “what does that have to do with Buddhism?” might be appropriate to ask is a specifically Buddhist forum.

[Queequeg]

If you notice this happening and it is derailing the discussion, flag it so that mods can take a look and clean up if necessary.

[tobes]

This is actually a live question in Buddhist communities, and has been for some time. Should dharma be engaged in social, political, and other movements or not? Bernie Glassman, Thich Nhat Hanh, HHDL and others have suggested that it should.

All I’m suggesting is, the question “what does that have to do with Buddhism?” might be appropriate to ask is a specifically Buddhist forum.

I agree with all three. And even very active forms of engagement, such as Bkk. Bodhi at Occupy Wall Street.

However, it's the kind ofengagement which really matters.