The Watercooler?

@Vstakan

I don’t think it is tricky although no doubt in hindsight sometimes the mods might make a wrong call and will not please all.

I’d say generally speaking yes. And really there is no need to drag their arguments into a Buddhist discussion forum. Monarchists should be okay lol.

No-one says they should present their political program on Buddhist forums, but prohibiting them from voicing their opinions based on their political views as long as it pertains to the topic of the discussion or using their fact-based opinions as suitable arguments is ridiculous. Under these guidelines we could ban the links to the Lion’s Roar article from all Buddhist websites because quite a few people think it represents the agenda of a fringe political group :slight_smile:

I mean, it is very easy to pretend there are no differences of opinions among Buddhists and so lay Buddhists don’t have to discuss politics in a Dhammic context, but then the reality comes and kicks us in the buttocks and we find ourselves in a community divided in two or more parts because we didn’t have the courage to face the problem earlier. Of course, it hasn’t happened, but it can if we pretend to be living in the Dhammic Land of Oz :slight_smile:

Again, normally it is not really tricky, I agree, but if we don’t think this through at the very beginning, the rarer unclear cases will be a source of much anguish. It is just like legislation, most of the time it is unambiguous, but we are no really satisfied with ‘most of the time’ when it comes to the Law, right?

4 Likes

I think the Buddha forbade the 10 topics of discussion not because it enabled living in a bubble, but as it defiled the minds of the people who got sucked into it. Political discussions can be had elsewhere.

1 Like

Okay, two very specific questions: 1. Where did he forbid the 10 topics of discussion to lay Buddhists? Where can we as Buddhists have political discussions where all opinions are represented?

Again, I understand why some people are upset about political discussions. Those must surely stay within the framework of the Right Speech. However, why not have political discussions altogether? Why should people who are unhappy with political discussions (mind you, not debates) forbid them for all other lay Buddhists instead of just, well, not taking part in them?

1 Like

He didn’t forbid anything to lay Buddhists, of course. But if you have concern about your practice…

Identify a political forum and everyone who wants to can chat there… :slight_smile:

1 Like

To clarify I said “links to fringe political figures from the extremes”. That doesn’t mean that libertarian anarchists should be banned or stopped from presenting their views if they wish to articulate them in a way that relates to the discussion.

In my years as a Libertarian, I saw plenty of “substantiated facts” by “experts” put forth by both sides, often with contradicting info. There are no real “fact checking websites” that are truly neutral and unbiased, and people on both sides tend to care only for the facts that fit their agenda.

I look at say, global warming for this, the real science is muddled between deniers and apocalyptic proclaimers because this has become a political topic with money and livelihoods on both sides at stake, the real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

essentially what I’m trying to point out is that this issue is a lot harder , unclear, and thornier then you think and the Mods have a tough job in trying to be fair and balanced without letting their own biases and views get in the way.

4 Likes

The point is, as lay Buddhists living in democratic societies we cannot escape political discussions. If we give up our duty to discuss politics, we will end up in a tyrannical society sooner than you say ‘Putin’, and this will impede your practice as well. Discussing politics can be part of the practice: imagine the society being a much larger and intricate counterpart of the Sangha. Can monastic people have conversations about whether they should ordinate nuns or what their communal living should look like? Absolutely. Are they doing it in secret from the lay people or are forcing the people who don’t care to listen? No. So why can’t I have a similar conversation with lay people? :slight_smile:

A political forum for Buddhists who want to discuss politics in a Dhammic context in a respectful manner with a reasonable and knowledgeable mod team who are able to determine whether the discussion makes sense or not? Erm… Frankly, I don’t know any. In fact, the only beneficial political dicussions I ever had in my life were had here on Sutta Central :slight_smile:

@Peter_Durham
Okay, so let’s say we should discourage links to fringe political figures as long as they do not pertain to the subject of discussion. A valid argument made by a Stalinist in a suitable context and in suitable wording is still a valid argument. Heck, let’s even take the whole ‘fringe political figure’ part out of the equation and just say ‘links to sites and articles having little to do with the original topic of discussion’. I would hate to see an irrelevant link to a mainstream political figure coming out of the blue in the middle of a discussion :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I’ve put forward my view now I shell leave the quicksand. :slight_smile:

Man, it’s not a quicksand, no-one was arguing with you :grinning: It’s called self-governing and trying to figure things out in a joint effort. Your suggestion make sense but they can be improved, so why not do it? :blush:

I think if you give up your ‘choice’ to discuss politics you will gain Samadhi.
You will find that Putin will arise regardless of whether we discuss it here. Words will only be effective in imagined internal worlds we are our own heroes in our internal political battles. It is quite self-contained. What’s more there has only ever been tyrannical societies- just more or less overt. We might tell ourselves these justifications to carry on with our enjoyment of debate.

Right. It reminds me of something Ajahn Chah once said: “Just be mindful, and let things take their natural course.” Which, of course, is a horrific thought to the ego.

Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. You think you will so feel free to abstain from all political discussions, no one will force you to participate, I promise :anjal: I think this is not quite correct or is at least not beneficial for a human society - or I am a lax Buddhist, depends on how you see it, so I prefer to have political conversations.

Beware, you are making a political point :scream: That’s a very thin line, my friend :slight_smile:

not a democratic way of deciding things

if on this forum moderators become a higher caste, the competent authority, like probably on all the rest i’ve known, it has lost its unique character of equality between the users, or where stratification is at least not formal and codified but develops naturally


you see, guys, how long winded the discussion has become, while all it would have taken to resolve the problem and restore the relatively peaceful status quo was doing away with the very category which invites political debates

it’s interesting that among disapproved topics of conversation one is defined as the gossip of the street & the well, exactly of the type envisaged for the watercooler category

1 Like

I agree. I would very much like to be able to have a sincere discussion about the role of engagement in our practice. There are many interesting issues that could be explored. Unfortunately, that thread was derailed by a deluge of shrill posts, which unfortunately seems to be a universal problem.

1 Like

In the Guidelines it says that we should use this forum to improve our Dhamma practice, and I thought somewhere it suggested that it would be better to consider our conversation more as a way to practice right speech than to get too involved with the content - I’m paraphrasing wildly because I can’t find that part.

I actually have found some of these challenging conversations quite useful in watching my reactivity and studying how best to communicate in friendly and beneficial ways when the conversation takes a difficult turn. Not that so far I’ve really gone in very deep, but we have some pretty skillful people here. Very good role models. Did anyone notice, for instance, when Sutta Central’s founding monastic was recently warned by one of the moderators, and he immediately thanked her? Quite lovely.

I don’t think, however, that we should have arguments so that we can test our equanimity!

7 Likes

Sure, that’s a good thing. There are two issues:

  1. Not reacting badly to different opinions.
  2. Being able to continue a fruitful conversation.
    No amount of non-reactivity can rescue a thread dominated by a barrage of argumentation. It’s analogous to keeping cool and speaking softly and kindly when several people in the room are yelling. The right thing to do, but ultimately not effective…

@mikenz66 Alas, I have to concede that you have a point. The question is where we decide that the argumentation has gone too far. A conversation between those of different opinions can be very fruitful even when it is very difficult.

@LXNDR I didn’t really mean to reply to you specifically above, but I do want to acknowledge your point - my trigger point for authority intervention is different than yours, but it would be a total drag to see this forum end up feeling highly policed. I don’t want to see the moderators burn out - and possibly end up shutting down people and conversations sooner because their patience with negotiation has been exhausted. Before that happens it might be a good idea to remove the dangerous category - but it is an assumption that that will end the political posts.

As others have mentioned, on DW there is the option to opt out of political discussion. And the watercooler section there is on the bottom of the page and is only visible if clicked on. Here, all topics appear on the left of the screen to the person might click on a political topic and then get engaged in it. This is why I have no problems engaging in politics on DW but here, I did engage in 2 political topics, the one about gender and the one about political monks. And I apologize for derailing the second one.

It my opinion, political topics should not appear on the front page but appear only if you deliberately push on the watercooler category. In this way, those who want to abstain from political discussion but find it hard to do it, can do it without banning political discussion for everybody else. Political discussion on a buddhist forum can be fruitful because where else if not on a buddhist forum can one discuss politics from a buddhist point of view ? And the recent article by lionsroar shows that many buddhist do not understand there is a diversity of political views in the buddhist community. Many people have friends that have similar views to them and believe there is nobody out there in the buddhist community not sharing the same political views.

It’s known as the “false consensus effect” and it affects all humans: False consensus effect - Wikipedia
For example fundamentalist know they are a small group but don’t realize how small they are. They believe much more people are in this group than in reality. The same effect applies to progressives. They know they’re an extreme but don’t know how small this extreme actually is.

fringe political figures from the extremes are what should be discouraged from political discusion in my opinion.

The definition of fringe political views includes the far left 10% and the far right 10% of the political spectrum. This means progressives and fundamentalist. Many buddhist are progressives so this automatically would ban them from expressing their opinion. Even if a group is a fringe 10% one, they might still make a valid point from time to time.

By looking at this long study, especially page 16, we can find out how blinding the “false consensus effect” can be on us. For example the social safety net for the poor is not even shared by most progressives, it’s a fringe idea in an already fringe group. But the lionsroar article presented it as something speaking for all buddhist, like there would be a consensus in the buddhist community about it. A perfect example of “false consensus effect”.

But still even a fringe group can make a valid point from time to time so I don’t believe banning fringe groups would be a good idea.

1 Like

Hi all, thanks for all the good points.

My own opinion is that in order to do a political discussion well, that should be the focus. I think it would be a great idea for someone to start a forum for discussing political and social issues from a Buddhist perspective. They’d have to give a lot of care and thought into how to do that well.

Obviously that is not our focus here. My old yoga teacher used to say, when people were talking in class, “Short stories, not life stories”. Simple advice, and it works when it’s followed.

One proposal I have suggested to the moderators is to simply close discussion on political topics after a few comments. I think it is fine to draw peoples attention to events and happenings around the world. To do so is to express compassion and this is a crucial part of Dhamma practice. But the internet has proven, rather comprehensively, to be a terrible medium for political discussion, and without special care and effort, I do not think it is redeemable.

10 Likes