I’ve been surprised and disheartened by some of our recent discussions. I understand that people are feeling anxious and worried about the election outcome and what the new Admin is doing. At the same time, I don’t know why, after 15 years and many Admins including an earlier Trump Admin, now, there seems to have a different, and more partisan spirit in our comments. Certainly there are reasons to be concerned about the new Admin, and there is also reason to believe that there are those who would amplify those concerns to their own ends.
I’m asking, again, for us to stick to the topics and not make generic negative comments about groups, including Republicans. For one thing, a goal of The Smokey Wire is to hear from people of all political persuasions. It’s not hospitality when comments are full of diatribes against a certain party or group.
As I’ve said before, there are many other places on the internet (like almost everywhere) to engage in these kinds of comments. I have seen internet places where once there were helpful additions and clarifications in the comments, transformed into wastelands of generic vitriol, such that I can’t find the good stuff anymore and have given up. Some worry that media sources are becoming partisanized, such as Twitter and Bluesky, and here we have a place to resist that. If we can keep it.
And yes, negative comments about other people works both ways. So it is up to us together to enforce such rules on commenting to make this a place open to all, subject to what we might think of as civility constraints. I won’t be able to do it perfectly, and I don’t approve all the comments, and I will need your help. I would be a lot of work to approve all of them, and maybe I’ve been lazy, so that’s on me. At the same time, if I had to approve all comments to ensure our hospitality as a community, I would do that.
Here are the new rules:
1. Stick to the subject or at least rationalize why it’s related to our topics
2. Don’t call people names- neither the people here or those who are not.
3. If you are going to say something about some group’s position, don’t generalize.
I’ll take ENGOs for example, as I have probably been sloppy about this in the past. Now ENGO’s come in all flavors. Certainly there are “frequent litigators,” which are a subset of ENGO’s. It seems to me that we can get much further in our discussion the more specific we are, up to a point. And this is definitely not black and white. But categorizing groups, like abstractions, may frame the way we see the world and can lead us to talk past each other. Of course, some are helpful, like the Trump Administration. On the other hand, as we have seen during the Biden Admin, Admin activities can play out differently in different agencies, even ones with similar missions like the FS and BLM, depending on who in the Admin is calling the shots. So even that generalization (the Biden Admin) tells us something, and does not tell us something else, possibly of interest.
Just like the NEPA changes we discussed earlier, we will be building the bicycle, riding it and fixing it at the same time. So there will be bumps.
Most of us follow these rules most of the time, so that’s why I don’t understand what appears to be a sudden turn. And we haven’t applied the rules consistently, so mea culpa on that. I’d appreciate feedback and help on this.
Again, here’s what I said on Martin Luther King, Jr. day
What we are about together is first the truth of what’s going on. Often, if enough of us pool our knowledge, we can figure it out. Then based on our knowledge, experience and values, we can disagree, and sometimes find agreement among those who usually don’t. Some of us may be able to influence policy, but many of us don’t have those connections. So this is the best we can offer, truth and understanding of each other, and attempting to decrease the net hate in this country.
And I quoted Jennifer Pahlka:
Most importantly, remember, the status quo isn’t worth protecting. It’s so easy to be in reaction, on the defensive, fighting for the world we had yesterday. Fight for something better, something we haven’t seen yet, something you have to invent. Find a thousand collaborators. Include people you disagree with. Meet division with imagination.
Anyway, starting today I will be pointing out what I think are violations. Given that this seems to be an unusual situation, I’m hoping that will work.
Well said, Sharon. I’ve been a user and/or moderator of online forums going back to the 1990s — before Windows. What used to be called “flaming” is still, unfortunately, a part of open forums like ours. Reminder: The Smokey Wire used to be “A New Century of Forest Planning.” We might all remember that before we post anything.
1) I do a lot of moderating here, trying to approve all differing views of the issues here. There is some amount of spam, and I usually trash it. In the rare case that the comment might be offensive or inappropriate, I don’t approve it, leaving it up to Sharon (or someone else) to act on it. I also don’t empty the ‘trash’ or ‘spam’ baskets. It’s a full transparency thing for me.
2) My comment history shows a disdain for extremist ideas, from either side. Same for partisan political rhetoric (until lately, it seems). Yes, I can leave out future rhetoric of my own, if it isn’t associated with the issues discussed. I will continue to counter misinformation and false claims, though, from either side.
3) Regarding the Musk e-mail. Several of my comments pushed the idea that we were overreacting. The important part of all that deals with people working full time from home. They must decide what to do with their own lives.
4) I have ALWAYS been in favor of “active management”, whenever possible, under existing rules, laws and policies.
5) For me, it didn’t matter which party was in power. I didn’t alter my work ethics to match a political desire.
6) We don’t have to like each others’ opinions, but we should be recognizing that there are other human beings behind our screens.
Thanks Sharon: I think this forum should also be off-limits to anonymous trolls that distract from discussion and make juvenile insults and name-calling their principal “contribution.” In particular, I’m referencing “Anon,” who has nothing apparent to offer and tries to sound credible and accomplished with unlikely claims (“lies”) when he isn’t trying to trigger an irritated response. I’ve tried being polite, tried ignoring, tried being blunt — mostly to hopefully discourage others from following his example — and nothing seem so work. I have no idea why he continues to post here, and think he is a poor example for others with legitimate reasons for concealing their identities. His posts seem mostly to try and attract attention to his fake self for some kind of weird enjoyment, and I’d like to see him and his ilk discontinued for the same reason partisan politics belongs in other places. Unless you are aware of some positive contribution he has made at some point?
I think this forum should also be off-limits to anyone that distracts from discussion and makes juvenile insults and name-calling their principal “contribution.” Anonymous or not. Resorting to name-calling as a distraction suggests you’d rather not try to defend your position with facts. (If we kept score for insults and name-calling, you’d might be winning.)
Thanks Jon: Total agreement. I think you and I have been somewhat guilty of this from time to time, but we have real identities and also make significant contributions to discussions. It is the Anonymous trolls who really bother me, and particularly those two or three (max) that make personal attacks on real people from their hiding spots. When they are personally directed at me — and with no other meaningful content — I do resort to “winning” strategies. Otherwise, it’s “fight fire with fire” rather than “fight or flight” from my perspective which seems to be somewhat more successful. Some of the recent odd partisan stuff has been coming from real people, too, but the bulk of the Anonymous posters seem to make positive contributions and apparently have genuine reasons for remaining unknown. When we were younger, newspapers required names and addresses for public commentary. That’s always been my preference, too.
“I don’t know why, after 15 years and many Admins including an earlier Trump Admin, now, there seems to have a different, and more partisan spirit in our comments.”
There have been scads of articles discussing why Trump II is going to be different from Trump I. The theme is that the guardrails are off. The guardrails that we used to think protected us from government overreach. And this government has told us it is going to do partisan things that have never been done before, and this is threatening to a lot of people, probably many participants here. It’s the gloating by the winners that has surprised and concerned me. I don’t know why you “don’t understand what appears to be a sudden turn;” maybe it was the declaration of war on January 20.
I’m glad you agree that “some (categorizations) are helpful, like the Trump Administration.” But we are not supposed to “make generic negative comments about groups, including Republicans?” That’s a distinction I can’t make. Again, nobody questions that Trump IS the Republican Party, and the Party is responsible for whatever the Trump Administration does: if you voted Republican, you own it.
You quoted this: “So this is the best we can offer, truth…” So let’s play out how that should work on this site. I don’t know whether this is one of the comments that led to your post, but let’s use this example:
“The main point in all this too, Doc, is every one knew what they were getting with Donald Trump – change! The American voters knew this, had two very different choices to lead this great Land, and overwhelmingly voted to do exactly what President Trump is doing!”
First, following from the discussion above, I agree that this comment should have been censored because it is a purely political response that contributes nothing to the blog topic. Moreover, “overwhelming” was obviously factually not supported, and it is appropriate (and desirable) for someone to call that out. (You can’t allow the site to be a platform for political statements and not allow them to be criticized.)
Then I botched the fact-check. I have no problem with someone correcting me on that, and I owned up to the mistake (and apologized). I’m still waiting to see that from the poster of the comment above, but I’m not expecting it because in the context of their other comments (e.g. “Trump derangement syndrome”), they don’t know or care about the facts (and Hannity?).
I have moderator access to the site, but I have never reviewed anyone else’s comments. I don’t even bypass the moderators with my own comments. If I were moderating, I would be looking to screen out naked opinions where no rationale is provided. (Which I’m sure I’ve been guilty of at times, but I try to give a factual reason for my opinions.)
Of course these moderators aren’t getting paid, but maybe some more donations to the site would encourage them.
So John, I was that poster; the “overwhelming” was in Electoral Votes and was a landslide. But…. You call out with the same vitriol that Sharon is trying to squish down. Read the other posts on that discussion with a neutral mind, instead of a grudge. I, for one, would love the moderators to kill all the political crap – but that also includes moderators; and then they tell us how “righteous“ they are…
58% of the electoral votes is a clear win but hardly a landslide.
Electoral votes don’t make a mandate. The 2024 popular vote doesn’t indicate a mandate of any kind, whatsoever. It’s just made up stuff by the (barely) winning side. Harris had about 2 million less votes, and neither candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote. Additionally, 70 million citizens didn’t vote at all. No “mandate” can be legitimately claimed.
Hi Larry: I usually avoid political discussions, but I do pay attention to current politics. “Landslide” is just an adjective, depending on personal perspectives and geology. I’m agreeing with both sides of this debate as a result, whether using popular or Electoral votes.
My perspective is more geographical and republic-based. I know I could answer this question very quickly with Google — and probably will do so after posting this — but 1) how many states voted for Trump vs. Harris: and 2) how many US counties voted for Trump vs. Harris? Would either of those constitute a “landslide?”
I don’t see where I mentioned “landslide”. I was talking about the false claim of a “mandate”.
Only the numbers of actual voters matters, regarding “mandate”. The Electoral votes and counties are man-made and arbitrary, as ‘data’. They are not good statistical measures of ‘victory’. If Harris had gotten another million voters to vote (instead of staying home), we might have a different President, today.
Yow. I knew I shouldn’t have stepped into this discussion! “Mandate” is just an official order and, using Webster’s, Trump clearly has a mandate. Not sure why the voters in New York, DC, and LA should decide elections for the rest of us, but I do know a lot of people are in that camp — just not the US Constitution, and for good reason in my view.
Pretending is a silly activity, Bob. The Republicans want to claim a “mandate from the voters” on every issue. Well, I’m just not seeing it. The public does not want all of this that is going on. A sliver majority is not a “mandate” or a “landslide”. Our Constitution will not be getting more conservative, anytime soon, either.
Meanwhile, the public is, more and more, looking forward to the 2026 elections, already. There should be some amusing polls coming out soon, too. Two weeks in and he’s losing at the polls, already. Don’t forget the court battles on many of his Executive Orders, too. There’s more TROs to come, as well.
There will not be any ‘Environmental Martial Law’, either, where all laws are suspended. The courts won’t stand for that.
OK.
It was and is a mandate; turning both Houses of Congress Red, and the White House! As for 2026, it sometimes takes a body a spell to heal after a good butt-kicking. And, the Republicans are hard at work on 2026 to keep the momentum going.
From a non-political, unaffiliated voter, myself….
To be clear, Biden vs Trump: 306 to 232
Trump vs Harris: 312 to 226.
FWIW, the electoral vote: Trump 58%, Harris 42%
However, the popular vote: Trump 50.75%, Harris 49.25%
The devil is in the details; Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes in 2020, yet his margin in Electoral College was closer than this years tally. Thank goodness we still have Electoral Votes or Cali and NY would pick our leaders. Just a very interesting journey – this thing called politics!
I find it hard to believe there are people today who don’t think the majority of the voters should pick the winner of the one election that affects everyone.
Good afternoon, Dr. Friedman. It strikes this interested party that you lit a well-intentioned pile burn that has escaped into the wildland urban interface.
As someone who spent thirty years as a businessman working within and recreating on the Black Hills National Forest where vitriol remains a frequent political tool it’s completely unsurprising that strong opinions led to six different leaders in 2023 alone and 11 in the past eight years. Today, the fire danger is very high in the central and southern Hills because Republicans have completely ignored the importance of forest health in favor of human greed.
Hi Larry: Your ongoing simplistic blaming of politics for reality is a little concerning. My wife’s family is from the Black Hills and we were there for the summer of 1972, arriving shortly before the Rapid City Flood took place, and helping to rebuild while McGovern was running for President — and while he was staying for a few days with family friends and nearby neighbors at one point, possibly to survey the damage.
During that time I also had the pleasure of visiting with another family friend who had recently retired from the USDA as a fire specialist. He told me he thought the Black Hills were primed to “burn from one side to the other” if something weren’t immediately done to mitigate that likelihood. You can find out easily enough whatever political party may have been in power at that time, but the topic never came up in our discussions. Because it would have been stupid. To accuse whatever political party of economic objectives for accumulating the fuels would have probably ended the discussion.
Why you put such political “insights” into print is a little disturbing. I’m glad you use your full name though, as it adds personal credibility and responsibility for your claims. Thank you for that. And I did like your analogy — it certainly seemed appropriate and accurate, as well as a handy rationale for your statements.
Okay, “Doc.” Your “insights” are beyond “disturbing” and “concerning” but it’s good that you use your full name so we can use your words to warn students about the Earth hating Republican Party’s plan for the end of humanity.
I don’t agree with Larry K. that Sharon intended to stimulate a political debate by asking us not to, but no surprise here.
My original comment was on the use of “landslide” in relation to the Electoral College vote difference. That’s two degrees of wrong. It wasn’t a landslide in even a mathematical sense, but a landslide in something that doesn’t measure popular sentiment (which the EC doesn’t) is pointless in trying to say the voters wanted something.
Trump takes this nonsense a step further: “[T]he beauty is that we won by so much. The mandate was massive,” https://www.npr.org/2024/12/16/g-s1-38003/trump-mandate-presidents.
It may be technically correct to say that the results of an election are a “mandate” to implement whatever policies the winner campaigned on, but that is also meaningless with regard to any particular policy because that’s not what voters were voting on. I think the relevant question might be the one asked in this article, “So how much of a mandate is that really?” (Nixon used it for Watergate.)
Actually, I intended my original comment to be about “landslide” in relation to the popular vote, which was obviously not, but Jim said he was referring to the Electoral College vote. Here is the context for that not being a landslide either: “It’s a solid win, but in the lower half of US presidential elections.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/politics/donald-trump-election-what-matters/index.html
Are we going to argue some more? Not me; political arguments between winners and losers are fruitless, and I am lured quite readily into those depths. However, I won’t take kindly to folks tearing me down personally, and thankfully these discussions are much more tempered than those on Facebook. I’d rather surmise and opine on things more management related in general, and forest service specific; that’s confounding enough!
So onward and upward, the future awaits…..🤠