"Bill's Politics: Bad for TMP Business?" Topic

Currently there's a fellow DH'd for replying to a political post by another member.

The first post is clearly right wing in nature. It repeats the bizzare claim that climate scientists are getting rich off of climate research.

The reply which resulted in a DH can only be construed as left wing if you believe DoD, insurance companies, real estate investors, and 99% of scientists are all organized into a vast conspiracy to funnel meagre funds to a few climate scientists (you won't see climate scientists driving Beemers).

The reply also mentions something quite verifiable….like tobacco comapnies used to do there are oil/gas industrial interests funneling millions of dollars to politicians, media, and pseudo-scientists to spread misinformation on climate change.

Here's the question: the side you take in the situation above is NOT the topic of this thread. Whether climate change denier or one who believes in science does not matter.

The issue is whether or not Bill's clear right wing bias on the forum is good or bad for his business. I'm fine with his stated desire to keep politics out of TMP. But in practice his approach is clearly closer to that of Fox news…supress history and science that support left wing positions while allowing right wing drivel free reign. He clearly belives that old adage "reality has a liberal bias".

This could be good for TMP business if wargaming demographics mean more right wing than left wing gamers. But in either case what's the point of offending customers by taking such obvious and extreme political positions on his own forum as Billl does? What does it have to do with gaming?

And in what sort of position is he putting advertisers? Must they agree with his politics?

Seems like a losing proposition for all involved.

Best to keep political ideology out of TMP while recognizing the role that politics plays in military history. Those are too very different things.

Just the other day I noted that the US technically hasn't declared war vs Iraq or Afghanistan and Bill snipped the comment…but he routinely allows Fox-news style junk all the time.

In another thread Bill asks whether or not TMPers should be banned for political views. He has already effectively banned mainstream and and left wing views in favor of extreme right wing views.

Maybe Bill just doesn't care???? Seems like one walks on egg shells around here some times. I try and limit my posts to toy soldier talk. :)

I do the same but also recognize the influence science and politics have on military history.

Perfect example: DoD has produced studies on and is developing policies for the effects of climate change. These include instability in central and south America as food and water resources come under strain as well as an ice-free arctic with respect to naval operations.

Those of us in the radical middle have it hard on TMP. I volunteered for John McCain in 2000 and believe G H W Bush was one of our best presidents. I never voted for Clinton, believe W was a huge failure and never voted for him, but can no longer support Romney and will have to sell my Romney yard sign and vote again for Obama.

For me history is history and science is science and I dislike those who twist or ognore facts becuase they don't agree with one's views (and remember, those views are usually heavily managed by the media and those who control it).

TMP used to be about miniature gaming but over time it has become more about Bill's personal views on religion and politics. Maybe that's why certain major companies such as Battlefront/FoW and GW don't bother participating. Why get tangled up in this mess? I know I'm starting to feel that way.

I wish I could access the Blue Fez – and I really think that is where this talk should be.

(P) politics is not appropriate for the TMP site.

Politics with a small p may be more appropriate, providing that is not a springboard to talke about political parties.

I used to work in UK civil service, and Politics was a no – no, we had to be very cagey at all times, lest any comment made was assumed to validate one party over another!

I come to TMP for toy soldier news and discussion and pretty much ignore all the rest (except for the archaeological and science links that get posted--thanks guys). I'm an advertiser, but TMP isn't the only place I advertise. I see no reason to cut out one of the major sources of new customers just because I get occasionally miffed by someone's post or rant.

I come to this site everyday I enjoy the discussion, I asked a question or two. I am a right leaning Libertarian
Calvinist Baptist. really don't get the anti-left vibe your talking about. I have read some things that I believe were anti-religious, anti-american, etc. I sometimes want to reply but really can't muster the give a damn.

Mongo

Well by British standards I'm right wing and think that anyone who doesn't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job….

Where that puts me in the scheme of things I don't know :)

It has been noted out in the Rest of the World however that those of us who are not American get DH'd more easily than those who are – possibly due to cultural misunderstandings.

Glenn,

It isn't so much that you as an advertiser would be miffed by a TMPer.

The question is whether you as an advertiser would want to be tied to a right wing, conservative Christian wargaming site which is where TMP is heading based on Bill's editorial decisions.

I really prefer to keep that stuff out of gaming but on TMP it seems to be more common now.

Bill even allowed an extensive thread on the extistence of God started by a fellow evangelican. The fellow is very nice and I enjoyed his posts even though were on oppostie sides of the issue. But, wow, one TMPer notes the role some billionaire industrialists play in politics and science and WHAM! Off to the DH.

Is this the Miniature's Page or The Christian Conservative Minaitures Page? Why can't it be just about toy soldiers and the science of military history?

After several jibes by TMPers along the lines of, "If you're so smart, why not publish your own rules", I'm seriously considering at least posting them publically and maybe even publishing/selling them. Would I want to do that as a TMP advertiser? As a radical moderate I might be hard pressed to do so unless TMp returns to its roots as a toy soldier forum.

Er… Christian?

Don't care either way but isn't Bill a Mormon?

I believe he is

Mongo

Well by British standards I'm right wing

But by TMP standards you're well to the left.

This a site about miniatures. It's run by the Editor. It's his site to run. There are entirely too, too many political sites about. If one doesn't like what goes on here then why continue? Find your nirvana.

Derek,

The fact that I've worked on military and intel programs and love military history makes me a right wing loon to some friends.

That I'm an atheist/former Catholic seminarian, strong supporter of science, and believe that much of our western lifestyle is 100% at odds with the Gospels makes me a liberal communist to my GOP friends.

You just can't win…

:-D

Yes Robby, that's the question.

If enough people find that TMP is too political and religious do too many flee to make it valuable to advertisers?

Would Bill be better served by not using TMP for his personal political views? It's his site, so he can do it. Doesn't mean that it makes business sense.

Good lord people get your heads out. Stop being so OCD, it's a wargame site. I'm not even slightly religious but your whining makes me want to give Bill even more money.

it's a wargame site

or is it something more now?

Seems to be going that way.

Only Warlock

Amen Brother!

Mongo

No, Wartopia, it's not.

I never viewed TMP as a right wing christian site, but I try not to spend too much time worry about topics that don't have anything to do with toy soldiers. Perhaps a good part of the drama would disappear if we only discussed gaming instead of all the other (IMHO) foolishness that folks feel obligated to bring to a toy soldier site.

It is a wargames site – but one where some posters appear to be more equal than others.

Shrug. There are other fora out there – but given Bill seems incapable of removing members we'll never know how well business is doing.

Odd that.

79thPA – perhaps true, but a lot of the 'drama' seems to emmanate from Bill.

Here's the question: the side you take in the situation above is NOT the topic of this thread. Whether climate change denier or one who believes in science does not matter.

……but he routinely allows Fox-news style junk all the time.

Not a whole of bias in those statements, are there?

The Editor does not feel that running Polls that are thinly disguised (so thinly disguised that he is apparently the only wone who does not see it that way…) personal attacks on specific members is hurting business.

He is right, and if you disagree, you are wrong. Period. End of discussion.

He obviously feels that busines is booming, regardless of his perceived bias, or … other matters.

anyone who doesn't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job….

You know, there are a lot of people who believe things I think are naive or absurd but somehow I would never even be inclined to say something like this. It's not only the hyperbole and over-simplification, it's the sheer oddness of it, the bizarre assumptions and the barely restrained invective.

What does education, or intelligence for that matter have to do with how valuable your job is in monetary terms?

Why do other people's opinions, however deluded you think they are, impel you to such obvious scorn and contempt?

Graham Greene wrote that contempt comes from disappointment, when someone expects a higher standard from people than they deliver, affection turns to contempt. I have always wondered where the higher standard came from? By the time a person has become old enough to think about these things, unless they have been very sheltered, they surely have seen enough of mankind to know what they are like.

I've met some very smart, educated people and a lot of what you'd call stupid, ignorant ones and the difference between them doesn't seem to me nearly as much as most of the smart, educated ones would like to believe.

Tom Meier – as I always say…

Find me a climate scientist not funded by a vested interest, such as an oil company, that states that AGCC isn't happening.

To hold a view that AGCC isn't happening you need to be either scientifically illiterate or ideologically motivated to ignore uncomfortable things like facts.

Well, probably not as bad for TMP business as "no TMP" would be… There's always editorial bias, no media outlet is truly objective.

Er… Christian?

Don't care either way but isn't Bill a Mormon?

Dude, Mormons are Christians. It's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
-Kle.

The bias is, typically, small… but it's there… comes in waves… along with other kookiness… and does seem to have grown.
It's why I'll never be a paying member again and continue to look for alternative forums.

That Mormons think of themselves as Christians is kinda irrelevant.

Christians don't regard them as Christians – at least outside America.

As I said, I don't really care, was just hair-splitting.

Given Mormons accept most of the New Testament, but have added bits, that puts them on a level with Muslims.

Who are also, you'll notice, not regarded as Christians.

Where would you go? What other comes close?

The first post is clearly right wing in nature. It repeats the bizzare claim that climate scientists are getting rich off of climate research.

Seems like I already explained this to you, but OK, let's look at that post…

They heard there was some spare cash lying around for GLOBAL WARMING research,…
"did someone scream GRAVYTRAIN"!!!

(Government funding = gravy train) is a pretty common opinion, and an apolitical one. For "global warming" substitute "missile shield" or "weapons development" or "medical research," and the primary meaning of the comment is still the same. Therefore, I judged that the comment was not political, and let it stand.

…but he routinely allows Fox-news style junk all the time.

If that's so, why aren't you hitting the Complaint button?

…over time it has become more about Bill's personal views on religion and politics.

Search the forums, and see how many posts I've made about religion or politics. You won't find any.

Maybe that's why certain major companies such as Battlefront/FoW and GW don't bother participating.

Battlefront is a TMP advertiser. And GW, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't advertise on any of the miniature websites.

Bill even allowed an extensive thread on the extistence of God started by a fellow evangelican.

I don't know what an evangelican is, but I don't believe I'm one of them. As for the discussion you're referring to, I don't recall it. Got a link?

To hold a view that AGCC isn't happening you need to be either scientifically illiterate or ideologically motivated to ignore uncomfortable things like facts.

I don't want to get into AGCC, lighting a fire, or running a marathon causes global warming, never mind any CO2, it is the nature of heat. The question is, is it something we need be concerned about and how much? When people say they don't believe in global warming what they usually mean is they are skeptical about the extreme predictions of climate change. People use language imprecisely, it is commonplace, if you look for what they mean rather than just assume they are idiots because they are not good at expressing themselves you will learn a lot and maybe even see how you sometimes appear to others.

In my experience good judgement comes from emotional balance, the capacity has nothing whatever to do with how intelligent or educated you are. A person with intelligence, education and good judgement has more to work with it's true, and will make better decisions than an uneducated stupid person with good judgement but an intelligent, well-educated person who is out of whack emotionally is less reliable than an ignoramus with a clear heart, and worse, his delusions are made compelling and given strength by his powers.

The green movement does suffer from people who think that scaring the bejeesus out of people is the way to go, and the media is also awful at reporting the science since so few journalists have a science background and even fewer treat their readership with anything except contempt.

And from looking in from the outside I have to say that from the little I've seen of it, US media is really, really bad at explaining science…

Effects? no-one knows, hence the wild stories, because no-one has ever done a planet-wide experiment like this before.

The effects are already being seen in the Third World though – but desertification, resource problems etc in sub-Saharan Africa probably don't make good TV news.

What Tom said. I tend to react negatively to comments that reveal certain attitudes towards me and mine:

the bizzare claim that climate scientists are getting rich off of climate research.

supress history and science that support left wing positions while allowing right wing drivel free reign.

banned mainstream and and left wing views in favor of extreme right wing views

simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job….

Bizarre. Suppress. Drivel. Extreme (which apparently left wingers never are). Am I supposed to carry on a rational debate with someone who characterizes his opposition in these terms?

The politics of AGCC comes down to the fact that I simply do not trust environmentalists. They have a long record of screaming that the sky is falling, for pretty much the same reason the fox encouraged the hen in that view. My scientific knowledge is no doubt out-of-date but I DO understand how science works -- and question the scientific integrity of many on the other side. And I know politics and political history very very well. The pretense to scientific objectivity is a political weapon.

Well by British standards I'm right wing and think that anyone who doesn't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job…

Hm. I have a doctorate in economics from Durham University (that's a good one for the benefit of non-British readers) and I consider myself well informed on the ins and outs of global warming theories and IMO global warming/climate change is hokum. Oh, and I earn a crap load of money.

So, .

Doc – you need to distinguish between two kinds of people in the green movement.

First off their are the hippies eating lentils and comuning with nature.

They're nuts. Ignore them.

Then there are the serious people with PhDs, decades of proper scientific research behind them.

You ignore these people as lightly as you ignore your doctor. Because, they have the same background.

When people like the UK Met. Office say AGCC is happening, you can be sure they've checked things out thoroughly.

Doubtless in the 1960s people complained that Rachael Carson was scare-mongering about DDT…..

Alex – and your erudite learning in economics qualifies you as a climate scientist how exactly?

Just wondering….

As for your money – I hope it makes you happy.

Me, I'll settle for good health, the love of a good woman and a job which ensures I am constantly surrounded by the beauty of the natural world living in a part of the world which most people pay to visit.

my less-than-two-cents worth…

Turn off and/or don't look at non-gaming topics/threads. There: It's a gaming site.

…or perhaps the opposite: Read/participate in only the non-gaming threads – now you've got a political/philosophical/cultural site (though I'm not really sure what it would actually look like…).

…or just mix and match to your personal preference. You can even complain about how the site you've created for yourself doesn't suit you (pass the self-flagellator, please…) – fun is subjective, and telling you how to have yours (like this) may just be how I enjoy my time here. ; )

*tongue removed from cheek…hurries off to check stifle count* ; )

That Mormons think of themselves as Christians is kinda irrelevant.

Christians don't regard them as Christians – at least outside America.

And I have met a lot of Christians who do not think that CATHOLICS are Christians either.
That strikes me as … odd.

That is an … interesting generalization. Can you cite the survey of "all" Christians?
I am a nominal Catholic, and am willing to accept Mormons as Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ, hainna? QED
(But maybe being Catholic invalidates my status… )

Desertification has been going on for a LONG time, and can in many cases be attributed to poor farming techniques and water use and redirection of water ways (both by man and nature) as well as to any climate change. To blame it on man made climate change contributes to the scare mongering you seem against.

I would like to see a climate change scientist get tenure without toeing the orthodox line 100%. There is an almost religious ritual purity that is demanded. Heretics are … not welcome.
On the one side, you have the infamous "oil company grants". On the other side, you have tenure. Get rich, or keep your job.

An awful lot of people only see bias in people who disagree with them. YOUR side is NEVER biassed. Oh, no. Not at all.

John – I can't off-hand think of any Christian Church that does regard Mormons as Christians – both the Methodists and Catholics for example are agreed on the fact.

The POV about catholics is on the other hand restricted to an extreme fringe of Protestantism.

There is a worldwide communion of Christian churches. The Mormons aren't included within it.

As I said, Muslims believe in Jesus Christ as well…

Alex,

i think you will find that the good universities are Oxford, cambridge, Hull….8-)

regards

jim

I would like to see a climate change scientist get tenure without toeing the orthodox line 100%

There is remarkable consensus, and scientists often fight like cats in a sack.

Debate is the raison d'etre for scientists, hence the AGCC theory should be constantly tested.

It is, and the results still keep coming back the same.

Oddly you'll find few astro-physicists who think the sun revolves around the earth either.

US media is really, really bad at explaining science

They are in the entertainment, not the education business.

The green movement does suffer from people who think that scaring the bejeesus out of people is the way to go…

And that's what I'm talking about, many of the AGCC cheerleaders feel contempt for the public and think people are too stupid to notice it. When you treat an unknowledgeable but otherwise astute person in this way they quite reasonably assume you are trying to manipulate them with lies.

Early on in the AGCC debate I took pains to educate myself on it and frequented websites which at that time had fairly civil discussions on the matter. I was in contact with someone who claimed to be a NASA climate scientist and after some very productive exchanges he said essentially, 'you know we really don't know what is going to happen but it's obvious we need to reduce the profligate use of fossil fuel if only to preserve it for future use and if scaring people about AGCC will do that it's a good thing'.

I agreed about the preserving fossil fuel part but told him his method was problematic on several grounds.

People aren't as malleable as folks like him would like to believe.

The strange thing I always think about regarding global warming is that it would be in most governments interests to believe that it isn't happening.

It's anti-growth, expensive, unpopular, will increase taxes, etc, etc.

So if governments are willing to accept it, they must really, really, believe in it, so the evidence must be pretty overwhelming to overcome all the energy and commercial lobbies.

Alex – and your erudite learning in economics qualifies you as a climate scientist how exactly?

It doesn't any more than whatever level of formal education you have had qualifies you. You stated that people who didn't buy into global warming "[are] simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job…" my rejoinder is that I, who think global warming is hokum, am highly educated and highly paid if only because you, as yet, don't control access to education or the labour market.

Me, I'll settle for good health, the love of a good woman and a job which ensures I am constantly surrounded by the beauty of the natural world living in a part of the world which most people pay to visit.

I have those too. In fact, if your handle is an indication of your location I'm actually not as far from you as you might think/hope.

it would be in most governments interests to believe that it isn't happening….It's anti-growth, expensive, unpopular, will increase taxes, etc, etc.

You have made the assumption that government is a unified personality with a single intention and further that the intention of government is the good of the people. Try running the logic with the assumptions that government is a bureaucratic, hierarchical collection of individuals each striving for individual short-term advantage and you'll probably arrive at a different set of conclusions.

And my stifle count will be going up. But, "consensus" is NOT a scientific term, it is a POLITICAL term. Science either is or isn't and the result must be provable under rigorous testing and review, not through the suppression of data and facts that don't fit with your preconceived "consensus".

That is the problem with the theory of man-made global warming, the computer models are incomplete and data that doesn't fit the wanted outcome is ignored. Also, the majority of "scientists" that support and sign on to this are in the social sciences, not the earth sciences.

Well by British standards I'm right wing and think that anyone who doesn't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is simply too uneducated to be allowed to have anything more than a minimum wage job….

Bangorstu…first off I have to agree with what T Meier said about your posting on education and jobs…I've met some highly educated people in "uber paying jobs", that were literally too stupid to make a call on a cell phone, or couldn't figure out how to use the coffee machine….

That being said…
I do believe in climate change…
It's called "Planetary Evolution"…

I think what most people are tired of is the following:

1: Global "climate change"…this term was introduced to replace the term "Global Warming" because many of the reports have shown global warming to NOT follow the patterns and fit the data that they are suggesting. Remember…the same people who were screaming about "Global Warming", in the last year, were the same people, (or their descendants), who were warning us that the earth was going to be one big ice cube (Global Cooling) back in the early 1970's…
Nasa satellites have shown that shown that the earth dissapates heat energy at a far faster rate than originally planned, so the "warming" fear is shown to be a lot of alarmism.
Plus didn't Al Gore say something like six years ago, that "if we didn't do something THEN, and IMMEDIATELY, that the "the earth was going to burn to a crisp in five years?"

2: Global climate change has been happening since this planet formed and the first weather patterns came into being. It's affected by planetary age, us living here, everything…and the fact that "we" as people who have only lived as a civilized society here for less than a two seconds in planetary time thinks that we are in omnipotent answer and power to affect and handle/control what this planet does, is folly.
Ocean levels rise and fall, deserts grown and shrink…
One of the largest most massive weather/climate events was the heat waves of the 1300's…Now…we can't blame that on industrialization and advanced living now can we? Yeah that 100 Years War thing really turned the heat up on the planetary environmental scale, didn't it.

3: People and groups will always find a way to use whatever means possible to advance themselves and their agenda, (be is social, cultural, racial, ethical, religious, or political). The fact that we have "educated people" here right now, telling us that "cooking in our bbq grills using charcoal" is destroying the environment, while completely ignoring the vast amount of environmental destruction going on in Russia as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, tells you a lot about priorities.

4: The issue that a lot of people have is this…We as Americans are told that our lifestyle is "destroying the world"…Oh really?….How many nuclear submarines have we lost in the last fifty years?…what about the soviet nuke boat lying off the coast of Sweden that they are worried about the reactor core crack and contaminating the water? How many nuclear reactors have we have explode since 1945?
Yes we have had our problems…it's not many countries that can say that they've had one of their lakes catch fire…
But the problem is this…We are told how bad our lifestyle is…that "we" are at fault for the all the problems in the world…that "we" are the ones responsible for the pollution problems in the world…All the time, the pollution indexes in China, India, and the rest of the world are pretty much being merrily ignored. Yeah, China even has ordered that the US STOP reporting their pollution indexes.

So then we are made to "Feel guilty" about what "We" are doing, (not "we" as humans, but "we" as Americans)….so we try to save some of our face by buying carbon credits to offset our "carbon footprint"…what the hell? How are we going to offset the carbon footprint of WWII?
So people end up spending their money on something that doesn't exist to offest their unrecorded natural participation in something that was recently created and basically sold like snake oil to seperate them from their money, (in true PT Barnum status).

I'm tired of being told that my Ford F-150 is destroying the environemt, while the trash fires in the garbage pits in Juarez Mexico, burn uncontrolled and are ignored. I'm tired of being told that everytime I eat a ribeye, I'm destroying the environment, by supporting corporations that provide the beef, cook it, and feed it to me, and thus destroy the environment by raising the beef.
I'm tired of being told that if I don't seperate my glass, from my plastics, from whatever it is this week, that it will destroy the environment.
I'm tired of being told that if I smoke a cigar that I am putting "smoke and toxins and pollutants into the air", while the fact that one day of Mt. Pinautobo in the Phillipines erupting put MORE into the air than me, or one million people ever will with our cigars.

I'm tired of being told that because I am an "American", I am responsible and thus guilty for all the "harm" that's come to the planet.

I'm tired of then finding out that much of the "Global Warming" data was falsified in order to support an already declared conclusion and thus an agenda.

5: Yes, the planet is changing…yes the climate is changing…(this has been the coldest summer I've ever experienced), but until we design weather control satellites, and teach people that are starving to death to MOVE OUT OF THE ING DESERT, (thank you Sam Kinnison), and that ALL NATIONS have to act responsibly, then any of the crap ideas to "punish Americans for the environment" is simply that….crap….

And Maddazz 111, you can access the blue fez simply by requesting it from the editor….see you there…

Bills house Bills rules. Sorry but I also have to respond here. A consensus is NOT a scientific term. I also pin down a very good job and am sceptical of the worst case scenario being fed to people to induce rabid social change. I don't deny the climate changes, I just question how it could be as responsive as we are led to believe – such a system would have run out of control and be inherently unstable, something our climate has simply not demonstrated. Less than one degree warming based on some questionable data and methodology is not dangerous nor has it yet been proven to be unique, unusual or down to mankinds co2 emissions.

So please don't throw insults at people who do want to take a step back and question the panic.

Jaz
6sided.net

Doubtless in the 1960s people complained that Rachael Carson was scare-mongering about DDT…..

I take your point, Stu, but the example you quote is not a persuasive argument for me. Rachel Carson is responsible for banning DDT and the resulting deaths of millions from malaria. A classic case of environmentalists' unanticipated consequences.