"Not-Politics*" Topic

*Don't want to break the rules.

Are modern politics allowed now?

A recent modern topic is full on. Possibly more??

The rules say no.

Occasionally I edge it a bit, but always actually to do with something else applicable, the subject not being directly politics, but it's unfortunately just the elephant in the room, and I try not to include it.

But can we now directly and singularly discuss it??

Again, rules say no.

Modern, within the last 10 years, politics are not allowed per Da Rulez.

The discussion about this, however, revolves on the idea that talking about the existence and nature of political systems and making judgement calls about them are two different things. Even within 10 years, the former is fine; the latter is not.

For example, "North Korea is a communist state." is not a banned statement, even though it refers to up to the date (as of this post) "politics". It is a factual assertion, devoid of generalization and moralization.

You could even debate whether or not that assertion is true or not:

* On paper, DPRK says they have a communist system.
** Policy X, Y, and Z that were implemented [dates] at [locations] based on [evidence] are contrary to principles of communism A, B, and C according to [reference].
* Policy X and Y are temporary measures in extremis and likely to be reversed in the near future. Policy Z is apparently permanent, but only a mild deviation and within acceptable bounds of communist intent.

The above discussion, I believe, would be fine. Even though the last bit has subjective elements. They are contextual and arguable, but not moralizing.

So, let's cross the DMZ into the forbidden zone:

* DPRK's worker protections are oppressive.

VS

* The worker protections in the DPRK are radically less stringent than in Western liberal democracies.

I think the construction of the example makes clear which one would be OK and which one would not.

Let's make it a little more dicey:

* I cannot in good conscience buy products produced in the DPRK because of what I know about government endorsed worker protection policies and on-paper and in-execution environmental protection standards, as well as intellectual property laws.

This one does have a moral judgement in it.

But I am not making a generalized moral judgement about others; I am asserting a personal belief. I think the above would be fine.

Also, it's mostly a conversational dead-end, as it is unfalsifiable – no one else has authority to assert what someone else's opinions are. You could point out examples of behaviour or statements that seem to be in contradition of that principle, hopefully with citations. But even, then, a simple dead-end would be "I don't see those as inconsistent." "Well, I do."

This is how I see it, based on what is written in the rules and the way the rules have been enforced (both through action or allowances).

The Editor's mileage may vary.

This site is called "The Miniatures Page". Its concerned with war-gaming, principally with miniatures, although most of us probably also have some board-games kicking around, AND military history, the discussion thereof. I for one welcome this focus, there are too few locations for this on the web.

One subject we REALLY DON'T NEED more of here is contemporary politics, surely there's enough of that going around on a ton of other sites across the web.

+1 nsolomon99

We enforce the forum rules as best we can. We cannot be everywhere all the time.

IME, the Editors' collective interpretations vary from one thread to another.

Case in point, Tango01 recently posted a topic which was borderline. I posted that his premise was false, that he needed to research the subject (USA's Space Force uniforms resembling WW II Nazi uniforms): Tango01 quoted an MSM article about it. I posted links to the ".mil" website demonstrating the MSM article was patently false. Within hours, the thread was removed -- gone. There were around four responses when it was removed entirely.

It seemed more misinformation than political, but the Editors removed it. Cheers!

I posted that his premise was false, that he needed to research the subject (USA's Space Force uniforms resembling WW II Nazi uniforms): Tango01 quoted an MSM article about it. I posted links to the ".mil" website demonstrating the MSM article was patently false.

And it was pretty easy to find that it was just what seems to be an AI image that Trump had posted on Truth Social, not anything official:

link

Is the question of whether a democracy can sustain a long war a pollical topic? Easy to discuss that in terms of Lincoln being reelected in 1864. Or how the Korean War "ended". But obviously we have an example ongoing now, in Iran. The line between war and politics is always blurred.

Some times it is a fine line. Say one is talking about the Iran War. It is likely the president will be brought up in the discussion as Commander in Chief and his role in the war. Is that politics? Maybe and maybe not.

But obviously we have an example ongoing now, in Iran.

What do you consider to be a "long war"?

Seven months is shorter than my shortest six-month deployment to the Bosnia War in the 90's.

It's a common military-historical argument that Israel has been at war continuously since 1936, twelve years before the Israeli state was established.

Yes, in comparison to ACW and WWII we are only a little ways into Iran.

Seven months is not "long" – unless you say "I will do this thing in one month". Then it is quite long.

Like if a builder is putting on a new roof "I'll have it done before christmas 2026" and then Easter 2027 rolls around and still no roof. At that point it is not unreasonable to ask "what's going on with this roof, pal?"

"On to Richmond!"

Seven months is not "long" – unless you say "I will do this thing in one month". Then it is quite long.

That's a great quote. Who's it from?

Post WW2 the obfuscation around conflict has given us police actions, special military operations and all kinds of flavors of interventions and special actions along with declarations of victory, imminent victory, long running ceasefires of both actual and the very violent variety. The very nature of language relating to conflict particularly with the Cold War ending has made even the naming of an event featuring two parties exchanging weaponry with I'll intent, political.

I believe the TMP process for defining ‘political' has to be every bit as vague as the real world's when it comes to current bloodshed.

Actually, he said two to four weeks and has declared victory a number of times. So, maybe the war is over, and we just don't know it.

I believe the current counting of declarations of victory over Iran are currently in the low forties but, unfortunately the Iranians have chosen to be quite uncooperative in sharing that viewpoint. Along with all the other linguistic contortions modern conflict has produced, the basic definition of winning seems to be very much an eye of the beholder thing.

The surreal bit to me is that even with obvious differences, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick could be a participant in this mess.