Question about a PF Warning

[kyphysics]

Given by

• Moderation Staff
• Yesterday, 8:02 PM

Details of warning
Too political for PF
Warning points
2 (Expires Sep 13, 2023)

Saw this in my notifications. Didn't see a PM or anything else explaining the details/context. Could someone point me to the post/thread that was "too political" for PF? Thanks.

 

[fresh_42]

This is politics. a) The application of existing rules or lack thereof, b) state guarantees, c) the lack of regulation agencies, d) regulations themselves, all politics.

 

[berkeman]

Saw this in my notifications. Didn't see a PM or anything else explaining the details/context. Could someone point me to the post/thread that was "too political" for PF? Thanks.

It was for your thread start about the SVB failure and the ramifications. From one view, it's a valid topic to discuss, but since it's so intertwined in US government policy it can be problematic from a political perspective. It was a reasonable thread start by you IMO, but I can see how it would go off the rails quickly in a wide-open discussion, hence the thread closure/deletion early. Sorry.

 

[DaveE]

This is politics. a) The application of existing rules or lack thereof, b) state guarantees, c) the lack of regulation agencies, d) regulations themselves, all politics.

Umm... maybe this needs more thought? Sorry, I get your point, in this context. But, it's not universally true, at least for engineers like me.

- If you want to know if radio altimeter errors due to 5G transmission towers near airports might make your plane crash (spoiler: it won't, probably) then you can't ignore the FAA and the FCC agencies and their regulations.

- If you want to know why the Wi-Fi that you might be using right now works and doesn't interfere with the cell phone call you might get, you can't ignore regulatory agencies and their regulations.

- If you want to fill the prescription your MD wrote without undue concern, you can't ignore regulatory agencies.

- Did your dairy or grocer put formalin in your milk to save money. Nope, not since the FDA got involved.

It's not pure math or physics, but if you exclude the entire subject of how humans agree about technological conflicts, then you may have to just kick all of the engineers off of PF. Sometimes, it's a big deal.

Many of those organizations, whether ASTM, FAA, OSHA, FDA, IEC, etc. hire real scientists and real engineers who do really technical work to avoid conflict, improve safety, and increase efficiency.

OK, sorry, y'all can go back to your previous subject.

PS: All of this is made possible by a financial system that is regulated by government agencies. Intel can't build a new Fab without reliable financing.

 

[kyphysics]

It was for your thread start about the SVB failure and the ramifications. From one view, it's a valid topic to discuss, but since it's so intertwined in US government policy it can be problematic from a political perspective. It was a reasonable thread start by you IMO, but I can see how it would go off the rails quickly in a wide-open discussion, hence the thread closure/deletion early. Sorry.

I'd offer two immediate thoughts:
1.) I think one could wait (with trust) to see how the thread developed, before shutting it down for crossing into blatant politics. I hoped the way I worded my post/thread that it would come across as more of an anatomy of how these banks failed and the "bailouts" afterwards.
2.) I get your concern. Bailouts are deeply controversial and do often naturally lead to political discussion.

I shall respect the moderation team decision and not post on it. Hope no one is directly affected in any negative way!!

 

[DrClaude]

- If you want to know if radio altimeter errors due to 5G transmission towers near airports might make your plane crash (spoiler: it won't, probably) then you can't ignore the FAA and the FCC agencies and their regulations.

- If you want to know why the Wi-Fi that you might be using right now works and doesn't interfere with the cell phone call you might get, you can't ignore regulatory agencies and their regulations.

- If you want to fill the prescription your MD wrote without undue concern, you can't ignore regulatory agencies.

- Did your dairy or grocer put formalin in your milk to save money. Nope, not since the FDA got involved.

All of these at least involve science/engineering. Collapsing banks, not so much.

 

[symbolipoint]

Give @kyphysics his two warning points back. He made a good start and someone was able to see how the topic can valuably fit and did express some support for it.

 

[Klystron]

I subscribe to and read daily digital versions of the Washington Post and New York Times. This discussion of political comments crops up often in the member comments attached to news articles and opinion pieces, particularly in WaPo.

While one expects political comments following an article about elections, government agencies, public politicians and cultural hot points, some of the most vociferous political statements seem to follow engineering related topics. Recent articles concerning development of Outer Banks in North Carolina, and rising ocean levels and land subsidence on the Eastern seaboard engendered as much political commentary as physical/engineering observations.

When a commenter complained about politicization of essentially engineering topics, several members pointed out the importance and influence of government regulations on the history and future of these subjects. BTW I have referred several commenters struggling to express statistics and analysis to PF website to ask questions in our moderated apolitical forums.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This looks like a public appeal to get the Mentors to rescind their warning. I would suggest you not poke the bear / play with fire/ pick your favorite metaphor.

 

[Nugatory]

This looks like a public appeal to get the Mentors to rescind their warning. I would suggest you not poke the bear / play with fire/ pick your favorite metaphor.

Not speaking for the other mentors, but I'm fine with hearing this sort of criticism. I've killed threads that seemed to me unable to support any reasonable discussion, and then been proven wrong.

 

[hutchphd]

I think the problem is the lunatic fringe (thats me with a pitchfork in the front row center).
There is a certain "see no evil" aspect here that I do find troubling, but "speak no evil" is an effective solution, at least to the smaller question.
Is there no viable space for political science education?

 

[fresh_42]

I am a political person and I would like to discuss any political subject.

However, if I recap what has been deleted in recent years as "politics", and that has been a lot, then I come to the conclusion that it is completely biased: good politics / opinions versus bad politics / opinions. And do not ask me which was blue and which was red. It is sad but true.

Can anyone guarantee that e.g. a debate of SVB will not contain the word "Biden" or the regulatory agencies? Will I be allowed to compare the situation with the situation in Europe? See, that would be disallowed politics, or after that discussion here, canceled as off-topic. Will I be allowed to address subsidies? And I consider the government guarantee above the automatic coverage of $250,000 of deposits as a subsidy. This leads automatically to the current conflict between the US and the EU. See? All this would immediately be removed, and that is where I have a serious problem: allowing propaganda from one side by simultaneously censoring criticism from the other side.

That's why this topic is politics. You cannot discuss it in microeconomic terms alone and disregard all macroeconomic and therewith political aspects.

Either we allow free speech, or we avoid politics. Blocking one side while pampering the other is hard to accept, to say the least.

 

[Algr]

This looks like a public appeal to get the Mentors to rescind their warning. I would suggest you not poke the bear / play with fire/ pick your favorite metaphor.

Isn't comparing mentors to such things an insult to them? If there is one thing the world needs right now it is a better understanding of how to engage in constructive and responsible political discussion.

 

[Tom.G]

This looks like a public appeal to get the Mentors to rescind their warning. I would suggest you not poke the bear / play with fire/ pick your favorite metaphor.

Isn't comparing mentors to such things an insult to them?

To me, Vanadium's comment sounded an awful lot like a threat.
(But I did grow up in a region where the Mafia was a presence, so maybe I'm overly sensitive.)

 

[Wrichik Basu]

I would suggest you not poke the bear / play with fire/ pick your favorite metaphor.

Don't approve of this. PF thrives with its members, and we have the right to constructively criticize or discuss the decisions by the moderators. That does not amount to contempt of Court moderators in my opinion. Of course, what is politics is to be decided by the mods, but discussing their judgement is not equivalent to playing with fire.

 

[Vanadium 50]

To me, Vanadium's comment sounded an awful lot like a threat.

I have no power to threaten

However, we have number of facts before us. One is that the standard warning messages says to PM a Mentor. The OP chose to do something else. We know that the OP has posted overtly political messages in the past, and these messages aren't here anymore. We can safely conclude this isn't his first warning, and it is probable that these other warnings also suggested PMing a mentor. The OP chose to do something else. Finally, the OP's posting history shows interest in everything but physics.

The mentors have cut him a lot of slack - perhaps more than any other member, I can't tell. To try and rouse the rabble against the staff (which is what it looks like) is a) unlikely to work, and b) eventually will cause the mentors to categorize the OP as "more trouble than he's worth:

A far smarter plan would have been to follow the mentors' advice.