My comments come from one who is involved with several "unite" groups -- including my own. I’ll do my best to "put on my uniter hat" and position this squarely in the middle without taking sides.
I deal with those I categorize as "Unapologetic Fire-Breathing Partisans" on a daily basis. Let’s just say that I am not easily triggered by political commentary.
To me, the first question that comes to mind when anyone makes a political statement is: "What’s in it for them?" It could that they are seeking context and clarity, being totally sincere about learning more about "other viewpoints". It could also be they have a strong desire to insert their opinion because they feel they have something of value to add to the discussion. It could also be because they have reached the point of exasperation and are desperate to find others to share their anguish. Or, on that same note, they may want to make others aware that THEY are responsible for the individual’s pain and suffering due to how they voted. There are a multitude of other reasons to justify diverting "contributions" to political discussions when, in fact, there were no viable connections between the two.
The following make help clarify why the post was taken down?
There is a condition referred to as "convert hostility." This is present time contempt and distain for an individual or group that is strategically hidden from view -- "polished up" a bit to look like normal, harmless conversation when, in fact, the intent was skewer others who don’t agree with them. To the dismay of the "contributor" these attempts are often not "convert" at all and are a bright neon sign to their targets expressing their dislike of them. Their negativity towards others is quite obvious, even if they are not (politely) called out on it.
"Animosity" is caused by "invalidation" and "evaluation." "I am smarter, more informed, and have higher moral standards than you", and "Your opinion is not just wrong, it is idiotic -- and, therefor, doesn’t matter" are examples. Less than friendly "political" statements contain both and, yes, create animosity in a group.
One of my associates asked a question related to those who make political contributions: "Are you a warrior? Or, are you a sniper?" A sniper is one who takes pot shots at others from a distance, and stays out of harms way. A warrior puts on their armor and does battle face to face. For you "warriors" there are opportunities to join groups and debate others from all over the country with opposing viewpoints. I can help point you there if you are interested. As for the "snipers", its probably best to know your audience and peacefully interact with others who think like you. Otherwise your political comments will run the risk of creating animosity, and get taken down by the moderator who will, correctly, assert that your comments were offensive to others. And, you might also run the risk of looking, or sounding, ridiculous.
And, as others have stated, this an AUDIO forum. There are Corvair forums. There are quilting forums. There are probably ingrown toenail forums. And, there are political forums. All of those forums have value to those who share common interests. Comments are relevant, and respectful of the time and energy of other participants. Instruction how to rebuild a Corvair 4-speed manual transmission would not be helpful on a quilting forum, for example, and could be viewed as unwelcome, intrusive, and self-serving. As are political comments on an audio forum.
