I enjoy political discussion, but don't necessarily want to participate in overtly political posts on YLF.

A certain amount of political content is inevitable in almost any topic these days -- it's at the top of most of our minds, and this is a forum of mostly women, who are particularly affected by current concerns. I will not take pains to hide my political activism or my views, but I would also never post anything here attacking the views of others. I would hope for the same from other posters.

The bottom line is that I have many friends and family who do not share my political views (although the majority do). I am no stranger to having my opinions challenged -- I welcome it, in fact. But I choose not to engage in a heated level of debate with those closest to me (i.e. Siblings, in-laws) because there is nothing to be gained -- feelings get hurt, relationships damaged. I consider many YLF members to be friends as well. I don't want to see people feel excluded or hurt, so I would personally keep any posts that I start away from strictly political content.

Apropos to my comment in the other thread, that were I Melania, I'd choose less well-known American designers to boost revenue + jobs in support of Donald's platform:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0.....t.html?mod

If you are interested in the outside of US humorous take on Donald Trump check this videos on:
http://everysecondcounts.eu

This are the introductory videos of mostly europena countries who want to be socond, after America first

Ohmigosh, Anchie, I have not laughed that hard in ages!

Anchie thanks for the laughs. Like I have said before the comedy has been amazing.

Rachylou: Your words: 'X clothing retailer just did something really
liberal/conservative, that's great/hideous' is not conducive to free and open discussion. That's shutting conversation down. An 'I statement' is needed somewhere in there. Are you suggesting people are feeling uncomfortable because their views are being shut down -- or just conversation is being shut down?

Gigi: Your words: A universal statement like "X is horrible" is a universal statement that leaves no room for discussion. Are you suggesting that this is making people feel uncomfortable?

Diane G: The mention of politics is too stressful you. Textstyle:
Politics on YLF has been very off putting for you. UmmaLila: You like YLF for respite. Karie: You want to avoid politics. Delurked: You don’t want to discuss politics on YLF. Questions for all of you: Would you prefer that any and all political content be put in an area within the site that has to be sought out so that it is off the fashion main feed and outside the Off Topic (which seems to build relationships beyond fashion? This area would then be quite separate
so you could have your respite and more easily avoid the “Fashion and Politic” types of content.

Janet: Your words: I choose not to engage in a heated level of debate with those closest to me … I consider many YLF members to be friends as well. I don't want to see people feel excluded or hurt, so I would personally keep any posts that I start away from strictly political content. Because you speak of the risk of excluding people or hurting people – could you see further separating any political content from the main fashion feed or Off Topic (clearly a community section of the forum)? It would be a destination for those who want it but Post Titles (that could feel exclusionary) wouldn’t even been seen unless you entered that area?

Gradfashionista:
You promote a New York Times article? Should I take this to say that you wouldn’t mind seeing a New Section: Fashion and Politics” because you want further discussion? Do you want it within Off Topic because you want it to be shared or promoted the New York Times content to the broader community that wouldn’t necessarily enter a “Fashion and Politics” section? What’s your thinking on this?

Archie: You posted an anti-trump website? Should I take this to read that you wouldn’t mind seeing a New Section: Fashion and Politics” because you want further discussion? Do you want it within Off Topic because you want this anti-trump website to be shared or promoted to the broader community that wouldn’t enter “Fashion and Politics” What’s your thinking on this?

Gaylene (Donnat and Style Fan—you both agreed with Gaylene – I’d love to hear from you guys on these questions too.)

You’ve said that you know that the below topics are perfectly
legitimate topics for a fashion website but I want to get some clarification about how you see them as political.

Your words: …how would it be possible to keep politics off the
forum… Members who post pictures of themselves wearing patriotic outfits on July 4th, openly prefer "Made in the USA" labels on their clothes. If someone were to say that these are members who are taking “Pride in Country” and “Supporting Fellow-Country Workers and a Nation State Economy ” – and they say there is no discussion of politics in these posts. The political system (democratic or otherwise) of a nation state; a nation state’s political leadership, political policy or political parties; and international affairs are all absent from these posts. They might also say that they would respect a post from an Italian wearing country garb and supported Made in Italy -- and would not consider this type of post political but would embrace how members represent a global membership. How would you respond? Again, this is hypothetical but I'm trying to represent what the conservative minoritiy might say in response to your post.

Your words: (Members) eager to discuss the outfits worn by the

wives of US political figures are making political statements… it can seem that way to those who are not citizens of the US. Are you saying that fashion analysis of the US first lady’s inaugural gown always includes the making of a political statement? There aren’t people that just want to talk about the gown? There aren’t fashionistas outside the US that can talk about the gown without making a political statement? The inaugural gown is always political?

Your words: It's not always easy to keep our attitudes and feelings hidden. The Off-Topic area often feels safer… You’ve been hiding your attitudes and feelings – you are saying that you have also felt uncomfortable on this site because you are also a minority -- you're not an American?

Your words: I’m glad your Muslim friend feels welcome by the forum – that says a lot about the YLF community. I hope communities around the globe will welcome all minorities.

"Gigi: Your words: A universal statement like "X is horrible" is a universal statement that leaves no room for discussion. Are you suggesting that this is making people feel uncomfortable?"

Yes, "uncomfortable" would be a generic term for how some people could feel. If the "X" is something that I like, I can actually feel somewhat attacked. For instance, "Seventies-style dressing is for idiots" makes me feel put down, because I like seventies-style clothing. Or "Small-town people are so narrow-minded" makes me feel written off and judged, because I come from a small town. But rephrasing things--for instance, "I have a strong dislike for seventies style" (in this one, removing the hot-button word "idiots" is also required) or "In my experience, people from small towns tend to be narrow-minded"--sounds less confrontational. The "I" statement makes all the difference to me; it sounds more like a sharing of opinions than an outright debate or a challenging stance.

We are very careful on the forum about judging various styles of clothing because we're aware of the fact that some YLFer might really enjoy that type of clothing, even if it looks odd to 90% of us. People take pains to express their views charitably: "I'll be honest, I really don't care for that style of clothing." Or "Definitely not for me." My hope is that even when politically tinged posts come up, we can express our opinions with the same tact as we do when we talk about style.

Anchie, I saw that German video when it aired and a few others too. Found it quite funny, although I usually don't like Jan Böhmermann very much. And this is not an anti-Trump website, it's comedy. And I actually think the content of the videos is a pretty great indicator for the information and pictures that reach the rest the world right now when it comes to the US.

I think Off Topic is fine for posts that go in a political direction. I often check Off Topic, but I don't read or am interested in every thread there, same for the main forum. If I don't want to read something I can just skip it. For a long time there was no Off Topic section and those threads were on the main forum, usually headed by people posting OT in the thread title to mark them. I can understand why Angie decided to create Off Topic and have the content away from the main forum. It's a fashion forum first and that content should be the focus when you visit. This was a great compromise for both the people who wanted to talk about other things with the community they found here and the people visiting mainly for fashion and I think it worked out well.

I like ownership statements. I feel, I think, it has been my experience.

I think it helps because we all have different experiences. No one being better or worse just different. I appreciate off topic

I would say it's the whole possible conversation being shut down. The exchange of thoughts. The possibility of growing closer in agreement or coming to a common understanding is nixed. No conversation, might as well go home. A bigger array of assertions is just adding nails to the already closed coffin.

Just to clarify, I am among those who do not support the idea of a separate forum area for politics. There are other places on the web dedicated to discussing politics, and I don't feel the need to bring a significant amount of that onto YLF. Angie has already said that she doesn't care to add another section to the forums for that kind of discussion, so I feel like that point is sort of moot.

Do political matters seep into our discussions? Of course. Fashion, art, style, design...none of this happens in a vacuum, and for better or for worse, we are now living in a time in which politics are playing a very strong personal role in many of our lives. It's nearly inevitable that many of us will reveal our feelings as we discuss our lives. To strip every inkling of political leaning from my posts would feel less than genuine. I'm among those here who are very straightforward about our lives, activities, and feelings, so I don't think I'm alone in that.

If someone decides they don't want to click on my threads (or anyone else's) because they don't care for our politics, so be it. We all choose our level of involvement and interaction. Like I told someone on FB who complained that their feed was no longer all pictures of kittens and babies, "be the change you wish to see in the world."

I'm agreeing with points made by Gigi, Ledonna, and Janet, as well as rachylou. Three things have increasingly convinced me that talking about or reacting to questions of character with regard to the current US president is simply ineffective and non-conducive to either change or conversation across the party divide so I'm trying to remind myself not to do it. One is the election results, and the fact that despite an intense focus on personal attributes and statements and behaviors, that didn't serve as an impediment to party line or 'shake things up' voting behavior. Second, there have been many think pieces out in the national and international press written by those who have first hand experience with populist authoritarian regimes in other countries. Many say character attacks tend to historically fail, and that only by engaging with the policies, not the leader, have resistance movements had some forms of success. Thirdly, from my experience during the US primary battles, I saw how alienating it is to voters (who may agree on certain policies) to have their guy or gal or their voting block criticized on character questions, even when facts and context are supplied. It leads to a siege mentality and can strengthen identification with the leader in question and prevent issue-based cooperation.

Anyhow, that's a long way of saying that commiserating about character can be a way of bonding within a homogeneous political group, but in a heterogeneous group its effect, if not its intent, to my mind can impede real communication, can 'feel' like a personal affront, and can get in the way of where discussion and change can take place, about policies.

For myself, I also think that discussions about policies that intersect both politics and fashion (like today's tweets) are interesting and I get a lot out of reading them when they take place with care and in an area that makes it relatively easy for folks to opt out such as off-topic.

I have read this thread through in detail but not commented until now.

While very interested in politics I do not particularly support a separate area, I feel Off Topic works well. It is Angie's call and I respect and agree with her views.

Rabbit, your post is very thought provoking to me. I am obviously not based in the US but I have been giving a lot of thought to the way forward from here.

Re: what Rabbit says about how character attacks on political leaders generally fail -- that is somehow not surprising. I can certainly see how that would increase a feeling of division between two different camps, making people dig their heels in more. I think we all intuitively recognize ad hominem attacks as dirty fighting. (I'm thinking it's the difference between saying "I am angry that Trump suspended entry to visa holders from Muslim countries because he's a bigot" versus "because I believe it is unconstitutional". Maybe he is a bigot, maybe he's not, but the key point that the lawyers were able to argue was the fact that the ban went against the constitution). Sticks and stones, right?

I had somehow missed this thread as I wasn't on the forum much over the past few days, but I see that it has covered many of you have expressed some of the thoughts I had in another thread, but much more eloquently. Thanks to Janet, Rabbit, Rachylou, Ledonna, Gaylene, and thanks, also, AM, for the insight that situation presents an opportunity for trying to understand how minority groups might be made to feel marginalized or welcomed within a majority, a point I also was groping towards in a clumsy way.

In answer to your question, I'm happy with the Off Topic solution, as is, and don't think we need a special section. This has worked well up until now, as Astrid said, and I see no reason why it can't continue to work.

I can't answer for Gaylene, donnat, or Style Fan, and don't intend to put words in their mouths-- but I am also Canadian and share some of the feelings they expressed so I can take a stab at answering the points you raised to them.

Do I feel like a member of a minority on the forum because of my nationality? Absolutely!! I am a member of a minority. Do I feel unwelcome because of it. NO. I feel very welcome on this site. Being in a minority does not equate to feeling unwelcome. Or does not have to.

Having said that, it does contribute to a different perspective and different insights. The different insights I gain from this relatively insignificant minority status are not as interesting, I suspect, as the insights we might get from women who represent other minority groups on this forum, such as: women of colour, Muslim women, very young women, poor women, women who design and sew all their own clothing, women who wear one dress all year, etc. Or even, perhaps, Republican women who voted for Trump.

Still, we do see things from a different angle up here in the frozen north. Our traditions and our history are not the same.

For my own part, I am not sure I would say it feels "safer" to discuss political matters in Off Topic, but it feels more appropriate, considering the nature of the forum and its stated goals.

But the word "discuss" is important. Because I also agree with Janet that political attitudes can inevitably be felt or intuited even in posts not overtly about politics or political parties. So while I'd like to leave discussions or debates about politics to the Off Topic, I can't promise that my views will never be visible on the main page, and I don't think any of us should have to.

As Gaylene and other suggested, from the point of view of many of us who do not live in the United States, party politics is only one very narrow conception of what politics is. So, yes, it can seem, and to me, is "political" when members post a July 4th outfit (or, for that matter, a Canada Day outfit, which I have done myself) or a special ethnic costume (one of our Norse members posted an amazing one a few years ago, as it happens).

Having said that, I do not find these expressions offensive and don't think they're off topic because they are primarily about having fun with fashion, which is the stated purpose of this site. I also think discussing the First Lady's outfit on the main page is perfectly acceptable. Or any leader's or celebrity's outfits. I might or might not be interested, personally, but it seems within the purview of the site.

The truth is -- this has never been a problem before. People have posted all kinds of outfits on the main page, worn to every possible occasion -- and readers have commented on the outfits or not, as they wished, and no one to my knowledge felt unwelcome because they did not share in the particular celebration or sadness.

Meanwhile, people have also had hard and nuanced discussions about political, health, family and other issues on the OT page. It seems as if we do pretty well on the whole, just intuiting our way along -- if someone posts something that seems better in OT, Inge or Greg or Angie move it over, or often, posters ask that it be moved themselves when they see what direction a conversation is going! So we're pretty good at regulating it and pretty good at having these conversations with one another, on the whole.

I want to thank everyone for chiming in. I have a busy weekend so I might not have time to ask more questions. Again, my interest is in the dynamics of this conversation among people on this site with a minority view vs. a majority view -- and taking that within in the context of a fashion brand where people are voting with their participation. Some leaving, some staying, some uncomfortable.