About the Politics thread.

[BLueRibbon]

I cannot support outright deletion of the politics subforum. It is ultimately necessary to keep such debates out of other spaces. However, I do want to find a technical solution that makes it only visible to people who explicitly choose to see it.

...all content formally published should avoid hateful views, or any that might ostracize or shun a racial, ethnic, national, etc. group.

We try to balance writing hard-hitting articles with avoidance of causing division, wherever possible. Unfortunately, the world is so incredibly fractured that anything we write will inevitably upset someone.

We hope that readers will not be put off by one issue of contention. If they are, there's really nothing we can do to keep them happy.

[WavesInEternity]

We try to balance writing hard-hitting articles with avoidance of causing division, wherever possible. Unfortunately, the world is so incredibly fractured that anything we write will inevitably upset someone.

That is a fallacy. Some issues are significantly more likely to cause division than others, and some in particular are extremely likely to elicit strong feelings among a substantial section of the audience. Just look at the Politics forum... several threads were problematic, but only one devolved into a deeply divisive conflict. Still, I would also avoid bringing up such matters as abortion or immigration, for what it's worth. You can easily find data-based lists of the "most divisive" issues for many countries.

If you really need to write about such issues in a Mu post, because you find no alternative, I personally believe that you should make sure to do so in a way that is sensitive and respectful, for instance by consulting people who might be hurt by your words.

[Fragment]

Criticism of Western nations is going to be an inevitable part of criticism of antis. History doesn’t lie about how English speaking countries have hurt us.

People that are strongly patriotic may struggle with aspects of that.

Some debates (trans rights is another one- though that has multiple interpretations even through a pro-MAP/ pro-kid lens) are unavoidable.

I’m not sure Israel and Palestine is an issue I’d say is core to our struggle. But to some people world politics IS MAP politics- there is no liberation within the current hegemony.

Now if only we could discuss that like gentlepeople without resorting to loaded emotional language. (I doubt I could, so I don’t get involved at all.)

[WavesInEternity]

Now if only we could discuss that like gentlepeople without resorting to loaded emotional language. (I doubt I could, so I don’t get involved at all.)

This. Exactly this.

Basically, the more divisive is an issue, the more compelling the reasons should be for its inclusion within a discussion of MAP issues, and the more careful one should be with regard to how one approaches the topic.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a loaded, emotionally fraught issue that I very seldom see it discussed in a "gentlepersonly" (lol that word) way. For the record, I wouldn't trust myself with doing so, either, so I avoid it unless I'm ready to tackle the emotional load and I think it's an appropriate context for it.

[BLueRibbon]

We try to balance writing hard-hitting articles with avoidance of causing division, wherever possible. Unfortunately, the world is so incredibly fractured that anything we write will inevitably upset someone.

That is a fallacy. Some issues are significantly more likely to cause division than others, and some in particular are extremely likely to elicit strong feelings among a substantial section of the audience. Just look at the Politics forum... several threads were problematic, but only one devolved into a deeply divisive conflict. Still, I would also avoid bringing up such matters as abortion or immigration, for what it's worth. You can easily find data-based lists of the "most divisive" issues for many countries.

If you really need to write about such issues in a Mu post, because you find no alternative, I personally believe that you should make sure to do so in a way that is sensitive and respectful, for instance by consulting people who might be hurt by your words.

I think very hard about the words I choose, but ultimately any writing needs to have some personality and opinion attached to it, otherwise it is rendered dry and meaningless. Even when avoiding the most contentious topics, when writing about social issues it is inevitable that somebody will be offended. I think Mu's published articles strike a reasonable balance between broad acceptability and personal expression.

[WavesInEternity]

I think very hard about the words I choose

I see a lot of people believe they "think very hard" about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but ultimately just repeat a blood libelous narrative. In some countries that aren't the US, and in some US circles (e.g. academia), that narrative is sometimes so deeply ingrained that people take it for granted and don't see it for what it is.

The same is true with abortion, for instance. People think they have deep views about it, on both sides, but they've often spent so long in echo chambers that they don't have any critical distance regarding their beliefs anymore.

Even when avoiding the most contentious topics, when writing about social issues it is inevitable that somebody will be offended.

Again, it's a matter of degree, and it's not about "offending someone". It's about potentially making entire segments of the audience feel excluded from the community. Saying that US foreign policy is imperialistic is one thing, saying that anyone who has an abortion is a baby murderer, or that the Israelis are mass child murderers, is another. You see the difference?

I think Mu's published articles strike a reasonable balance between broad acceptability and personal expression.

I do agree, but I haven't noticed any highly opinionated mention of a highly contentious topic... except MAP issues, obviously. I wouldn't be here otherwise: again, part of what was attractive to me in Mu was its inclusivity, how it seemed to carefully avoid the divisiveness that seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the MAP movement.

[Fragment]

The same is true with abortion, for instance. People think they have deep views about it, on both sides, but they've often spent so long in echo chambers that they don't have any critical distance regarding their beliefs anymore.

Definitely agree on abortion.

Anyone that thinks it’s an easy question hasn’t given it enough thought.

Life is clearly an emergent property. Anyone that thinks they have a clear answer on when it emerges (and when abortion becomes murder) doesn’t realize that they don’t know enough. I’m loosely pro-choice for that reason.

“Blood libel” seems to be its own kind of triggering vocabulary, though. Personally I’d avoid that one, too,

[WavesInEternity]

“Blood libel” seems to be its own kind of triggering vocabulary, though. Personally I’d avoid that one, too,

As I said, I don't trust myself with discussing the topic either. It's just too divisive no matter how you speak of it. What looks like something objective and well-reasoned to many will be pure calumny to many others. There are very few topics where the situation is that bad in that respect. But yes, abortion is one of them.

[Artaxerxes II]

We have multiple streams for that reason.

The home page editorial will always remain balanced and on-topic, avoiding taking positions on contentious issues, instead reflecting those differences.

The author perspectives reflect the ideas of named committee members, and while subject to peer review, will generally be more opinionated.

The guest blogs will again reflect the perspective of the named author, and be subject to only basic controls similar to the forum rules.

That makes sense, but all content formally published should avoid hateful views, or any that might ostracize or shun a racial, ethnic, national, etc. group. That does correspond to a certain interpretation of the forum rules, but only if you apply them consistently and thoroughly.

I'll be blunt: I'm really fed up with seeing everyone and their dog express outright hatred toward Israel and supporting views that are effectively repackaged blood libel, everywhere. Mom-and-pop stores saying they "don't sell to Zionists", PTSD charities saying they're not going to help Israeli citizens, PCMA issuing their one and only public statement on that issue, etc. I'm currently writing two guest blogs. You can be sure that I'm going to avoid the topic entirely. I know Palestinian Arabs might be reading, too, and there are MAPs among them.

Are you, by any chance, a Jew?

[Artaxerxes II]

That makes sense, but all content formally published should avoid hateful views, or any that might ostracize or shun a racial, ethnic, national, etc. group. That does correspond to a certain interpretation of the forum rules, but only if you apply them consistently and thoroughly.

I'll be blunt: I'm really fed up with seeing everyone and their dog express outright hatred toward Israel and supporting views that are effectively repackaged blood libel, everywhere. Mom-and-pop stores saying they "don't sell to Zionists", PTSD charities saying they're not going to help Israeli citizens, PCMA issuing their one and only public statement on that issue, etc. I'm currently writing two guest blogs. You can be sure that I'm going to avoid the topic entirely. I know Palestinian Arabs might be reading, too, and there are MAPs among them.

Are you, by any chance, a Jew?

Why is that relevant?

Eh, just curious.