About the Politics thread.

[jeffychubchaser29]

Most other boards do not allow political discussion unless it directly involves minors. Why can't we try that here?

[WavesInEternity]

I agree. I don't see any good reason to have unrelated extremely divisive issues be discussed on this platform. It's too likely to give us a bad image and put off potential allies. Making it only visible to registered users isn't a solution; registering is trivial.

The MAP movement is already fractured enough as things stand.

[Jim Burton]

In proposing that we permit and contain disagreements, we opened the politics forum (on launch of the forum) as invisible to members of the public.

So far, it has seen little action, suggesting that approach was working.

Solutions could be to create a separate board, or login for political discussions, or start by suspending use of the politics forum after sustained heated discussions.

One website (BoyChat) uses the second board method, and leaves the conversation largely uncensored.

When considering solutions to this, we need to take into account pressures on our tech support, and what they are willing to put up with.

Remember, that political differences within our group are part of what makes us human, but also a source of division and distraction. If it were possible to have debates on hot button topics without resorting to dehumanising language (perhaps in the formal style of secular rationalist websites 20 years ago), this is something I'd like to open to the public.

[jeffychubchaser29]

In proposing that we permit and contain disagreements, we opened the politics forum (on launch of the forum) as invisible to members of the public.

So far, it has seen little action, suggesting that approach was working.

Solutions could be to create a separate board, or login for political discussions, or start by suspending use of the politics forum after sustained heated discussions.

One website (BoyChat) uses the second board method, and leaves the conversation largely uncensored.

When considering solutions to this, we need to take into account pressures on our tech support, and what they are willing to put up with.

Remember, that political differences within our group are part of what makes us human, but also a source of division and distraction. If it were possible to have debates on hot button topics without resorting to dehumanising language (perhaps in the formal style of secular rationalist websites 20 years ago), this is something I'd like to open to the public.

To be fair, I personally think BC is very unhealthy/divisive for MAPs
Speaking from personal experience.

[Jim Burton]

We wouldn't want to mirror BoyChat's toleration of racism and laundering of harassment, which means we are already going to be held to higher standards when certain political topics come up.

[WavesInEternity]

Remember, that political differences within our group are part of what makes us human, but also a source of division and distraction. If it were possible to have debates on hot button topics without resorting to dehumanising language (perhaps in the formal style of secular rationalist websites 20 years ago), this is something I'd like to open to the public.

I would say that another approach should be used instead of the one currently implemented, Jim. One of the things that put me off from MAP activism is how divided the movement is, how there is constant aggressive bickering between factions, with dehumanizing insults and doxxing being common. Conversely, one of the main reasons I joined this forum is that I loved its inclusiveness and non-judgmental approach.

We get enough hate from the rest of society. We should really make it a core principle to avoid expressing hatred toward each other.

Just in the past 24 hours, one conversation in the Politics forum devolved in me being accused by a mod of supporting the wanton slaughter of babies, and actual neo-Nazi conspiratorial and genocidal rhetoric by another member.

This isn't useful in any way for our movement. I don't even think this sort of nonsense should be visible to registered users.

[jeffychubchaser29]

I have to agree with Waves...I asked a small question and it got turned into something major...if we can't change the policies about the Politics thread then I think my post I made should be locked. So noone else gets hurt.

[Jim Burton]

We don't want to go down the Virped "don't mention The Orange One" route, if at all possible, because we acknowledge the fact we are a multi-ideology community, with more than one true calling. That means some articles on the main site will touch on political topics, and even take sides when a named author deems necessary. It also means we will try to accommodate civil discussion within the site rules as much as possible, until extraordinary circumstances force us to act.

And this is being discussed in the mods group as we speak.

[Jim Burton]

I have to agree with Waves...I asked a small question and it got turned into something major...if we can't change the policies about the Politics thread then I think my post I made should be locked. So noone else gets hurt.

Locking the topic is fine. It seems to be over, and I have done that.

[WavesInEternity]

That means some articles on the main site will touch on political topics, and even take sides when a named author deems necessary.

The main site should avoid taking sides on extremely divisive issues that have nothing to do with MAP issues. Maybe consider another platform for that, but exclude it from the main site. We might be a multi-ideology movement, but the Mu site should focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

I see zero benefit to expressing such views unless they have a clear and useful connection to MAP causes, and there are no alternative ways to make the same argument. By contrast, the risks of doing so are many and severe.