Can we make MN less hostile?

[Grace]

Bootstrap post_id=125957 time=1624724063 user_id=67]


I have come to the point that I think it's important to address openly hostile goon squad threads. Threads that have the intent of heaping contempt on some person or group using the talking point controversy of the day. I think they are the major source of hostility here.

Yet when Donald Trump was president, why was it that we saw an almost daily drumbeat of "goon squad" threads heaping contempt on him and the people surrounding him? We saw the content of those "goon squad" threads heaping contempt on anyone who didn't agree with them in denigrating the President.

And yes, I know that means that hostility often gets turned on me. But sometimes that's the price of speaking up against sin.

Matthew 23:3 B "For they preach, but do not practice".

But regardless of beliefs or motivations, I think the goon squad threads drip in hostility. It's really easy to see who the targets are, how they want us to feel about who, it's often very hard to see what the facts are or whether the victims deserve it. We would have very different conversations if we focused on policy or identifiable facts on the same subjects. The goon squad thread comes straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Yes it was easy to see who the targets were and how some wanted others to feel about "who".

Some thread titles as examples.

-The Trump economy
-Trump, Deficits, and Federal Spending
-Donald Trump Time Capsule
-Did Obama verbally abuse people like Trump does?
-7 Ways Trump Impeachment Could Shape The 2020 Election
-Trump-Russia ties we know about
-Trump and White Supremacy
-Trump on Race and Unity
-Trump cutting military spending?
-Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks
-Trump voters (and supporters) - what do you want a president to do?

Now since Biden is president and if we would see the same level of threads focusing on his policies, actions, and level of cognitive ability, it would be a different story. But we aren't seeing that happening, and the inconsistency and partiality is glaring.

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap post_id=125957 time=1624724063 user_id=67]
I have come to the point that I think it's important to address openly hostile goon squad threads. Threads that have the intent of heaping contempt on some person or group using the talking point controversy of the day. I think they are the major source of hostility here.

Yet when Donald Trump was president, why was it that we saw an almost daily drumbeat of "goon squad" threads heaping contempt on him and the people surrounding him. We saw the content of those "goon squad" threads heaping contempt on anyone who didn't agree with them in denigrating the President. And everyone who was on Mennonet for the last few years knows who the instigator (s) were of those "goon squad" threads and who were very active participators to denigrate anything pertaining to the President.

Even if that were true, would it excuse people doing it now? Is this a race to the bottom, or should we call each other on to do what is good and right?

And yes, I know that means that hostility often gets turned on me. But sometimes that's the price of speaking up against sin.

Matthew 23:3 B "For they preach, but do not practice".

Oh, we should definitely hold each other to this. If you see me making accusations without cause, ask me why I am bringing this up, if there's a good reason, ask me my evidence for the accusations.

I will leave it to other posters to figure out who started some of these "goon squad" threads. (And it isn't all of the threads).

-The Trump economy
-Trump, Deficits, and Federal Spending
-Donald Trump Time Capsule
-Did Obama verbally abuse people like Trump does?
-7 Ways Trump Impeachment Could Shape The 2020 Election
-Trump-Russia ties we know about
-Trump and White Supremacy
-Trump on Race and Unity
-Trump cutting military spending?
-Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks
-Trump voters (and supporters) - what do you want a president to do?

Take a look at these threads. I think you'll find a distinctly different purpose and a distinctly different tone. Most are about checking facts on claims others were making in other threads. I don't think any of my threads start out by naming a victim, implying that all good Christians should join me in going after that victim. I think many of them are doing their best to be very careful about relevant facts.

I'm certainly not saying that nobody should ever criticize a sitting president, but I do believe there are right and wrong ways to do that, and they apply to any president equally. It's the hostility and contempt and disregard for facts and targeting that I see as wrong.

Actually, I am having difficulty finding most of these threads. Here's the first one I could find:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=158

Donald Trump Time Capsule

I'm not at all sure what to expect from a Donald Trump administration. I see that some people think they have a clearer idea than I do.

This thread is for your predictions - what do you think Donald Trump will do, and how will it affect the United States? What are your hopes, your fears, or things you want to keep an eye on to see what he does? No debate, please, and please do not quote what anyone else says. Just make your own predictions. No more than one post per person per day.

If Robert has good backups, we will revisit this in four years.

Can someone provide links to any other threads they want to discuss? I assume they are still there, but I can't seem to be able to find them.

[Grace]

=Bootstrap post_id=125968 time=1624730247 user_id=67]
Even if that were true, would it excuse people doing it now? Is this a race to the bottom, or should we call each other on to do what is good and right?

I would say that now that we have a new president, who is equally as controversial as Trump was, and since we don't have numerous and frequent threads on Biden, we were on the bottom during Trump's presidency and now thankfully, we are on the way up.

Take a look at these threads. I think you'll find a distinctly different purpose and a distinctly different tone. Most are about checking facts on claims others were making in other threads. I don't think any of my threads start out by naming a victim, implying that all good Christians should join me in going after that victim. I think many of them are doing their best to be very careful about relevant facts.

Just the volume of your discussions on anything pertaining to Trump, mostly negative, spoke otherwise.

I'm certainly not saying that nobody should ever criticize a sitting president, but I do believe there are right and wrong ways to do that, and they apply to any president equally. It's the hostility and contempt and disregard for facts and targeting that I see as wrong.

And applying criticism to any president equally is NOT what we are seeing.

Actually, I am having difficulty finding most of these threads. Here's the first one I could find:
Can someone provide links to any other threads they want to discuss? I assume they are still there, but I can't seem to be able to find them.

Trump Deficits Spending
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2708

Trump Time Capsule
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=158

Trump Economy
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2524

Did Obama Verbally Abuse Like Trump Does.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2484

Trump Impeachment
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2458

Trump / Russia
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1908

Trump/White Supremacy
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2221

Mueller Investigation on Trump
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1051

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1032

Trump voters
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1024

Trump wars
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=356

Trumps Cabinet
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=294

And here are few more threads started by others.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3124
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3098
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3034
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3149
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3405
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2893
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2811
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2137

As you can see Trump was very prominent in the discussions here on Mennonet for the last two and a half years. And at times it created a hostile atmosphere. I am sure there are some posters on Mennonet who would have equally as many criticisms of Joe Biden and could start equally as many threads on his regime, the future of the country, his mistakes, his racism, his declining cognitive abilities, the evil spirit in him and in those in the administration, his ties with China, through Hunter, and much more. But most have chosen to not go there, for now. And that is a good thing and lessens the hostility, unlike the last few years.

[Sudsy]

A good start point to MN becoming less hostile - quit talking politics.

[Bootstrap]

A good start point to MN becoming less hostile - quit talking politics.

You know, I've tried that for periods as long as 3 weeks at a time. When I do that, the hostility seems to go UP. I think it's the echo chamber effect.

And the latest threads are about the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, framed in American political terms, but about a church. So I'm not sure it's that simple.

[Sudsy]

A good start point to MN becoming less hostile - quit talking politics.

You know, I've tried that for periods as long as 3 weeks at a time. When I do that, the hostility seems to go UP. I think it's the echo chamber effect.

And the latest threads are about the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, framed in American political terms, but about a church. So I'm not sure it's that simple.

No, that is why I suggested it as a start point to less hostility. It is often said for polite conversation avoid politics and religion. Both of these areas tend to get into arguments and sometimes anger.

Perhaps learning to follow Titus 3:2 is a good verse to use as a goal -

To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

[Robert]

I have come to the point that I think it's important to address openly hostile goon squad threads.

Then accept those attacking you because they see you as a goon squad.

Threads that have the intent of heaping contempt on some person or group using the talking point controversy of the day. I think they are the major source of hostility here.

You are not the Internet Police. When you try to be, it creates more hostility, not less.

I don't think "I" statements are enough for that.

I do. The concept of "I" statements is speaking from the 1st person point of view and speaking for yourself. It helps one not project and speak down to someone else.

If someone posted gay porn here, would we respond using "I" statements, I would object to it.

You would not respond at all. The Mods would take care of it with the click of a button. That is a strawman arguement and you know how dangerous that is with me.

And yes, I know that means that hostility often gets turned on me. But sometimes that's the price of speaking up against sin.

No, that is the price of policing when it is not your place to do so. That is the price when one rationalizes their own attacks on others and, by doing so, often becomes blind to their own aggressions.

But most have chosen to not go there, for now.

And when it does happen, my hope is that they will share their opinions and perspectives in a constructive open way that will allow others to share a different perspective in the same constructive open way.

When I do that, the hostility seems to go UP. I think it's the echo chamber effect.

How would the hostility go up if there was an echo chamber? That makes no sense.

Person 1: The sky is red.
Person 2: Yep. Bright red.
Person 3:

I see little hostility.

Person 1: The sky is red.
Person 3: No, it is NOT. You are wrong. The sky is a bluish color because of the oxygen in the atmosphere has a blue hue and when we look into space the dark background allows the light hitting the o2 and the excited molecules to only radiate the blue hue, thus making the sky BLUE!
Person 1: I was looking at the sunset. It is quite red tonight.
Person 3: Well, it only appears red because of the light traveling through a denser atmosphere since it comes through at a steep angle. IT IS STILL BLUE!
Person 1: ...

Both are actually right from their own perspectives. In the long run, does it really matter that Person 1 said the sky was red? Does it change science? No. Does it affect Person 3? No.

Person 3: Why do you say it is red?
Person 1: The sunset is very vivid tonight.
Person 3: Sunset here is more orange. You must live further south.

So much better. Be better.

[Bootstrap]

How would the hostility go up if there was an echo chamber? That makes no sense.

Person 1: The sky is red.
Person 2: Yep. Bright red.
Person 3:

I see little hostility.

Ah, but the echo chamber doesn't say that. It says this:

Person 1: The sky is red. Those people who believe that the sky is blue are all lying to you, trying to deceive you so they can create a Marxist Revolution. Every real scientist knows that the sky is blue. Only Marxist revolutionaries and their useful idiots think the sky is blue.
Person 2: Amen, we have to stop those liars from destroying America.

Now what is Person 3 supposed to do with an I statement? Let's try that:

Person 3: I'm pretty sure the sky is not red in that picture.
Person 1: You Marxist!
Person 2: What a liar!
Person 3: Why are you being so personal and hostile?
Person 1: Me? I'm not being hostile, but we need to take down those liberal Marxist liars who say the sky is blue!

At some point you really do have to say something like this:

Person 3: You don't have your eyes on the facts at all. You are using personal attacks to distract from that. I think it's important to be very, very clear about that for anyone who is listening.

But big words don't seem to work for this. "Goon squad" seems to communicate more clearly.

A discussion about facts focuses on the facts. We might define what we mean by blue, exchange pictures, and try to come to some common understanding, But that's not what these kinds of threads are about, they are about painting a target on a person or group in order to tear them down, or undermining trust in the courts, elections, science, fact checkers, and other standard sources of agreed-upon knowledge.

[Robert]

But that's not what these kinds of threads are about

That is your perspective and opinion. It may be the case at times, but not all the time. You pull the trigger quite often when you are just going from your opinion and perspective and deciding that it is fact.

Person 1: The sky is red. Those people who believe that the sky is blue are all lying to you, trying to deceive you so they can create a Marxist Revolution. Every real scientist knows that the sky is blue. Only Marxist revolutionaries and their useful idiots think the sky is blue.
Person 2: Amen, we have to stop those liars from destroying America.

Now what is Person 3 supposed to do with an I statement? Let's try that:

Person 3: I'm pretty sure the sky is not red in that picture.
Person 1: You Marxist!
Person 2: What a liar!

And Person 4 responds simply, "I see a blue sky around me."

[Wayne in Maine]

I doubt that “we” can make this forum less hostile as we have new (and old) members jumping on the current progressive Western bandwagon of blaming every sin and woe on “Whites”. I came back to Mennonet to discuss authentic Christocentric, Kingdom of God focused reality. MN has again become a waste of my time to read and to participate in.

I can spend my year of living on efforts more profitable to God’s kingdom than what Mennonet has become - a forum for debate between Western Progressives and traditional (Western liberal) “conservatives”.