Can we make MN less hostile?

[Bootstrap]

Oh my; rather than apologising to those who have been offended, the person who is disruptive is now attacking with name calling, using terms such as "Good Squad". That is not a very good sign for repentance.

I've asked you several times, you still have not said specifically what I should repent of.

I think I have been very specific about the things I think lead to hostility - denounce, denounce, denounce, take offense, but don't answer questions, explain, or provide facts. And isn't that what a Goon Squad is? Isn't that what you are doing in this very post?

A Goon Squad thread targets a person or group, encouraging the crowd to denounce them. It fixes a target, polarizes it, freezes it, uses various tactics to pound on the person. What it avoids is really discussing the topic at a reasonable, factual level. Scoring points against the other is the purpose, not working together to discover facts from your perspective and mine. That's what makes it a Goon Squad.

You know that's what's going on when:

1. The OP already points to the target, inviting people to take sides according to their political identities
2. Attempts to steer the thread to a friendly discussion of the facts are pointless
3. The person who disagrees is denounced instead of pointing out errors in the line of reasoning or facts
4. The person is attacked, not the argument itself

Is there a better way to say that without getting lost in the noise that is always there in the middle of a Goon Squad attack?

There are many friendly, cooperative ways to disagree productively. And finding better ways to do that might be one of the better ways to reduce hostility on MN.

[Bootstrap]

Not following this thread super close, but....

Robert- when the Politics forum was shut down at the end of last year, did the traffic on MN slow down or speed up? Just reading over this thread it appears the bulk of contention revolves around that sub-forum. Just sayin'.

Personally, I think it made a huge difference. It was a much better place during that time.

Alternatively, I think it could be helpful to have rules for respectful discourse. Many forums do. MennoDiscuss did. Violating these rules could have consequences. They should be spelled out, clearly, for everyone.

[steve-in-kville]

I have my opinions on the matter so here's my take: I don't venture down to the Politics forum very much. But I do respect those who like to follow politics as a hobby and at times may become impassioned on the matter. I work with a few people that, if I didn't know better, have a degree in political science. And then I work with a few that love their conspiracy theories. And sometimes it can be the same person, which makes for some interesting overheard conversations...

... but I digress. I have my opinions. To each their own, I suppose.

[Bootstrap]

For me, this is one of the more helpful posts in this thread.

I don't know about "we," but I know that you can.

The best way to make MN less hostile is to actually go ahead and make it less hostile. Leave and ignore threads where the pettiness and drama is out of hand, and start new threads. Go ahead and discuss what you want to discuss. If the content is good and the tone of the thread is good, the good kind of posters will be attracted. Don't let a bad thread or a disgruntled poster ruin the whole forum.

If people want to help me, send me a PM. I would like to pick a coach or two.

Beyond that, this thread is one of the threads where the hostility is getting out of hand. I don't see a lot of value in continuing in this thread unless something changes significantly.

[Grace]

Oh my; rather than apologising to those who have been offended, the person who is disruptive is now attacking with name calling, using terms such as "Good Squad". That is not a very good sign for repentance.

Just a clarification on the term "Goon Squad". In defense of Bootstrap, he wasn't name calling when he used that term, but was giving his take and description on certain threads.

And on being offended, I for one, have never been offended by his posts, just vehemently disagree with some. But then I guess I am not easily offended.

[JimFoxvog]

A Goon Squad thread targets a person or group, encouraging the crowd to denounce them. It fixes a target, polarizes it, freezes it, uses various tactics to pound on the person. What it avoids is really discussing the topic at a reasonable, factual level. Scoring points against the other is the purpose, not working together to discover facts from your perspective and mine. That's what makes it a Goon Squad.

I think the point is valid and important, but I think the term "Goon Squad" is similar to name-calling and makes MN more hostile. Might it not be better to call out this behavior with just the description of what one is seeing? Something like, "this post targets a person rather than discuss the topic."

[steve-in-kville]

I thought the term "goon squad" referred to private police that were hired to end labor union strikes.

[Grace]

I thought the term "goon squad" referred to private police that were hired to end labor union strikes.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goon

[MaxPC]

Oh my; rather than apologising to those who have been offended, the person who is disruptive is now attacking with name calling, using terms such as "Good Squad". That is not a very good sign for repentance.

And on being offended, I for one, have never been offended by his posts, just vehemently disagree with some. But then I guess I am not easily offended.

Grace, indeed that is calling names in any culture. It certainly does not help the conversation either as it is completely hostile and to those who have been the object of that hostility and expressed it, they are offended. Regarding the person who is disruptive, I do not see any humility by accepting the call of accountability nor in repentance through apology. Rather than this name calling, I advise this person to take a break from the forum and reflect on how better to be a peaceful participant.

[temporal1]

Can you not see how partisan your posts are? You load your post up with all kind of partisan and tribal language, then claim you want to be less hostile and more Christ centered. Very inconsistent and inflammatory.

Can you please give examples of what you see as "all kind of partisan and tribal language" in my posts? Perhaps it would be helpful to give examples from the last month or so?

With links to the posts themselves, please, so it's easy to read in context?

I did in that exact post. Go pack and look. I underlined the comments.

opinions. never a shortage, eh?
i hesitate to add this.

in the past, mod justme sometimes would request 3rd parties refrain, i think, esp when admin+mods involve themselves, which is NOT overly frequently on this forum. i agree with this. it’s important to respect leadership, often a thankless job.

in our families, does every child have an equal or greater voice than father/parents? if so, i’m sorry for those families.
someone has to lead. no leadership is perfect, so, sometimes, imperfection happens.

it’s damaging to families when decisions become popularity contests, or by purely democratic vote. that’s mob rule.
in a family with 2 parents and 7 children, democratic votes will ensure chocolate cake instead of dinner, every night.

on this forum, when most receive “direction” or scolding from mods - they don’t call for a vote / others’ opinions.
it’s harmful to the health of the forum. it’s divisive. (i’m NOT suggesting harm is intentional.)

my first suggestion is to abide by justme’s request to let admin+mods do their jobs: refrain from adding opinions (on open forum).
second, when admin+mods speak, don’t auto-default to calling for others’ public opinions. this is an effective way of undermining leadership.

(i see) the dynamics much as a family situation, or church situation.
for reasonable function, popular or not, chosen or appointed leadership must be allowed to do their jobs.

i’m not sure, but i think i recall some reference to these things in the past, maybe probably by Robert, when MN was in early stages? possibly some of those early threads have been archived? i don’t know.

i don’t think i’m suggesting anything new here. just trying to recall Robert’s early MN framework.