Can we make MN less hostile?

[Soloist]

Could we establish clear criteria for what we mean by "hostility" and "toxic"?

Would the moderators be willing to remove posts that meet those criteria, as on many other social media platforms? Or is there some other way to intervene? Without that, I don't think we can make MN less hostile.

It’s that willingness on other social platforms that has resulted in speaking anything negative about sin in general or against lgbtq issues to be removed. Christians attempting to speak truth are being censored from the social outlets of society and you are calling for it here? I agree that some people say some pretty hostile things sometimes and Robert publicly addresses it often. I would much rather the moderators continue as they have.

[Soloist]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I just don't think that posting all the things I don't like about Josh is helpful.

So if I say you have red flags in your posts you wouldn’t find that inflammatory?
Generally there is some specific things being implied by saying “red flags” and you as a teacher would know exactly what you were saying.

[Bootstrap]

Vague statements like this are inflammatory.

Concrete accusations are also inflammatory, and result in people taking sides. When people ask me to specifically say who did something, and provide evidence, I think "oh no, you want a food fight?" People tend to double down instead of taking responsibility for their actions. Even in cases that involve blatant, obvious lies that can easily be checked.

Instead of asking WHO is good and bad (which tends to be hostile), can we work on identifying WHAT is good and bad, and whether there's anything we can do to make that a norm that people are expected to follow?

[Bootstrap]

Could we establish clear criteria for what we mean by "hostility" and "toxic"?

Would the moderators be willing to remove posts that meet those criteria, as on many other social media platforms? Or is there some other way to intervene? Without that, I don't think we can make MN less hostile.

It’s that willingness on other social platforms that has resulted in speaking anything negative about sin in general or against lgbtq issues to be removed.

Clearly, that wouldn't be a problem here. And Jesus managed to speak out against sin without hostility. We might, however have to learn to be more Christlike in expressing truth.

I see a whole lot less hostility in the other forums I am part of. Mostly other Christian forums. Which is interesting, given what we Mennonites say we believe and promote.

Christians attempting to speak truth are being censored from the social outlets of society and you are calling for it here?

Hostility and truth are not the same thing. We can have truth without hostility. Any "truth" that can't be expressed without hostility probably isn't truth. And truth often requires enough calm to be able to listen to each other.

Seriously, basic critical thinking skills require the ability to step back from the food fight, look at the claims on each side of an argument, evaluate the evidence for those claims, and discuss them. That's hard on MN. For all the bluster about truth here, it's fairly rare to have the kind of discussion that leads to truth.

[Soloist]

Clearly, that wouldn't be a problem here.

I disagree.

Hostility and truth are not the same thing. We can have truth without hostility. Any "truth" that can't be expressed without hostility probably isn't truth. And truth often requires enough calm to be able to listen to each other.

What is hostile is subject to the whims of society.

Act 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Pretty strong language here calling someone a murderer and betrayer. Stiffnecked, uncircumcised… sounds like some pretty strong words that most of us being intellectually honest would admit was very pointed words. If you want to argue, feel free to look up hostility and it’s definition.

[temporal1]

It’s that willingness on other social platforms that has resulted in speaking anything negative about sin in general or against lgbtq issues
to be removed.

Christians attempting to speak truth are being censored from the social outlets of society and you are calling for it here?

I agree that some people say some pretty hostile things sometimes and Robert publicly addresses it often.

I would much rather the moderators continue as they have.

i appreciate these matters are identified+discussed.
i agree with your observations.

some members here reflect, had they worked for Twitter, they would now be unemployed. “let that sink in.”

above, i referred to Josh+nett only because they recently dared to simply quote scriptures, along with their personal preference to prioritize God’s inspired word above prevailing popularized narratives. i think that’s pretty important. an important starting place.

esp as the world witnesses those popular narratives leading straight to child mutilation, promoted+funded with everyone’s combined tax dollars. how much more extreme does it need to go?

At what point is it wrong to say, “Whoa, there! What do scriptures tell us?!”

And, how is this hostile? Other than “the prideful self-anointed” in the world subjectively proclaiming it to be?

i hope Christians can be aware of how insideous “the snake in the garden” is. if not, we’ve got nothin’ on Eve.

[Bootstrap]

What is hostile is subject to the whims of society.

Act 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Pretty strong language here calling someone a murderer and betrayer. Stiffnecked, uncircumcised… sounds like some pretty strong words that most of us being intellectually honest would admit was very pointed words. If you want to argue, feel free to look up hostility and it’s definition.

That's Stephen speaking to the Jewish council and a crowd that had seized him on false charges and was about to murder him.

Are you suggesting that's how Stephen would have spoken in everyday conversation on an Internet forum? I think the context matters.

[Bootstrap]

At what point is it wrong to say, “Whoa, there! What do scriptures tell us?!”

Never, that's never wrong. How much time and energy do we spend doing that here on MN? Very little.

Stepping back and seriously examining Scripture would really help. We should do more of that. And Scripture has a WHOLE lot to say about the topic we are discussing in this thread.

[ohio jones]

Instead of asking WHO is good and bad (which tends to be hostile), can we work on identifying WHAT is good and bad, and whether there's anything we can do to make that a norm that people are expected to follow?

This goes along with what Robert likes to say about "I" statements. "I" think it's helpful.

I instead of YOU.
WHAT instead of WHO.

[steve-in-kville]

Could we establish clear criteria for what we mean by "hostility" and "toxic"?

Would the moderators be willing to remove posts that meet those criteria, as on many other social media platforms? Or is there some other way to intervene? Without that, I don't think we can make MN less hostile.

You're gonna need more moderators for that to remotely work. And quite honestly, I am happy with the level of moderation we have now. Report the post and quietly back out of the conversation.

And yes, I have had to abandon threads I started... and somehow, magically, mystically, they turned into a "peeing for distance*" contest overnight. A week later I started a similar thread and all went well.

(* I apologize for the term. Don't know how else to put it)