Can we make MN less hostile?

[nett]

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.

To be honest, I don't know how you're defining hostility, and I don't know how I would define it. The word we were discussing was toxic, which I think szd was attempting to use as some kind of trump-card buzzword to excuse him from discussions that were reflecting very poorly on him. This is straight out of the progressive playbook. Personally, I don't think it had the intended effect, and I hope the silent readers can see through his attempts to hide his open support of trans grooming, and the corresponding support culture redefinitions, shifts, and trends that confuse vulnerable young people.

[Bootstrap]

To be honest, I don't know how you're defining hostility, and I don't know how I would define it. The word we were discussing was toxic ...

If I google "toxic communication", I find things like this:

https://www.kylielepri.com.au/4-toxic-c ... ationship/

Which is actually based on this:

https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-h ... newalling/

This originally came from marital therapy, not from anything political. And it makes sense to me. For instance, here's an example they give of contempt:

“You’re ‘tired?’ Cry me a river. I’ve been with the kids all day, running around like mad to keep this house going and all you do when you come home from work is flop down on that sofa like a child and play those idiotic video games. I don’t have time to deal with another kid. Could you be any more pathetic?” 

Here's a good video on the topic:

https://youtu.be/1o30Ps-_8is

[ohio jones]

Well, they did have forums.

Yeah, but they called them fora.

They had posts, but that's where the similarity ends.

[Bootstrap]

Well, they did have forums.

Yeah, but they called them fora.

They had fauna, too, I think.

[temporal1]

nett:
To be honest, I don't know how you're defining hostility, and I don't know how I would define it. The word we were discussing was toxic, which I think szd was attempting to use as some kind of trump-card buzzword to excuse him from discussions that were reflecting very poorly on him. This is straight out of the progressive playbook. Personally, I don't think it had the intended effect,

and I hope the silent readers can see through his attempts to hide his open support of trans grooming, and the corresponding support culture redefinitions, shifts, and trends that confuse vulnerable young people.

i would adjust the sentence to drop “his.”

[nett]

To be honest, I don't know how you're defining hostility, and I don't know how I would define it. The word we were discussing was toxic ...

If I google "toxic communication", I find things like this:

https://www.kylielepri.com.au/4-toxic-c ... ationship/

Which is actually based on this:

https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-h ... newalling/

This originally came from marital therapy, not from anything political. And it makes sense to me. For instance, here's an example they give of contempt:

“You’re ‘tired?’ Cry me a river. I’ve been with the kids all day, running around like mad to keep this house going and all you do when you come home from work is flop down on that sofa like a child and play those idiotic video games. I don’t have time to deal with another kid. Could you be any more pathetic?” 

Here's a good video on the topic:

https://youtu.be/1o30Ps-_8is

I think you've made my case for me.

We're not married, and there is no emotional relationship here, this is just an exchange of ideas via written word. Toxic communication is not a concept that should be employed here. It appeals to an emotional concept that has no meaning on an internet forum.

[temporal1]

resorting to google definitions is not a goal for me, the marriage quote doesn’t resonate, i didn’t open the video.
google has proven, everything on google is filtered for lib bias and requires scrutiny (beyond its value).
i thought the interest was scriptures?

[Szdfan]

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.

Ok...I think people who frequently whine about how persecuted they are but consistently dismiss other people's experiences of hardship or oppression are not safe people to relate to. I'm talking about those kinds of red flags.

[Soloist]

Ok...I think people who frequently whine about how persecuted they are but consistently dismiss other people's experiences of hardship or oppression are not safe people to relate to. I'm talking about those kinds of red flags.

I can understand that. Different red flags then I thought was being alluded to. I would hope if you included me in that you would tell me as I don’t wish to be dismissive of someone’s hardship.

[Szdfan]

To be honest, I don't know how you're defining hostility, and I don't know how I would define it. The word we were discussing was toxic ...

If I google "toxic communication", I find things like this:

https://www.kylielepri.com.au/4-toxic-c ... ationship/

Which is actually based on this:

https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-h ... newalling/

This originally came from marital therapy, not from anything political. And it makes sense to me. For instance, here's an example they give of contempt:

“You’re ‘tired?’ Cry me a river. I’ve been with the kids all day, running around like mad to keep this house going and all you do when you come home from work is flop down on that sofa like a child and play those idiotic video games. I don’t have time to deal with another kid. Could you be any more pathetic?” 

Here's a good video on the topic:

https://youtu.be/1o30Ps-_8is

I think you've made my case for me.

We're not married, and there is no emotional relationship here, this is just an exchange of ideas via written word. Toxic communication is not a concept that should be employed here. It appeals to an emotional concept that has no meaning on an internet forum.

I guess I need to be explicit because the implicit isn't communicating.

Toxic communication doesn't just happen between married people. I think a lot of the interactions here on MN are toxic and I include myself in my critique. I have certainly contributed my share at times to the putrid cesspool that is MennoNet. Trolling you with Old English is not healthy. So I think it's healthier for me to avoid engaging with you. I don't think you know the difference between insulting people and the exchange of ideas. You seem to think that insulting people means you're "winning" and honestly, I don't have the time and energy to feed that.

Feel free to post whatever you want. I'm free to think that your constant stream of insults is tedious, boring, and juvenile. I'm free to consider your misappropriation of "grooming" language to characterize queers and transpeople as sexual predators and pedophiles as BS. I'm free to think that this kind of dehumanizing rhetoric is an indicator that you hate queer people. I'm free to believe that your constant stream of insults reveals something about who you are.

There's nothing in the rules for this forum that says that I have to respond to your demonization and dehumanization of people who don't agree with you. I don't see a point. If your goal is to convince me of your opinion, demonizing trans and gay people I know is not the way to do it, regardless of how much you rant and rail that you have the "Truth."

And for the record, I don't think everyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin is a homophobe. Bootstrap and I have argued over these issues for over a decade and I don't think he's a homophobe. I think his beliefs often put him in direct and painful conflict with his family and loved ones. I don't agree with Boot, but I also want to honor the difficult space he's often in.

In our discussions, I don't think there's space to hear each other or to struggle together over an issue.