Can we make MN less hostile?

[Soloist]

I see this somewhat differently.

That sort of supports my point.

To me, if we don't want a fight and we do want to learn about Scripture, the Kingdom of God, critical thinking skills, etc., we need to get the focus off of who the good people and bad people are, promoting claims about others that are often false, etc. In other words, turn the attention AWAY from the food fight. And on MN, you can rarely do that by giving someone an example of what you think THEY did wrong. I think I just illustrated that by responding to Nett's request for an example. I rarely, rarely see anyone apologize for anything here.

I see you quite regularly saying your opinions on who bad people are, you are just couching it with pillows. You are more Mennonite then Nett or Josh by that.

To me, it's better to keep the focus on Scripture, the Kingdom of God, the claims people are making and what evidence various sides have given for those claims, without trying to shut other people up or tear other people down.

I see your primary focus being bolded.

So when you say "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions", I suspect you may be thinking of examples of the kind of bad behavior that Szdfan is talking about. I think those examples exist, but I also doubt that anything good happens if we dredge up examples, people will just double down and take sides.

I specifically avoided targeting someone by name on my post.

I also think "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions" - whenever I ask people to provide evidence for the claims they are making. Often, the refusal comes with an insult. We may simply want different things, but I would very much like to be able to say, OK, here's a claim that one side or the other is making, what is the evidence for an against that claim? More critical thinking, less campaigning.

Since you responded directly to me…
Often you will redirect the question and not answer it entirely and insist the other person needs to answer you. Next you will ask for evidence when anyone challenges you. I’m not going to respond to you on this point, any challenges seem to just bounce off and you ignore the intent of the attempt to address a problem and focus on proofs which you never respond to anyway.

[Bootstrap]

I also think "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions" - whenever I ask people to provide evidence for the claims they are making. Often, the refusal comes with an insult. We may simply want different things, but I would very much like to be able to say, OK, here's a claim that one side or the other is making, what is the evidence for an against that claim? More critical thinking, less campaigning.

Since you responded directly to me…
Often you will redirect the question and not answer it entirely and insist the other person needs to answer you. Next you will ask for evidence when anyone challenges you. I’m not going to respond to you on this point, any challenges seem to just bounce off and you ignore the intent of the attempt to address a problem and focus on proofs which you never respond to anyway.

I clearly do redirect questions. I probably don't get this right a lot of the time, but here's the intent behind that.

For Scripture, a lot of that redirection boils down to:

1. What did Jesus say and do? How does that inform our actions?
2. How did Paul and the rest of the New Testament address this?

For political questions and matters of fact, a lot of that redirection boils down to:

1. What claim is being made?
2. What evidence is being given for that claim?
3. What is our place as the Kingdom of God, as opposed to Caesar?

At times, I have simply spawned a new thread for each claim, trying to keep the focus on that claim and the evidence for it. I think that's the critical thinking way to go about it. And I think I have probably been as responsive to evidence as anyone here, changing my position in response to evidence. It's hard to do that if the subject keeps getting changed and people pick at each other, it's hard to do that with floods of emotional videos. Those things aren't the kind of evidence that we talk about when we talk about critical thinking skills.

And in the flood of political messaging, that's actually the point, flooding people instead of engaging critical thinking skills. That's what propaganda is at its root. That's a reason that it can often feel like facts don't exist anymore. And I think all of us in this society often echo that instead of stepping outside of it. It takes real effort to resist it.

For most things, a lot of that redirection boils down to:

1. What is the topic?
2. How can we discuss the topic instead of each other?

[Robert]

I haven't laughed that much at 4:30am in a very long time

I was JUST thinking that Steve would have been a better name on that for us!!

[Robert]

So when you say "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions", I suspect you may be thinking of examples of the kind of bad behavior that Szdfan is talking about. I think those examples exist, but I also doubt that anything good happens if we dredge up examples, people will just double down and take sides.

Then think of a way to rephrase the question so the other person is willing to answer. Maybe it is the WAY the question is being asked. Log in eye and all.

[nett]

For example?

I'm going to drop this line. I disagree with you about a lot of what you said, but I don't see a lot of point in pursuing it. We are talking past each other.

I appreciated our discussion of 1 Corinthians 5 and the way you participated in that thread. That kind of discussion might be more productive.

So just to be clear, Szd can call me a toxic bigot, but somehow that's him treating me way better than I'm treating him.

It's nice that'll you post a large wall of text until I point out that the hostility was actually started by him. At which point we're, "talking past each other"

[nett]

So when you say "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions", I suspect you may be thinking of examples of the kind of bad behavior that Szdfan is talking about. I think those examples exist, but I also doubt that anything good happens if we dredge up examples, people will just double down and take sides.

Wait, so you'll dredge up my posts, but Szd's posts are off limits?

[Bootstrap]

So when you say "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions", I suspect you may be thinking of examples of the kind of bad behavior that Szdfan is talking about. I think those examples exist, but I also doubt that anything good happens if we dredge up examples, people will just double down and take sides.

Wait, so you'll dredge up my posts, but Szd's posts are off limits?

You specifically asked for examples. I tried one. It didn't seem to go well. I'd rather not take that approach with either of you, I have almost never seen any good come from it on MN or MD before it.

[Bootstrap]

So just to be clear, Szd can call me a toxic bigot, but somehow that's him treating me way better than I'm treating him.

Calling anyone a toxic bigot is out of bounds for me.

Calling behavior toxic, with specific examples, is not. But I also think it's best to leave THAT to the moderators. And it's usually best to focus on present behavior, IMHO - how can we do better together going forward?

"Love does not keep a record of wrongs".

[steve-in-kville]

I haven't laughed that much at 4:30am in a very long time

I was JUST thinking that Steve would have been a better name on that for us!!

I was maybe two cups of coffee in and the "suck it, losers" just set me off. The few coworkers that were here that early thought I was reading company email.

I'm still laughing. I may borrow that for facebook.

[MaxPC]

So when you say "there is a refusal by several members to actually answer questions", I suspect you may be thinking of examples of the kind of bad behavior that Szdfan is talking about. I think those examples exist, but I also doubt that anything good happens if we dredge up examples, people will just double down and take sides.

Then think of a way to rephrase the question so the other person is willing to answer. Maybe it is the WAY the question is being asked. Log in eye and all.

Indeed.