I think it's not that they detest change, but they are cautious about it as it's often promoted by younger people who may not have perspective of what is good to preserve. Conservatives change slowly but they do change - especially when they are shown that the change aligns with their values of fairness. Do you feel that Conservatives today are, in general, more "enlightened" than the Conservatives 30 years ago? For example, they strongly resisted gay marriage but now are less concerned about it. Sure, they resist trans-bathrooms now but they've come a long way. Just 2 cents.

@Admin It is one thing to resist change, it is another to try and go backwards. In the seventies and eighties, Conservative would harken back to the fifties. In the nineties and two thousands, they would harken back to the days of Reagan. They accept gay marriage because it was forced on them, and after awhile they realized it really didn't effect their lives in anyway, unless they had gay children, and saw it made their lifestyle more acceptable. Unlike in my youth, the Republican party runs on fear. They are afraid of women, people of color, and LGBT community. Because so many in their party are not educated and have no desire to be, they fall for these fear tactics all too often. The moneyed conservatives don't really care about social issues for the most part. Their interests lie in taxes and regulations. This is the reason they vote Republican. If they weren't greedy, and really cared about the country and the people in it, the Republican party would only exist on a very local level in a lot of states. That is a shame. We need some balance, and that might have to come from the ever expanding so called independents. This next election could be the most important of our lifetime. Sorry, I didn't mean to go on and on.

Good point. That is kind of what I was trying to say I was concerned about, that some viewers of these updates would be cruel or insensitive to people posting anything personal and vulnerable. Some of us non-believers are not the most kind, fair, or moral people. Also there is the concern that some people will be too much exhibitionist for their own ego or whatever. Good taste is always underserved most of the time by viewers and those who share. I used to share honestly and openly, probably too much so for the audience of the general forum in Love And Relationships, about some of the hurtful and upsetting things I experienced with online dating. And every time I could count on at least a few people lining up to ridicule or bash me for being vulnerable. There are some jerks on this site, both male and female, who simply love to kick someone when they are down because they are, at their core, kind of sadistic and callous. So there is always that risk, and I would myself be cautious about how deeply I shared in a status update.

If the goal is to change minds with your posts, it is often more effective to speak in neutral tones as doing otherwise instantly turns of the part of the brain that hears. We all have a tendency to be advocates to our home teams.

@Admin With all due respect and in all honesty, you kind of lost me with what you said there. I am not being snarky or trying to be cute, I honestly am a little confused. Please do not respond with sarcasm, even tho I know that is the common currency on here when someone says they don't get something that was said.

@admin i watched this 2 part Frontline documentary the other day, about FB. Their initial ideology was strikingly similar to what I think im hearing from you... if we all can find our shared experiences, the whole world will naturally become more understanding and more happy... But what FB saw was an increase in divisiveness, as people found ways to connect with only those who agreed with them. It led to political movements like the Arab spring just as well as to the Russian fake news just as well to the growth of all sorts of hate groups.

This site walks a fine line with this "status update" idea, and at the same time allowing people here who do the same thing by blocking anyone they don't like. The groups feature (which I hated at first) actually allows and promotes freer discussion and will hopefully cut down on people who make the whole site harder to use, by disrupting the flow of discussion and idea sharing. From what I understand you had to tackle this issue in your "senate" group, so people could simply read and understand each other. Again, letting people segregate into groups is a great idea, but please keep the main feed free of popularity contests.

[pbs.org]
[pbs.org]

@MarkiusMahamius Great feedback! I'm thinking it could be another category that you can elect to see or not.

Twitbook? haha. Yeah, more focus on personal relationships between members.

We can put it in the mouse-over popup too.

One other thought -- I'd prefer that people be at least at level 3 or 4 before having access to this (both posting and viewing).

@jerry99 both are good suggestions thanks!

I wish we had a translation service that could convert what you just said into a way that is understandable to a Conservative. Remember, Conservatives generally translate what Liberal people say into a way that is different from what Liberal people think they do. There are two different languages being used so that they're understood differently. For example, "minority groups being denied the same basic human rights and protections as straight, white, cisgender folks" phrase requires a Conservative to guess what you are talking about... and they often go to their more sensitive trigger (e.g, oh, you're talking about a trans freak wanting to perv girls in a women's bathroom, that's dangerous and makes me uncomfortable)... so clearly, their response has to be emotional back to you (often they're favorite label "Libtard" ). I don't want to guess which of the minority groups or rights you're referring but I know your statement is "goodness" driven. Just some thoughts.

I think @admin was specifically trying to wrest control from people with your brand of totalitarianism.

@Admin if they willfully misconstrue statements, that is on them, on not on the speaker. It is not the duty of the correct to change what they say to appease the ignorant.

@MarkiusMahamius My brand of totalitarianism? You mean basic human decency that should apply equally to everyone? Am I missing something here?

@Kafirah yes

@MarkiusMahamius So you don't agree that every human alive deserves the same basic human rights and protections as everyone else? Or am I still missing something?

@Kafirah I think people should be able to open their big fat mouths about pretty much anything they want. The rest of us can respond by ignoring, or dialoging. I don't consider your right to your opinions, to be greater than mine or anyone else's. That doesn't change based on my personal beliefs about the content of the opinions. It simply based on the right to have them.

@MarkiusMahamius As do I, regarding opinions. I also believe that if someone thinks they deserve more, better, different, special, or extra rights and protections than someone else, for any reason, they are wrong. That wrong thinking implies that they somehow believe themselves to be somehow better than whoever they think deserves less. When it comes to basic human rights, NO ONE deserves less. That's no totalitarianism, that's universalism. It puts no one above anyone else. It is all-inclusive. If someone can't agree on that, there must be, in my opinion, something fundamentally wrong with them.

@MarkiusMahamius If you want to open your big fat mouth and say whatever you want then you will have to take responsibility for what you have said. It is not a matter that your opinion is greater than mine or vice verse but the fact that you or me are spouting hatred and fear.

@Kafirah you are absolutely just as entitled to you opinion as "they" are. Where it crosses the line into totalitarianism, to me, is the idea that you/some group of people, get to decide what's correct and allowable speech. Yeah, speech leads to action... for instance, plenty a person who hates on immigrants here, is also actively working to brutalize/support the brutalization of immigrants in real life. Besides moral harm, it produces real harm to the individual and to the potential of our species. But... I still think those people are entitled to their opinions. Like I said I can choose to ignore or dialog. When i choose to believe I have more rights than they do, that's totalitarianism.

I'll try to look at this a different way. Humans suck. Maybe totalitarianism is the only practible answer to large groups and the social vitriol that turns into impactable human behaviors. Maybe Stalin was right about how to resolve problems, regardless of if you agree with his selection criteria. Opposing/wrong opinions must be squashed. I suppose he could have been more humane about it, but this might be a chance to start improving on his processes.

@Jolanta i don't see a problem with that. Do you?

@MarkiusMahamius The problem is - that the there is a class that wants "Other" and "Female" to be "Less than" - and sees nothing wrong with it.

Proof that Transgenderism is a scientific fact - doesn't change their opinion.
That many countries now have women serving in the military - that doesn't do it either.
That the LBGTQ hold jobs and have kids and marriage etc.
All of that upsets them.

They want the strides forward to go back. Despite proof to the contrary. (And I do mean scientific proof). How do you argue with civility - day after day - when they want to snicker about your Human Rights?

I'm truly at a loss.

Literally concerned that right now there are people I love who could be at risk in this country because of changes begin made.

Simply women who can't get appropriate healthcare in their own State and have to travel to do so.
Transgendered who are denied jobs and attacked in public - because we have a president who took away their status in the Military.
There is such a list of things happening that frightens me - but I try very hard not to operate from there. Or from a place of hatred.

I try to base myself on "Where can we more forward to?".
"And how are we going to do it?"

@RavenCT my opinion about trans people, or maligned ethnic groups, or power dynamics, or or or...is equally as irrelevant as yours. And regardless of if we agree or not, we still both have the right to post about it.

@MarkiusMahamius That's just it... there is no totalitarianism if everyone is equal. Allowing those that don't have the same rights to have them doesn't take away from the rights of those that already had them. Giving others the same rights doesn't restrict those that already had them in any way. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want and hold whatever opinions they wish. However, despite all people being equal, all opinions are not. And all humans have the right to hold wrong and bad opinions. But those wrong and/or bad opinions shouldn't be able to restrict others from their basic equal rights, no matter who says that they can. That's totalitarianism. For instance, trying to overturn gay marriage. Everyone deserves the right to get married, if they so choose, to whomever they choose, so long as it is a mutual decision between all parties that would be involved in the actual marriage. To tell gay people that they aren't allowed that basic human right is totalitarian dictatorship. The key in that is consent. To say someone cannot marry a goat is not totalitarianism, because the goat cannot give consent or display any understanding of what a marriage even means in any way whatsoever. Same goes with child marriage. They lack the ability to fully understand what they are agreeing to, therefore consent is null and void. Not to mention that both examples are just sick and wrong. That's my opinion, and some would disagree with it. That, in my opinion, makes them equally sick and wrong. But I digress... Totalitarianism is forcing people to have less than those in charge. No one is forcing people to have as much as those in charge.

@MarkiusMahamius You obviously did not understand a thing I wrote.

@Kafirah "However, despite all people being equal, all opinions are not.". Weirdly, I don't agree with either part of that, and it may be the root of our disagreement.

But... The idea that started this discussion, for me, was your statement about "that sort of mentality has no place in civilized society." And from the original post, "I have several goals in building this community - one of which is to help bridge the growing divide in society. ". I don't consider admins goals to be my goals, but I was really surprised to read a post about deciding what sorts of mentalities should be allowed here/ what "has a place". That sort of exclusionary thinking is fundamental to totalitarian thinking, imho.

@Jolanta apparently not. It's very hard to communicate effectively in text alone.

@MarkiusMahamius I get that, differing opinions are a necessary part of growth. Considering things from many angles is invaluable. But the mentality that seeks to restrict the rights of those that don't fit their personal criteria cannot grow a society or a species. It is, at its heart, divisive. Division leads to resentment, which leads to contempt, which leads to hatred, which leads to hateful actions, which leads to destruction and death. So, by denying equal rights to anyone, we, as a civilized society, would be heading down a path that would disqualify us from being either civilized or a society.

@Kafirah Judging people on their beliefs or opinions and calling that "civility" and calling it a criteria for a healthy society, looks good on paper.

i's no different than the belief that only the humans that fit specific racial or gender profiles are inherently necessary to a civil society.

@MarkiusMahamius If we don't judge people by the content of their character, what should we judge them by? And no sir, that is utterly false equivalency. We judge people by their words (opinions and stated beliefs) and their deeds. That is the sum total of what we are able to know of someone other than ourselves. We judge everyone according to that criteria. Some of us are content to judge others by their character. It's when you start judging others for things beyond their control that you are in the wrong. Each of us is solely responsible for our own character and how we present that character to the world. That is the only criteria by which anyone should be judged.

@MarkiusMahamius The point I'm making is when someone's free speech translates to "Hate Speech" or into changes to my rights as a human being. That's where it becomes a problem.

All humans will fight when threatened. (Or at least most).
Take away folks rights and see what happens.

Social media is just that - a social venue. Not life or death. However it IS a place where views might be altered. And in that manner it can be a precious resource.
To change minds.

I had a Father who was somewhat bigoted in the "Archie Bunker" fashion of the day.
None of us kids could stand it.
And with fairly pointed correction and real world interaction - that behavior changed.
So I am aware that people do change. Show them some love - show them some evidence - show them real world examples of what they fear - and that it IS NOT TRUE - and they will change their opinions and become the best of people.

My Dad wasn't a bad person to begin with. He wasn't out to get anyone. He "just" made bad jokes and though less of certain people because of their "otherness". His family helped to change what his environment had taught him.

I firmly believe this can be done out in the world too.

But not if people are going to cuss at each other about it. (Occassional vulgarity can be warranted).

That's just my belief. Everyone has one I'm sure.

But I think the goal here is for social change. To expand on Humanism. To get people talking not fighting.

I had a friend who whole-heartedly believed in Trump and voted for him - we were able to stay friends even though I fully did not believe in Trump - and discuss it - for well over a year - with him changing him mind about two years in.
It wasn't without conflict - but no yelling matches - because of the way we speak to each other.

It's possible. I don't see why more folks don't do it.

I guess it's whether you place any value on the person you speak to. I always do.
When the decide to tell me they hate me? Then I'm done.
No one needs a hater in their life.

@Kafirah My opinion: opinions about <insert current social issue here> do not define character. I care much more about who rapes babies, than I do about who says what about <insert current social issue here>, and I feel much more comfortable with judging people's character based on what they do, not what they say. Im comfortable realing that I don't know jack-crap about most members here, and that I have no right to make decisions about them. For all I know, the most toe-the-line politically woke, civil member here, rapes babies. All i do know, is their right to say what they think. Just like the most regressive jerks here.

I was driving by a line at a soup kitchen this morning. Huge line, huge group of people eating. It was run by a church group that has turned down donations from lgbt+ groups, for moral reasons. Im not advocating they shut down the soup kitchen, and I'm not advocating the church group should define civility either. Opinions just exist.

@MarkiusMahamius Apparently you don't believe "everyone deserves the same basic human rights" because if you did a simple yes would make that clear. Do you know what that makes you?.

@Casey07 do you keep lists of those you feel deserve basic human rights, and those who dont?

@MarkiusMahamius You have a right to free speech. However there is a point at which free speech descends into yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

So yelling misinformation and hate speech to incite more misinformation and hate speech and fear? I see that as problematic.

@RavenCT you're more than a little melodramatic here

@MarkiusMahamius presenting misinformation as fact is precisely what the religious have done for eons.

I don't suffer it well anywhere in my life.

It's not melodrama to say free speech - when misused with purposeful lies - can cause harm.

Also if I were a dude would you say I was melodramatic?

@RavenCT absolutely

@MarkiusMahamius I hear your opinion on my statement but I don't find it to be true for myself.

@BohoHeathen If you want to hate something, it should be worthy of that hate. Hate radical Islam terrorist if you want, hate rapists and murderers - why hate on a guy that is fighting for America?? The hate Trump has received from members of this group is pathetic!

@gater 45 is more than "worthy" of my abject loathing. I've hated that piece of trash for over 40 years. He has inspired it with everything he's ever done.
I will not apologize for that, and I will not curtail my hatred for him.
If other people don't see how vile and corrupt he is, that's on them. I will not alter anything about how I talk about him to appease anyone. Ever.

We both like GoT. So we have that in common. We don't have to agree on anything else.

Tipping my toe in the water here... I feel that the 1-2 word labels (racist, x-ophobe, bigot, etc) people use to describe people any range of contrary opinions have the only purpose of showing hate to others. Have you ever seen a person respond to a label with, "Oh, you know, you're right, I should look at things differently"? While I'm not suggesting we do this, what if we had 1 month trial period where we all take an oath to never use these labels.. and were required to say nuanced things that starts with "I respect you as a person but..."?

Hate for the actions of a devient like Trump is healthy and normal. no sympathy for the walking trash fire.

@gater You think Trump is "fighting for America," but a great many of us see him as fawning on whoever lards his vanity. I really think his only allegiance is to adulation of Trump, which he obsessively pursues.

@Admin I'm all for the "I statements" it makes you reword unless you throw a "But" in there. lol

@Admin Because many of these folks don't garner my respect 'as a person' and Im sure im not alone in this feeling.

@BohoHeathen So you hate Trump - but terrorists are not so bad?

As expressed by a few others below, Trump is worthy of the loathing sent his way. If there were another word or way to express greater loathing, I would choose it. What I find shocking is that you find it shocking. What is it about Trump personally and his policies that isn't loathsome? We obviously can't have a conversation since we obviously don't share the same truth.For what it is worth, I am the same age as Trump, am actually a white man, not orange, but can list a possible defect in that I don't play golf.

@DangerDave So you equate terrorists that bomb innocent women and children to Trump - are you stupid or something?

That's funny, I'm continually shocked by how much love he gets here. I am annoyed with your use of the term "blind hate" when in fact the closer you look the worse he appears. Even the hypocritical evangelicals admit they must "overlook" his character defects because they love his polices..

@gater . Your use of a cheap tactic that infers if you don't support Trump you must support terrorists is despicable.

@DangerDave of course you can - they are both fruit, both edible, both grow on trees...its not like comparing apples to a wrench, or a stick of dynamite.

@Admin I truly understand what you are trying to do. Respectfully, I will not pledge to curtail my enmity toward 45.
I won't attack any other member directly, but I also won't give them a pass for supporting that pos. I just can't do it.
I'll do my best not to swear at them, but I won't give them a pass.

@BohoHeathen I didn't block you

@Casey07 When did I say that? - I said if you hate someone they should be worthy of that hate - many losers in the group hate Trump more than they hate terrorists - its pathetic.

@BohoHeathen your opinion is that Trump is a terrorists? lol omg

@DangerDave lol @ complete sentences

Thanks for your feedback. This post is not pointing fingers as we have all been affected emotionally here.

@Admin You might notice I don't get a lot of pulled posts (In fact none). Meaning I do try to engage folks using calm speech.

I use much the approach I learned with clients - you don't get anywhere forcing ideas on people - but explain an idea a bit and let them think it out. That's all you can do. (Give facts - maybe explain your view - ask their opinion on it - etc).
Then you let it simmer.

To me that should be the Humanist approach - unless I'm missing something entirely?

Try to engage people to help them change. Maybe learn from them as well - their viewpoint. Why they believe as they do? Is there a middle ground?

My method is probably far from perfection - but I know what the trigger words are and I try to not use them.

When a group becomes as focused on hate as some of the political groups did - I simply left. I just found it unhealthy in the extreme to watch the yelling of names back and forth - "Libtard" "Herr Trump" etc.... it was egregious.
And asking people to settle on more neutral terms? No one would have it.

Literally to begin? Such groups will need mods. (Sadly). Who are present.
I don't run those groups though and have no idea if those group owners care to explore that.

It would almost be like running a courtroom in the early days.

Well, we also take your feedback (mostly) haha.

How does one know what the line for contemptible vs not is at? Of course, it's easier on the fringe, but 95% of people are not truly there.

Its pretty simple to me, which ideal presents the most good, for the most people. a % of any population will be unhappy, and feel set upon by the rest. That is simply unavoidable. we arent talking about a factor beyond someones control. bad ideology is a choice.

The last time I saw most of the citizens of the US have total contempt and actively seek to destroy communism. Isn't that on the left?

agnosticism and Atheism are based on rational thought. Conservative politics are rooted in religious controls, and are for the most part irrational.

@dellik That’s a pretty closed minded comment. Especially since there are actually non theist conservatives.

@Annaleda thats your opinion. i disagree.

@dellik ditto

@Annaleda Conservatism - Wikipedia
[en.wikipedia.org]
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the ... Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, ... In contrast to the tradition-based definition of conservatism, some political .... Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the ...

I am not alone in believing conservatism is inextricably linked with religion.
Just sayin =/

@Annaleda "Especially since there are actually non theist conservatives."
Yes, and there are christian lgbtq folks too. some people are hypocrites. thats not a rebuttal.

@dellik I believe there are two camps of Conservatives. The atheist ones can call out the religious ones as well. I'll do some more research to see what the covariance is between them.

@Admin Im not saying there are no conservative atheists. Im saying that conservatism as a whole supports and reinforces religious principles. many people support ideologies that are against their stated beliefs.

Annaleda, Show me a conservative idea that supports the rights of all people equally, other than the right for everyone to own an arsenal of weapons, I might ease up on them. Name one.

@Sticks48 And how does that equate to Christian only values?

@altschmerz I’m a Centrist for a reason. There are issues on both side. I got a lot of shit for sticking up for that kid. But I just couldn’t sit back and not speak up for what was right, if not popular.

@Annaleda Nothing. I am talking about why I don't care for conservatives on the site. I don't need to hear another word. They haven't come up with a good idea in around 30 years. As for Christian values, there are more Christian values on this site than there are in the Conservatives in this country. They talk some shit, but talk is all it is.

@altschmerz No. I didn’t expect to. There are still people saying the kid the wrong. I suggest they watch the full video, but the truth is they don’t care about the truth. Period.

I’ve learned to sit back and try to get all the info I can on things. I have jumped on the bandwagon, made assumptions, followed the flock. And felt I looked stupid later—about issues regarding both sides. I might not like admitting that certain groups do good things or are in the right, but if I want to be a fair and good person, I have to give credit (or discredit) where due.

@Sticks48 I don’t care for people like you on this site. You’re just a prejudice, small-minded, prick who thinks he is better than other people. Don’t push me. Asshat.

@Sticks48 And no wonder people are leaving for San Marcus, you are probably the reason. Did you burn down the bar, because conservatives went there? Or did you rob the rock shop, because the owners aren’t your type of people?

@Sticks48 I hate prejudiced people.

@Annaleda I ask you to come up with one good idea conservatives have come up with in the last thirty years and all you can do is call me names .That is very Trumpian of you. Anything Trumpian is driven by pure ignorance. Not liking conservatives and their ideas is not prejudicial anymore than conservatives disliking liberal ideas. They just see things differently.

more active thought policing? Huh, how could that go wrong.

@dellik Not thought policing but behavior policing. If a web site creator wants civil behavior which provides for a safe and inclusive environment s/he must make it so. Ad hominem and hateful behavior should not be tolerated. Bad behavior causes good, decent people to go away, stifles intelligent discussion and turns nice places like this into a troll infested free for all.

@dare2dream open discourse encourages those with contemptible philosophies to expose themselves. I like my bigots loud and proud. much easier to handle.

..."good conduct". Yeah, that's a really loaded subject. There have been others who really wanted to install themselves as the "behavior police".
I don't like that idea any more now, than I did then.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
I say NO to any and all censorship, across the board.

@KKGator I find the 'block' feature provides me with the exact amount of censorship I am ok with. yeah, its annoying when someone does it to me out of spite, r what ever reasons they chose, but ultimately its acceptable with the trade off of being able to do the same.

@dellik Precisely.
I get blocked all the time, for all sorts of reasons.
It's no big deal.

Unfortunately some like @dellick are unable to argue without using viteraputive language, projection, ad hominem, contempt and attempted gaslighting.

@KKGator I've seen intellegeent, civil and enjoyable web sites devolve into hate filled, juvenile, troll infested sewers where all the decent people leave. But if an unmoderated, free for all, food fight is your cup of tea, may I suggest craigslist forums. You might like it.

@dare2dream Craigslist is so six years ago.

Will do, it's on my tab.

@Seeker3CO Absolutely. I think disagreement is fine, and I see lots of that — and we definitely don't need to give a pass to intolerant words and proclamations — but I think criticism of these things as well as general disagreement about ideology is somehow being conflated with the relatively infrequent abuse of people when it's genuinely a personal attack. While conservative members may feel like they're outnumbered here, and maybe don't feel especially welcomed, that's a far cry from the majority of members mistreating the minority.

@Seeker3CO Wait, I'm not a "humanist", neither am I "on the left".
I think there are far too many gross generalizations being tossed around.
Not by you specifically, but too many in general.

There is a "My followed posts" link on the main page.

Perhaps could put a list of friends with new content.

Yep, there are different languages being spoken.

@Admin and even when speaking English there are different understandings, nuances, past experience, beliefs and motives that all help to confound comprehension.

Yes, because they are debating their world view which has now become identical to personal identity... hence the rise of identity politics. Starting with facts might help.

Damaged egos?

@Admin yep. Totally. Has nothing to do with real, lasting and devastating harm being done to millions of people....must be identity politics. Smh

Thanks, I think I might be able to help more by getting more involved in posts.

I've another long post idea that is about the new religious of personal truths. Will need oven mittens on that one.

@Admin reading your reply and cursorily considering it I visualised the children's toy where heads or pegs pop out of a hole in a board to be put down with a wielded wooden mallet whereupon another pops up to be similarly hammered down. And so on.
Considering that I have most unusually just vomited a part of my breakfast of vitamin pills, apricot juice, toast, butter and marmalade I was in need of a laugh. Thanks for the inspiration!