I have coined a term regarding the environment I live in and the people that live in it. "Happily Angry" They are sensitive and quick to feed into anything that let's them release their anger. It has caused me to exist on a plane of neutrality and promote a campaign of smiling. I think I'll begin posting it here and see if beginning the day on a good note can carry through. Let's all feel better. Stress is a killer of many. In between left and right is a middle.

I just finished the "Behind the Curve" documentary on netflix about the flat earth movement (ok, so I skipped through some parts). Part of the explanation of why the movement has exploded is because many people feel weird or left out (for whatever reason) and thus join together around this ludicrous idea, and ANOTHER is that they feel people looking down on them for their beliefs.

There is an entire section of the documentary devoted to cautioning educated people not to look down on these people because that "smugness" the educated project, etc, is part of the problem of why they believe crazy things. Many parallels to Trump supporters. I don't know if I buy the argument that you have to baby ignorant people until they come around, or treat every idea as legitimate for fear the crazy person may think you smug or conceited. (Have we really gone so far down the rabbit hole that pointing out the earth is a sphere makes you a smug, elitist, college boy or girl?)

And I was also surprised to learn there are infighting factions within the flat earth movement. Some think there is a dome, some do not (infinite regress upward), some think others are government plants to infiltrate their movement, etc., etc. They also seem to doubt gravity for some reason. The documentary didn't really explain that. (I'm not sure anyone could.)

I agree with others that it may not be likely that you will ever get everyone to agree, or to even communicate nicely with others. I see your suggestion here as being along the lines of "let's create a forum where we can all play nicely together." But do we have RULES for how that would look, or at least suggestions? I think part of the problem is that many people do not know what the rules of good communication are, how to state an opinion without attacking another person, etc. Perhaps discourse would be elevated if everyone agreed to adhere to some basic principles of effective communication. For example:

[ombuds.unc.edu]

[thestoryexchange.org]

It's about time this got brought up and mentioned. Thank you for doing this. I have been here 1.5 years now and noticed a lot of changes on how people talk to one another, the upswing in drama. There are a few areas that have gotten way out of control. Communication in word is our only way to reach out and keeping things civil is important because we know what we deal with in the real world of believers and the judgment call they lay on us daily. It sure is worth a try.

I usually stay out of political discussion here, but I consider myself moderate/middle-of-the-road yet left-leaning. It's where I think the evidence for what works best in social, economic, and political arenas typically points. But, even though I don't often get swept up in the political fervor in this community, I do pay attention to it some and I think you framed something a bit poorly in this post:

"However, I became disappointed in the way that the majority of members (who were left-leaning) treated the minority who are conservative in positions unrelated to religion."

I entirely disagree. I generally see, even in heated debates, mostly fair treatment on all sides. There are, if course, exceptions, but I balk at the suggestion that most left-leaning members have been abusive to the relatively few conservative members. I think that's patently false and an incredibly unfair characterization; you're judging the majority of one group by the actions of a tiny segment — and what we really see seems to be a small number of the liberal members and a small number of conservative members at each other's throats.

But, with that said, I fully support an effort to improve the sense of community here. I'm not quite sure how the status might work — I'm trying to picture it in action and determine how much activity it might generate — but I think it's worth a shot even if it might need some tweaks along the way.

Something I would like to see, if there's even a good way to do it, is to have a personal news feed on the home page where we can more easily see the activity of those we follow, with less segmentation so it's mixed with group activity and so on. I know this is a big undertaking, and it needs a lot of solid planning if it has any hope to succeed, but I think it would generate more activity overall, promoting engagement in areas we don't often see. I had to turn off alerts for comments of the people I follow because it was too cumbersome, but if it were moved into a news feed where I can quickly scroll through (similar to how Facebook shows friend activity) then I'd be more inclined to comment or otherwise get involved in a few threads that I might otherwise never see. This personalized feed would also be a good way to alert followers of updated profile information, added photos, status updates, and so on.

What I don't know is whether that will help foster a sense of community like you're attempting. I'd like to think that it would increase follows and enhance activity across the site, but it might do nothing to improve the overall tone of discourse. So, as a reasonably easy experiment, I think your status concept has potential. I suspect there will be some trial and error, but I think it could foster a sense of community that's often somewhat lacking here.

Well . To anyone who got to know me on this site , u are aware that I am not the best educated one , or the best spoken , or the bright star on any category ( I ll take " who does not give a rat's behind for 1000 Alex ).
So don't jump on my English , u can do that any other day and I will be actually thankful for .
Contempt :
6 , maybe 8 yrs ago , I worked on a patient for several hrs in the ER setting . Chronic issues , non compliance , and there w sepsis onset . Fair enough and easy deal . She was chatty and in a preaching mood despite of a high fever and a half way dead bp .
I have heard that night several times of how her faith is keeping her alive and how the good lord provides . I can be funny and tell u who I think was keeping her alive and who the good lord was , but u already know what I stand for I hope , and does not matter . She went one to ask me if I have the lord in my life and if I am happy . She went on to tell me , that true happiness is when u forgive your enemies and u accept lord's plan for everything .
U know , I was dying to say " u have enemies ? How so ? A godly woman like u ? Who can possibly hate your guts ". But Bcz paying bills is more important than been smart ass , I ate it AND I smiled . Of course ! Just when I was about to be done w her and ready to put orders for her admission up stairs , I asked her One question : do u have any kids ? She said :" two growing up daughters and 7 grandkids ".
I asked , if any of your grandkids get raped and killed tonight , would u forgive the killer ?
She replied without any hesitation , " absolutely . This will had be my lords plan for my grandkid and the killer must had his own reasons and plan by the lord . My job is to not CONTEMPT but to forgive him ".
And that's where I thought , a) she is crazy . B) I must be an a?!$@ apparently . And u know , Bcz I can't know for sure if she was crazy , I decided I am an A,?$& . I must be . Evidently , I contempt murder , rape , lies , indoctrination of children , oppression of minorities , abuse of men , abuse of women , discrimination / gay rights , and anyone who makes education and health access / services not accessible for humans . I also contempt anyone who stops progress , anyone who cuts funds for vital organizations and social services and science research . Let me see , what I forgot . I am sure I contempt much more . Ah , here is one , religions ! If u are religious thou AND u have legit questions Bcz u do want to learn , ask me .

That patient taught me a lot about myself that night . And I am thankful . It also taught me , debating is Useful and possible when the basics are there on both sides . U can have all the good manners and fancy words u want and all that , point is , if u believe that abortions are murder , we need a wall, Brett kavanaugh was an honest victim , and the earth is flat , well , I will just smile and say u are crazy , and u can smile and say I am an a$&@".
We can sugar coat it all day long , provide each other with links , and ? At the end of the day u vote for what I contempt and I vote for what gives u hives . On a web site u have even more options : block , scroll and ignore , leave a site that the majority seems to not be " your people " ? I think everyone utilizes what fits him / her best .

Your idea on " how u feeling " tab / posts seems like a good option for many members . I think they will like it .

I'm not sure if that specific idea will be helpful but I wanted to say that this has been a very positive forum for me overall. Yes, there are problems but there always will be wherever humans are congregating. Thank you for providing this space. I'm sure your efforts to make it more congenial will pay off.

Biblical thinking has done such terrible damage to the human mind that the future of the entire planet is at stake. A lot of the damage is subconscious. Consider the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” Really stupid and crazy. Nobody says anything when they put killers to their final reward. Same on the battle field. How come the government doesn't tell recruits if you'll join the Armed Forces there's a good chance you'll go to hell? In the ensuing chapters that Moses gives us the Sixth Commandment, God orders the killing of hundreds of people.

Religion stifles free thought. The teaches dichotomous thinking: just in Genesis night and day, left and right, good and evil, male and female, slave and free, plant and animal, Jews and gentiles, straight and gay. In nature, however, nothing is a hundred percent one way or the other. There are creatures that are neither male nor female (hermaphrodites), creatures that are neither plant nor animal (Euglena sp), almost all of us are good and evil at some time.

So when President W. Bush states, "You are either with us or with the terrorists," he is using Biblical thinking and soon after the country was at war. I'm a free thinker very much in favor of left-wing causes, but when Ted Bundy got his just deserts in Old Sparky, I felt the state was doing the right thing.

I'm suddenly reminded of the following quote: very fine people on both sides ....
and I'm now confused.

Here's my two cents...keep it simple. We just want to talk to whoever wants to talk to us. The audience is dynamic, what I say today is ok with some and the same thing will be ok with others on a different day. We're all adults. We should handle our own ideas and deal with the consequences.

Thanks for opening up the discussion.

As one of the people very likely to post items about He Who Shall Not Be Named, it would be very difficult for me to avoid expressing my contempt for him and his supporters. I'd certainly be sympathetic to anyone going through some a difficult times, but in nearly every case I can think of, I'd probably be inclined to say something about them bringing it on themselves by voting for HWSNBN. That said, I like your idea and would be happy to do my best to support it minus any sympathetic words for the aforementioned. And btw, I consider myself a moderate and have several conservative friends and relatives, all of whom are on the same page when it comes to HWSNBN but then they're generally smart people.

I suggest that in addition to a brief statement about how we're doing, you could let us pulldown a list of emojis like the pic here.

On Facebook when I put how I am feeling in a status update, I feel safe doing that because it is going to be seen only by my friends and family, and I feel confident of their support. Here if it was open to everyone rather than a Group I already know I would be talking to strangers and I would be afraid of getting knocked back or mocked if I made any but the blandest statement.

I've seen both nasty liberals, libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and just plain trolls on here. It's difficult to argue against a great number of "left-leaning" individuals on this site, because they are a greater number in population than conservatives. Some people are looking to fight, troll, and post their opinions without concern for opinions that aren't theirs.

I'd love to say that just being "Agnostic" means we're more open to questioning everything... Including politics. However, politics, like religion is learned from our parents and environment as much as it is our own conclusions, and we bicker with the same ferver as we debate our religious standpoints. It's easy to deny it, but difficult to prove.

I'd consider a warning system to give people the opportunity to recognize when they're acting in an overtly hostile and potentially uncouth manner. Maybe demoting people's levels for aggressively trolling or insulting others and give them a chance to learn their lesson, and if not lvl 0 is banned.

It's difficult to gauge where someone's free speech is being attacked and when we need to silence people who have no desire to provide beneficial discourse. It's also difficult to gauge when enough is enough and people need to actually be silenced. People say hate speech is and should be protected speech, and I agree to an end. Consequences must be had for speech that causes egregious emotional harm or is meant to be offensive to an individual in retaliation for a differing opinion.

I've personally tried to moderate myself and on occasion we may all fail to police ourselves, once in a while. I wouldn't suggest a 3 strikes policy, unless it had a limited time duration, as it may inadvertently penalize longer term users. Maybe add emojis to point out logical phallacies and the ones most used (top 3 maybe) will be shown public facing. For example the "Liberals want to murder babbies" strawman used on this very strain of comments. The truth is some people have a definition of baby. Everyone agrees brain is necessary for something to not be a growth, but beyond that it's up for debate. I try to stay out of this debate because I will never be pregnant and forced to make that decision.

Sorry, I have a habit or writing dissertations, rather than comments.
For the general public, I'd just say read your writings and decide if you are the recipient of your own message, would it bother you?

Mine, first and foremost are appreciation; both for your attitude to facilitate good, honest communication and learning, and mutually, the frustration of seeing believers clashing with those saying things that cuse those beliefs to weaken in the face of reason. They aren't Left or Right exclusively and 'beliefs' aren't limited to theologies. Any 'ology' or 'ism' functions as effectively at captivating individual reasoning as a theology or other type of mythology.

Because it seems appropriate here as a partial explanation of WHY such hostility suddenly appears in what starts as a rational conversation, I'll again quote a clinical observation from 1949 that is, to me, a maxim.

"We observe that human thought systems show tolerance as long as they adhere to reality. The more the thought process is removed from reality, the more intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee its continued existence." Wilhelm Reich, M.D., (1949) 'Ether, God and Devil'

When divergent points of view both have unhealthy shares of myth or indoctrination at their foundations, intolerance and cruelty escalate to some very ugly levels. It happens that most 'Conservatives' embrace notions (isms) that are more theologically rooted than 'Progressives' who flaunt their isms proudly and get just as excited and agitated when their personal myths are questioned as any back-woods Pentecostal or dyed in the wool Baptist or Fundamentalist Muslim. Isms held close by the majority of Conservative group 'thinkers' are filtered out automatically by the very nature of this godless site. Add to that the aire present here of superiority of ideas held by those who've rejected gods but willingly abdicated their reasoning to other isms and I think the sources of hostility are clear for anyone, even some of the people themselves to see.

I'm in the political middle, playing position 'hop scotch' all the time, depending on the issue at hand. If there were more of those who identify as Conservative [articipating here, I'm sure the venom that is often cast would be about equal. As it is, because the majority is comprised of Left 'believers' it explains why so many people who are godless individuals yet better specimens of independent thinkers than most Conservatives, feel daunted and are warded-off. I'm as entertained and delighted by Jimmy Dore or George Galloway as Rush Limbaugh. I could as easily support a Tulsi Gabbard as (again) a Donald Trump, because PERSONALITY is probably the lowest priority involved in selecting which of only two people is better equipped to serve and protect our nation.

When our people make the choices instead of the financial, globalist and military-industrial interests, other political differences manifesting in different philosophies about how to better lives and self-govern can be hammered out later; when we've regained our primacy as 'we the people'; we the self-governors. Spoecial interests and old world centralized political structures are antithetical to our national nature; to our SHARED interest in making life better for ourselves.

Myths are scary things to give up, sort of like abandoning other addictions; especially when all we get from popular information sources is laced with mythical addictive substances.

It's very gratifying to slam one's ideological opponents, as well as their ideology, without bothering to pause and reflect on whether one is actually making a genuine effort to be fair-minded in one's judgments about their character or intelligence. But we are more rational, intelligent, and more likely to be persuasive to those who disagree with us if we try to avoid falling into this trap.

I should add that obviously, conservatives are just as guilty of this as liberals, if not more so. But we should still try to be reasonable, rational, and fair in our judgments (and I'm not saying that we should feel obliged to be completely non-judgmental either.)

@Admin if nothing else, I hope you see the incongruity of wanting us to interact socially, but restricting such interaction to groups. I understand you are trying to put out a perceived fire, but this method just drives people further away from each other by default.

Many years ago, I used be in a social club and they had one Golden Rule = No mention of politics and religion.
I kept to that rule in all social gatherings and they have all been good
Another rule I have is if I have nothing positive to contribute, I keep my mouth shut.
@admin You have an unenviable task in what you are doing, which is very much appreciated by most on here. It's impossible to please all the people all of the time, but is easy to upset everyone in one go - it's a tricky one.
All the best, whatever you do.

I also am very disappointed about the hate for conservatives I’m reading. I’m a Centrist, but Conservatives should be welcome in our community, as long as they follow the rules—just as Liberals and Centrists have to.

I mean this isn’t LiberalAgnostic.com.

I've been more active on twitter lately and had to make a DM group that I called "we can be adults" because the group I was part of had a split because some people decided just because people didn't do things the way they thought it should be done and disagreed with them on some topics. We ended up being rape apologists, white supremacist apologists and transphobes all for the crime of agreeing with someone they didn't like and choosing to continue supporting a certain youtube channel. Anyway we haven't figured it out yet. I've had to unfollow a bunch of the people involved because of the hate they have been spewing. It makes me so sad I had considered them good friends."Guilt by association" that was the crime I had committed. Like you said some people just live for the fight and there is nothing that can be done.

It seems like there is an assumption (reading the comments) that members here need to prove their worth or be of value. Is that a measurement we can make? Anyhow, this site is confusing as is. I think I joined at the moment the site was being redesigned?

Maybe the polarization in the US, in the long term, is a blessing in disguise. It brings up concerns such as yours. I think that a people is always polarized. But particular sides may be quieter than others. It may take more daring to verbalize one side than the other. People are learning to have more courage about their view. But adjustments to hear as well as speak may be trailing in the progress.

Your idea is interesting. It might be worth a try.

When someone "starts it", you can't expect the person on the initial receiving end to play nice and constantly take it. The person who starts being aggressive and insulting is the problem. It seems that's just their personality. Nothing is going to change that.

Couples fighting and trying therapy is great, but they are not strangers. Most of the people in here are strangers and you aren't going to get strangers to agree to anything like therapy to fix a relationship that isn't there in the first place.

People who are diametrically opposed in whatever issue it may be (politics or religion etc.), will most likely never agree with each other or get along. It's human nature. These things are too ingrained in them and it's like someone with a different view point is threatening the other person's entire being.

@Admin - This is what I saw as an issue in Senate (As there is zero protection from it there) - I tried to raise interest in a solution for it - (took a beating for a week and half - I had a hate group form on site - that's still here btw (Flame: The War Room) - before I was removed from Senate (along with all my posts). Considering I only told people where they could stick it on my last day there - I find that rather unfair to this day.

I asked members to troubleshoot this issue. The one of dehumanizing each other. (Hate Speech/Misogyny/Transphobia... the list goes on and on).
Apparently it's not a popular issue to tackle.
Hundreds of Members simply avoided it.

I don't think this is the solution.

I do believe you will have to force members to a solution.

Perhaps a group based on the topic with willing participants.
Some of us are more apt to identify as Humanist.
Some wanted to flee the site when they realized we were being grouped with them.

Perhaps a "Think tank approach" of members willing to talk about it?
Yes folks like their dopamine hits - but perhaps there can be a topic of the day rather than status updates.
Something that really encourages humanist thinking?

Even articles to read - perhaps a reading room? - And a question or "item of the day" to encourage talk on that subject.

And with promises to keep I've steadily beat my head against the wall of transphobia and misogyny on the this site.
I do it in a humanist manner - and if it doesn't work - I wait and usually try again at a later date.
I've friends here who say "Why bother?".

The Original Poster isn't looking for solutions - they're looking to foster more hate.
I'm unsure what the response should be - because what I do? It's not working. Except perhaps to show other members there is another calmer way to respond. (No I'm not crazy I'm trying to show that maybe with other information given a mind can be changed). It's not a speedy process to make someone think new things.

I think if you want to see better Humanists? You're going to have to demonstrate it.
I have dealt with some very angry people and stepped out the other side with them having clarity - it's part of working in the Psych field. But here? That is much harder.
They can't hear my tone. or see my face. You can't keep them in discussion in a room.
So sometimes a solution is never reached here.

Time for changes I agree.

I don't know. If it encourages people to be supportive, then I'm all for it. I've seen some of the nasty things that have gone here, and I know for myself I don't participate because it's a waste of my time and energy, and instead I focus on interactions that have been thoughtful or supportive -- that's been my favorite thing about being on this site, that even though there may be some confrontational threads, there's way more a feeling of belonging here than on any other social media... All this being said, I don't know how a status update would function. I'd suggest to try it and see. "Schrödinger's Cat," right? -- you won't know until you find out.

I think it could work...but it seems to me that the answer to ‘how are you feeling?’ needs more than a few words...unless people answer ‘just fine,’ which would end most conversations. I can’t see how people will open up and reveal their deeper nature, by asking them ‘how are you feeling?’