Discussion Guidelines
It’s a sad reflection on modern society that a policy is needed for guidance on the discussion style for questions and comments on this site, but that shouldn’t have surprised me, since it was the absence of a balanced, respectful, and reflective forum which prompted me to create this site.
Some of the combative content that you find on social media will be filtered out on this site, in order to allow a calm review of life’s complex questions.
Problems of social media
To understand why social media is so inflammatory and unproductive, I decided to ask AI, and its judgment is listed below — press the (+) icon to see the full explanation.
Why the social media approach is toxic to discussion
The cultural wars on social media refer to intense, often hostile conflicts over deeply held values, beliefs, and identities. These battles, amplified by the platform’s structure, are a major driver of the toxic environment.
1. The Core Battlegrounds
The conflicts often revolve around issues of identity, morality, and social policy, including:
Political Ideology and Partisanship: This is one of the most visible battlegrounds. It involves fierce opposition and animosity (affective polarization) between political groups. Disagreement shifts from policy issues to outright rejection and hatred of the opposing group.
Social Justice and Identity Issues: Debates surrounding race, gender, sexuality, and historical narratives (e.g., Critical Race Theory, LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, misogyny, and “cancel culture”) are highly contentious. These often manifest as accusations of oppression versus claims of political correctness gone too far.
Media and Information Control: Conflicts erupt over what constitutes “truth” and who has the authority to define it. This includes fighting over misinformation/disinformation, content moderation policies (often framed as “censorship”), and the perceived political bias of media outlets and tech platforms.
Science and Public Health: Issues like climate change, vaccination, and public health policies (especially during crises like pandemics) often become cultural battlegrounds, with opposing sides accusing the other of being anti-science or authoritarian.
2. How Social Media Amplifies Toxicity
The structure and incentives of social media platforms actively exacerbate these cultural wars, leading to increased toxicity:
Algorithmic Amplification: Algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, and highly emotional, polarizing, and outraged content often performs best. This unintentionally rewards hostility and extremism, pushing users toward more radical versions of their own viewpoints.
Echo Chambers and Polarization: While “filter bubbles” don’t entirely isolate users, people are naturally drawn to like-minded groups (ingroups). Toxicity from within one’s own group is a significant driver of more toxic behavior by the individual, as it becomes a way to signal loyalty and identity.
Anonymity and Lack of Accountability: The online environment reduces the social cost of incivility. Users feel less accountable for their behavior than in face-to-face interactions, leading to more aggressive language, name-calling, and harassment.
Weaponization of Emotion: Opposing groups intentionally generate and share content designed to provoke strong negative emotions (especially anger and outrage) to mobilize their base and discredit opponents. This is central to the concept of social media warfare.
3. The Impact of Toxicity
The net effect of these cultural wars is a toxic environment characterized by:
Political Cynicism: Constant exposure to political attacks and hostility fosters distrust in political actors and democratic processes.
Harassment and Hate Speech: Vulnerable and marginalized groups, as well as political figures, are disproportionately targeted with abuse, which can lead to real-world violence or self-censorship and withdrawal from public discourse.
Societal Division: The amplification of extreme and uncivil viewpoints deepens ideological and affective polarization, making constructive dialogue and compromise increasingly difficult.
Discussion Guidelines
As this site is seeking to reflect on questions the secular world cannot answer, a different approach to that of the secular world is needed.
• Original and sincere contributions of members are to valued and encouraged for the new perspectives they may reveal, The content can therefore be more open than allowed under the censorious environment of social media.
• Be considerate and understanding for the concerns of others, we each come with our own personal challenges.
• Respect different perspectives and views of others. We each have different backgrounds and are at various stages in life’s journey. Many questions benefit from a variety of perspectives.
• Due to the nature of these questions, views are best offered as tentative, for consideration and reflection, rather than being presented as the only possible explanation. It’s often the more complicated thoughts, which may need to be expressed with less certainty, that better fit reality (see the Dunning Kruger Effect).
• Avoid political discussion and divisive social issues, and questions and implicit assumptions that reflect the culture wars of Western society. Such issues just tend to divide people. When instead we aknowledge the severe limiations of human knowledge and ideas, we can be united as we look together into the ultimate questions of life.
• And of course, there is no commercial or marketing promotions, or promotion of particular sectarian ideologies.
