A big part of the problem in my
opinion is people talking past each other, misinterpreting viewpoints and stances and a lack of willingness to engage with one another civilly, either in public or privately. Censorship exacerbates this and can be a villainous tool if it shuts down any chance of constructive discourse. Disengagement is the inevitable outcome of a disaffected voice of dissent if they simply cannot count on their voice(s) being heard unmolested.
Fights as ERLH mentioned, and C.D. commented on, I don't think actual "fights" are usually constructive. I don't fight with, scream at, berate, or otherwise antagonize my friends that do not share my point of view. Debates on the other hand, or civil discourse in general, are extremely useful and poignantly illuminate the others' thought process. How can you ever come to know a person or grow your own understanding if you do not dare to broach matters of import or differentiation?
Respect for the person, and the person's right to
have an opinion (no intrinsic need to respect the opinion itself) goes a long way. Limited censorship that does not extend beyond the restriction of personal attacks or unsubstantiated vitriol has worked well for all forms of debate. Institutions that go further to suppress opinion, even offensive or minority opinions can quickly devolve into echo chambers of groupthink. Critical thought is fostered by challenging assumptions and viewpoints, not by coddling each other with unabashed deference and liberal application of kid gloves.
I think, based on Bitty's "Leaving
" thread, that she was the target of personal attack, and that is shameful but appears to have been corrected, albeit after-the-fact. She also seemed distressed by some other people's opinions in reading her final posts, that were sharing a viewpoint that was counter to her own - in other words they challenged her viewpoint. I have not done enough background reading to see if these opinions were shared sincerely and matter of fact, or if they were diatribes of condescension - there would be a marked difference. In several of Bitty's posts, it seemed she reacted very strongly to countering opinions that were not on point simply because the poster might have lacked intimate familiarity with her situation. She may have been able to handle these objections more diplomatically herself, and I think she may have potentially misconstrued ignorance as animus in a few instances.
Condescending attitudes are to be somewhat expected and probably should be tolerated, to a limited degree. If someone shares a blatantly prejudiced viewpoint, to condescend to the irrationality is understood as a natural human behavior. Heavy-handed tongue lashing couched as opinion however, as I take it, would be no better than a veiled personal attack. The call for sensitivity is applicable to us all, and if we all shoveled it on in heaps it would go miles towards resolution.
If we address points of contention specifically, rather than generally, more can be accomplished and understood. Addressing the group, rather than an individual, is weaseling out of getting a pointed, useful response. It's easy to redress a grievance with a clarification, retraction, or an apology if necessary,
if the grievance is focused and tangible rather than some generalized sentiment. Stop beating up groups that can't respond as one voice by using plural pronouns, instead address the individual's behavior or opinions/sentiments that you disagree with or even take offense with.
To leave a community based on the sharing of ideas that you don't like is not adult behavior. To leave based on persecution is another matter entirely. To conflate the two would be a grievous error.
