This comes from the subject article:
Respond kindly
“Good conversation is only possible in an environment of kindness and mercy. If we are harsh and condemnatory; if we pounce upon errors or misstatements as a predator upon prey, then we will shortly become a community of creed reciters and regurgitators.”
@swamidass concludes:
Analysis?
What I hear in these sentiments seems unachievable as practiced here for the last 5 years!
If we insist that bad sentiments cannot be segregated, let alone deleted, how is this protecting and rewarding good conversation?
What my critics suggest is that “tolerating offensive or hostile statements” is as “protected” as it gets here.
Imagine being in church and being bombarded by all sorts of negative “testimonies” (in the name of inclusiveness). If a newbie visited such a church, he or she could only wonder when the Pastor lost control of the congregation!
To protect good conversation must, by definition, mean giving some extra privilege to the good posting, or not being subject to being deleted (like non-peaceful assertions are).
I have proposed “accessible segregation” - - INSTEAD of deletion (of the posting, not of the poster) - - as a way of sustaining group access for “lose cannon” posters.
If we offer ZERO consequences, how exactly can we say we encourage or protect the good?!