The below ten rules for participating in my posts are (in my opinion) necessitated by an alarming trend in public discourse, or the mockery thereof, that has been building since the advent of social media. We simply do not know how to disagree anymore. Behind that is the already accepted triumph of that old maxim that “There’s two things you don’t talk about in polite company: religion and politics.”
Affluence, new forms of technology, and the politicization of all things, have made us so intellectually fragile that we have ironically run to a very fascist solution.
We have learned (or taught each other) how to become a mob of hit-and-run, mic-dropping rabble-rousers, tattle-tales and tone police. It may seem funny or mildly annoying to some, but for many others, relationships and reputations, present and future employment, are all up for grabs.
I personally choose to resist: first, by talking openly about religion and politics, and second, by refusing to accept that I must choose between charity in listening on the one hand, and precision or urgency in my conviction on the other.
That said, here are my ten rules. If they help you restore order, civility, and much needed debate in your sphere, feel free to copy and use them, or even modify them.
Rule 1. The posts on my wall are a “community” within the community of this Social Media platform. As these posts are on my wall, I am both the advocate of the OP and the moderator.
Rule 2. The OP of each thread is its thesis and the entire thread is to be only a disputation of that thesis.
Rule 3. Guests may disagree with the OP to any degree they like. Any argument against the thesis is fair game, so long as the comments remain a counter-argument to and not any form of diversion from that thesis.
Rule 4. As to what constitutes a diversion from the thesis, both (1) fallacies of avoiding the question (the thesis), which may be unintentional, and (2) raising objections about the alleged virtue or vice of the moderator and advocate of the thesis are both alike a “violation of community standards.” What is especially in view by "vices" are claims that speech has fallen short of being "winsome" (the highly ambiguous chief virtue of our day).
Rule 5. Both forms of this violation of community standards will be noted. If it is the intentional and more egregious kind of diversion it will be met with a warning. If it happens a second time (including any attempt to justify it happening the first time), said diversionary agent will be removed from the thread.
Rule 6. If anyone believes they have a legitimate complaint regarding any of the speech put forth by the moderator or any other participant, there is already a mechanism to address that (Messenger, email, etc.), not to mention a biblical mandate that you do so privately first (cf. Matthew 18:15-18). The would-be prosecutor can prove the sincerity of their concern by preferring private correction. To use the social media platform to take initial steps of correction is a sure sign of grandstanding (or as the kids are calling it, "virtue-signalling"). We have a no tolerance policy toward that sort of thing.
Rule 7. Any request to name names when an argument does not depend upon such a burden of proof will be treated as a diversionary tactic and disciplined accordingly (See Rules 4-6).
Rule 8. Any pendulum tactic of demanding “sources please” and then, when provided, to demand the opposite “Just be plain and concise … I don’t have time to read all that,” will also be flagged as a diversionary tactic. One may request a source and one may ask for someone to be brief. Fair enough. But anyone who dismisses an argument merely because one has “failed” to read your mind or consult your schedule first will be similarly flagged. Anyone who takes up excessive space with such red herrings will be sent down that same trail and off the thread. Check your sanctimony at the door or don’t participate.
Rule 9. The prohibitions in Rules 4, 7, and 8 apply to other guests as well, not simply the moderator. There will be no asking of the moderator to “take sides” about the alleged “unChristian” tone or content of anyone else as well, that said person has supposedly exemplified somewhere else. Remember Matthew 18. If you ask me to take any sides, I will ask you if you have followed the biblical process first. Then I will point you back to your pastors (or theirs). My posts will not be used to marginalize other people by manipulative means.
Rule 10. No, the “public setting” of said person’s comments in the past do not justify skipping the Matthew 18 process. I do not have the time or energy to research the evidence for such and so consider me starting from scratch with any such claims. There is still an orderly discipline process even for public statements (including those of teachers), so the burden of dealing within the local church context still remains. Social media is not the appropriate forum for that.
***
***NOTE: Obviously there is other behavior that will have one’s comments removed from the thread, including obscenity or personally attacking others. But since those are a bit clearer in our culture, they do not require the same careful explanation. What is addressed in the above rules takes intentional cultural pushback. I am convinced that many people are not trying to be troublemakers per se, but have simply learned to become mob slanderers by watching it modeled on social media. Many people consider such behavior virtuous when, in fact, it is sinful.
In enforcing such rules we are instructing people that violating these rules is actually not a matter of personal preference. It is a means of upholding the Ninth Commandment about false witness. Like it or not, a person’s argument is an extension of their person. It is not merely intellectual property in some vague consumeristic way. It is what they have said. It is what they have meant. To twist that meaning directly, or to engage in behavior that has the same effect on a large group of people whose attention spans have been trained to give only a cursory glance at the mob noise, is nothing other than bearing false witness.
Comentarios