There’s probably a better community for asking this, but I haven’t been able to find that one either.

What I’m looking for is a place to discuss ideas that encourages good-faith conversation, staying on topic, and being decent to one another - while actively discouraging mean-spirited, facetious, or bad-faith responses that focus on criticizing the person asking the question rather than engaging with the substance of it. And by “discouraging,” I mean active moderation with very low tolerance for that kind of commentary.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Each type of topic needs a different style, tolerance and shape of moderation for this, so it’s more effective to look for this per topic instead of a general solution.

    E.g. transgender discussion has different problems than russian aggression discussion, different problem actors using different strategies, and are solved by very different types of moderation.

    Discussing which language should take precedence in schools, in countries with multiple official languages, needs a wildly different set of rules, moderation, tolerances and even moderator knowledge.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I’m not sure I get what you mean. I don’t see why one community couldn’t cover all these topics under the same set of moderation principles. I’m imagining something like a philosophers’ conference, where you can seriously discuss even seemingly ridiculous topics - like “why can’t we eat unwanted babies?” - and no one would be tempted to accuse the person of actually advocating for such a thing. We’re just playing with ideas.

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You make it, and now it’s a somewhat safe place for people to form discussions that validate pedophilia. Several discussions now are adjacent to that topic, via adoption discussion, sneakernet dissemination, countries with lax laws, discussions around age of consent, definitions of nudity, what is considered public spaces for photography…

        At some point it is no longer pure philosophical discussions in neutral faith, but a breeding ground for pure shit. How do you determine if that point is reached? How do you decide where the line goes? How do you adjust the rules to adjust for this?

        The above is not hypothetical. It specifically has ruined a few online spaces. Other topics like the Trump cult has a different pattern.