I’m not a political guy. Back on Reddit I only subscribed to casualuk because ukpol and unitedkingdom were way too negative for me.

The main things I like to talk about are nerdy stuff like programming, science etc. In terms of political subjects and things like that, the main thing I dislike is stuff that is superficial, inaccurate, lacks nuance or is deliberately intellectually disingenuous.

Basically, I am here to read high-quality, thoughtful, and ideally, respectful content. Regardless of its political leaning. If someone wants to write about the merits of anarchism or fascism or communism or anything, I’ll give it a read, as long as it’s respectful and put forward in good faith (i.e. because the person really believes what they are saying and not trying to manipulate people or twist facts to suit their political opinions).

Here’s an example of the type of content I don’t like: there was a post the other day about JK Rowling which I would usually have just skipped past because there are never going to be any meaningful comments in there, it’s just going to be full of people either attacking her or attacking the people attacking her - which doesn’t make for a very constructive, positive or pleasant place to spend your virtual downtime.

Nevertheless, I clicked into the comments and there was a comment in there basically talking about all the “problems” with the Harry Potter books. As with a lot of books, there were some cringy things that I was nodding along to, but the one that stood out for me was the unironic claim that JK Rowling supported slavery (and supported slaves working naked) because in the books that’s what house elves have to do. And this comment had quite a lot of upvotes.

Up until that point in the comment, the rest of the points were reasonable enough, but this was just so stupid, like, it’s so obvious an author can write about things without necessarily advocating them. And if you read the comment it’s just so obvious that the person in question wanted as much fuel for the fire as possible so they just threw that in too. And suddenly, I’m not reading a comment with intellectual integrity anymore, I’m reading someone who is clearly trying to make a point, even at the expense of honest, reasonable debate.

The fact that it had so many upvotes instantly told me I was in an echo chamber. Someone should have jumped in and challenged that last point saying “That’s not a great take” but I’ve been on sites like Reddit long enough to know that I would probably have been downvoted just for appearing to be a force that wasn’t 100% aligned with the “correct” narrative (which is ridiculous as challenging a bad point does not equal supporting JK Rowling who I literally could not give two figs about).

So, winding back to the original question: My concern is that if we start introducing any “banned subjects” or opinions, we’re focusing on the wrong thing, as even within ostensibly “acceptable” subjects, the environment can still feel a bit unwelcoming, hard to participate meaningfully in or 1-dimensional.

My suggestion would be to define quality comments/contributions as ones that:

• Focus on the subject, not the person
• Contribute to the discussion (which can include respectfully disagreeing or challenging the subject)
• Are respectful and polite; don’t attack individuals or groups of people

Here’s an example on one of the most divisive topics I can think of (eek - apologies if I get something wrong here, as I said I’m not a very politically aware person): discussion of trans stuff - what should be tolerated?

Well, applying the above, anything that attacked or insulted trans people directly would be objectionable content. However, let’s say some big new law came out that was very pro-trans, or even better, because I’m much more familiar with this subject: let’s take the gay marriage laws from back in the day. I don’t think it’s right to ban critical or skeptical discussions about these laws and their impacts as long as they don’t start getting hateful and calling being gay or trans ‘evil’, saying trans people don’t deserve rights… shit like that.

I remember back in the day when we were trying to get the gay marriage stuff through, there was an incredible amount of skepticism and worry, even from my own parents and other people I respect. That has died down a lot more now, and one of the ways that happened was by sitting down and talking to these people, it was about having proper, nuanced discussions in good faith. Because that’s the only way anybody grows and learns.

I remember what it was like to be in my 20s. I wanted everyone to agree with me too, I don’t know why, but getting older seems to make you less fervent on that front, maybe because you become very comfortable with understanding your own opinions so you don’t constantly need to reinforce them - or maybe, it’s the opposite and you realise you’re just as wrong about most things as everyone else. It’s so funny because as I type this, I remember hearing older people in my own life saying similar things and being like “ugh, just have some strong opinions”. Who knows… maybe echo chambers/heavily “curated” environments are important for helping younger people consolidate their thoughts and feelings. This is just my 10 cents.

So that’s my little essay. Let’s be kind, but let’s be resilient too, and not shy away from nuance or challenging opinions if possible