[kwgardner]

I'm curious, what do you think could make this better/possible?

An obvious first step is removing downvotes so you can't completely obliterate someone who crosses sides to try to have a conversation, but after that, what else would help?

In my mind, some kind of code of conduct would help further those conversations, because it doesn't prevent people from expressing their opinions, it just makes them express them civilly. And if they express an opposing view without being overly antagonistic, then hopefully the other side wouldn't start insult slinging, and if they do, then that's what the COC would be there for.

I think there's a difference between having a "wrong" or "offensive" opinion, and expressing it in an offensive way. Do you think there's a way to achieve that balance, so that people can feel comfortable to express their opinions on either side, regardless of right or wrong, without it devolving into mudslinging and pure animosity on both sides? How do we accomplish that?

[dogma1138]

People should be reminded that taking offense is a privilege of living in a society with freedom of speech. It's not anyone's place to define what a "wrong" or an "offensive" opinion is, this is how we gotten into this mess in the first place.

People mistake being challenged for being offended, having a discussion especially on a polarizing subject isn't supposed to be comfortable, but sadly we have too many people that have been cuddled to believe that it's their right to only hear the choir of angels reinforcing their opinions.

Heck even if some one decides to make a comment about ones maternal employment preferences I would not see a reason to moderate that, because unless you are discussing prostitution it most likely has very little to do with the actual argument and so would not score one much points in a debate.

[chipsy]

It's very difficult to have an open discussion between dozens of parties because every discussion is subject to tactics that dissuade an exploration of the topic. The pigeonholing of "challenge" vs. "offense" into separate boxes of "good" and "bad" is one such mechanism, as it premises the audience and opponents to be professionals engaged in a formal discussion, not laypeople who are there because they're curious and want to be entertained and cheer for "their" side and feel good about themselves. The ground truth is that you keep returning to Reddit or HN because it's fun enough not to quit, not because it does you any good. You can come up with all kinds of rationales why it actually does you some good, but the underlying mechanism making me write this comment is that there is a game to play here, and it's not driven by my sense of virtue or collaborative spirit.

Skilled debate in a venue like Reddit requires an understanding of esotericism, of not simply laying out facts and implications based on your own assumptions, but presenting a fascinating puzzle to the reader that leads them to challenge their own assumptions without being challenged by anyone in particular. When successful, such a puzzle glides beneath the surface tropes of the discussion, presenting the perspective without provoking hostilities. The karma system does not reward this very well, as those carefully crafted puzzles tend to get middling scores, while simple agreement, rationalization arguments(why your assumptions are right and the critics are wrong, from Someone Smart), and congratulatory joking trigger the instant upvote response. But putting in the effort into that dialogue is essential to engaging the community.