Columbia Citizens

I wondered about this post, thinking it might raise some political hackles, or at least raise some eyebrows.

I'm not so worried about political comments in the discussion board, particularly in this discussion category. It's an open forum, and I think people should be able to express views like this. It goes with the wiki-territory.

Columbia Citizens is about the neighborhood. Citizen .183 ends with a question about the local tie-in — but I'd prefer that the relevance to Columbia City be spelled out at the start.

Rather than get off topic, though, I refer you back to the original post. I remain anonymous because I don't want people throwing stones through my windows for speaking truth. Do the research and earn your right to be a critic, before you post.

Political apathy is more dangerous (to the community, each of us as individuals, and future generations) than any level of "pot stirring" that might happen here due to an anonymous poster. If this information is not pertinent to the local community, what is? The information posted is not about republicans vs. democrats, or liberals vs. conservatives. It's about international central bankers and corporations purchasing government that does not represent the people. Please read and understand before reacting. If individuals want to take the side of a corporate world government that does not represent that individual's interests, then yes, my post will be divisive for them. But at the same time, I have to question that individual's sanity.

By design, Columbia Citizens can choose wiki-anonymity. It lowers some technical barriers to participation. It allows for greater privacy. Occasionally it might elevate a discussion, so that ideas aren't eclipsed by identities.

We share a convivial little corner of the world, and now we've staked out our very own corner of the internet. Even though we're unlikely to attract broader unwanted attention, what Citizens post here is universally available online. So in that WWW context, anonymity is a fine choice.

My hope is that this site helps neighbors build on Columbia City's remarkable synergies and helps to overcome some of our most immediate barriers to community — through fast and easy communication, a shared sense of place, and some ideas that inspire us to work together. If ideas and opinions divide us, then it's also just fine to discuss them frankly and openly.

And now I'm speaking directly to this post. For Citizens who choose to participate in this wiki experiment, it's important — often difficult — to assume good faith from the community. Dialogue founded on mistrust only chills the discussion, in addition to undermining the message. Earlier there was a reference to choosing anonymity to avoid rocks through windows — I think neighbor reprisals for anything posted here are highly unlikely. If anything, I expect Columbia Citizens to be a remedy, not a catalyst for any such extreme antisocial behavior.

This week I've deleted two brief messages in this thread. I thought they were curt, reactive, and likely to generate more heat than light. They were also anonymous, so there was no way for me to connect directly and discuss the deletions. Maybe moderating and moderation are topics for a future discussion — I'm open to suggestions and dialogue. In any case, let's choose to engage directly and civilly, or let's simply shrug off differences.

We're neighbors. It's a good thing for Citizens to demonstrate the trust implied in neighborhood. We're all invited to share our first names, our initials, or some other nickname. Let's please give each other the benefit of the doubt and keep our eye on building community.

"The fact is that the vast majority of people are absolutely impervious to facts. Test the average man by asking him to listen to a simple sentence which contains one word with associations to excite his prejudices, fears or passions — he will fail to understand what you have said and reply by expressing his emotional reaction to the critical word. It was long before I understood this fact of psychology. Even to this day, it surprises me that there should be minds which are unable to accept any impression equably and critically. I have heard many great orators. The effect has nearly always been to make me wonder how they have the nerve to put forward such flimsy falsehoods."

~Crowley, from "Confessions"

We all come to community with perspectives and biases that are prone to criticism and derision — certainly no less true of Aleister Crowley.

None of us is an arbiter of absolute truth or fact. A value of community is that we learn from each other, try to understand others' perspectives, and then draw our own conclusions. That outcome is more likely when views are advanced in a spirit of openness and acceptance of differences.

Thanks for posting. To continue, a fact is not an opinion or a perspective. Critiquing a fact is only socially acceptable if someone does the research and finds quality, objective information that directly challenges the stated fact. If someone finds the facts controversial because they challenge their version of reality, then that's probably why the poster posted it — to educate and inform, for the betterment of people and community. The person is likely not wanting to destroy community and should not be treated as such. Community not based in facts is weak community. Those who challenge fact with opinion serve to undermine that which strengthens community. When I post controversial facts, this is not an invitation to attack the poster. It is an invitation to become educated, inform yourself, and post something based on your own objective research, in response.