Being ridiculed rather than simply disagreed with, and being characterized as “shouting” highlights the kinds of personal problems which detract from discourse, here as well as “elsewhere”. And if anything, re-enforces why I expressed criticism of this sort of paradigm in the first place.
There isn’t anything uniform about it. Accepting that we have different perspectives would be a celebration of diversity, but I interpret avoidance of those with ideals and attitudes unlike oneself as being more a tacit reluctance towards diversity. You can SAY that you have a diverse community, because they are technically all members - they simply aren’t expected to interact with each other. Which, like most forms of proxy representation in society, makes it symbolic, an imagined rather than actual community.
It is obviously not always as binary as that, but systems where openness is conditional and obscured do seem to me to be less committed. Arguably this is not only a different feature, but proposes a fundamentally different type of community and participation. I am not saying that it instantly ruins everything, but I think it lowers rather than raises the bar of mature engagement, and sets a bad precedent.
I don’t strictly disagree. But I think it is ultimately an individualist excuse for what is literally ignorance. Perhaps its telling that we had an actual vote over something which sounds like a big deal but doesn’t make any practical difference - a name - but no vote on something which has a more immediate (irony) effect upon the actual mechanics and character of discourse.
Apparently, many here don’t agree. But those are my personal standards and values - tribalism is an antisocial and fairly destructive basis for a community. It is kind of disillusioning for me with regards to the kind of community I thought I was allying myself with. As well as for the state of online discussion generally.