Member Submission: Let’s not go there. Please.
FAC, its members, and the registered citizen community are best served by complete solidarity. We do each other a disservice when we engage in partisan preaching. There are enough sources out there for divisive views, we need not introduce them here. We have limited resources and a very clear mission. Let’s stick to that.
If an open and fact-based debate about partisan views is of particular relevance to us, such as which candidate or party has a better track records of criminal justice reform, and so on, then it is legitimate. Anything else only serves to divide us.
Although I completely respect, have admiration for, and sympathize with the author of the submission just submitted earlier today (Oct 14, 2018), the introduction does the rest of what otherwise was a remarkable post a great disservice. It immediately dives into trendy fake-news [REDACTED] rhetoric. This sort of discourse is immediately divisive and without any good reason. It does not advance our community or the FAC mission.
So please, when you’re in the company of your FAC community, remember that we come from very diverse backgrounds with very diverse opinions, politics included. If saying something good or bad, or pushing or opposing a political party, idea, or anything, does not serve the common goals we have, whether or not to even say it should be considered carefully. Additionally, if FAC is to continue to post member-submissions, divisive language can and arguably should be censored in favor of a succinct story that advances our ideals.
It immediately dives into trendy fake-news [REDACTED] rhetoric. This sort of discourse is immediately divisive and without any good reason.
Me thinks the author was intentionally making a point here by irritating some people who would post their irrelevant beliefs regardless of how offensive it might be to some. For those who don’t understand people have a right not to have views shoved down their throat, one way to show them the problem is to show them how it feels, then explain that the whole purpose of the statement was to upset them in the same way their statements might upset someone else with differing views. It is ironic as much as it is unfortunate that it those who dish it out the most usually can’t handle any sort of rebuttal with any semblance of tempered reason.
In other words, if you were upset about anything in this post, you are the primary target of the rhetoric by someone who is trying to help you gain some understanding of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of someone else’s beliefs.
Everyone who shares this forum should understand that its purpose is not to spread your general beliefs on anything, it is about advancing the cause we all share.
Everyone should understand that if this place becomes a sounding board for one political party, the other half will have the unfortunate choice between listening to those beliefs in order to participate in the real purpose for this site and org, or leave and try to find another home to advocate that is more focused. Either way you slice it, not a good outcome.
If I haven’t made this point before…Part of what gives FAC it’s credibility is that its members come from across the political spectrum. We put those views aside when it comes to educating (when we can) legislators, educating the public, submitting court filings, etc. If we didn’t do that, then we’d have to write off half the state as unreachable
Yes, exactly!