For exJWs (and JWs, too), Simon's forum is one of the most interesting and potentially beneficial sites on the entire Internet since it's a small-scale version of life as it really is. People from a variety of social, racial and national groups who make up an extended family—tied together by a common history of life in the Borg—come to share their day to day experiences and openly debate issues old and new.
As different as we are, breakdowns in communication happen and instead of learning something or getting a fresh way of looking at an issue, what should be a reasonable debate turns into an insult-fest. People, some still hurting from bad experiences as a Dub, get hurt even more and bitter feuds result that are felt for a long time.
In Danni's thread relating her first visit to the Kingdom Hall, most (if not all) of the common impediments to good dialog that are often seen here came quickly to the surface. I got to thinking: How can these negative affects to differences of opinion be avoided—on-line and in the real world? Several comments of posters in other threads have recently been made in this regard, and I've pulled some of them together here.
LABELING
For example, in "Misdiagnosis," http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=19442&site=3Larc recalled how some assumed Hillary was a troll when he first arrived and said so. Larc said that in psychological terms this is known as a "false positive"—labeling someone a troll when they aren't. "This misdiagnosis here in our community does a great deal of harm," Larc said. I agree with him.
Some say that, "well... it's up to Hillary to rationally consider the words, in his mind render them powerless, and continue to post." If humans were machines with no feelings, I'd say they were right. Some don't have the strength of character to suffer such mistreatment and while we all know that 'words are only words,' the wrong words spoken at the wrong time often have a detrimental outcome.
Also, favorite posters are like our real-life friends—they have influence over us. Using Hillary's case as an example, not only did those who labeled him a troll believe it but, likely, so did those who 'looked up' to them. What good Hillary might have brought to the table stood a good chance of being lost had he left and not returned. This is another peripheral harm that comes when we label others.
While Hillary did return, we know that's not what happens in every case. Larc mentioned that some who had something beneficial to say (or had come here to find help of some kind) have left and not returned after being called names unfairly. It's also possible that some have never posted at all because of the habit we sometimes have to label. Larc's personal technique of handling the labeling of others is so excellent that it bears repeating here, and that brings up the next topic.
HOW WE VIEW POSTS
Larc said that he didn't fall victim to the mislabeling of Hillary by saying that, "I didn't buy into it." He didn't buy in to it because, as he went on to say, "... a poster is only as good as their last post." I like Larc's approach: take each post at face value regardless of who authored it. I do the same.
We all have our personal favorites but sometimes I agree with a 'foe' and disagree with a friend. Instead of falling into the common trap of seeing everything from a particular poster in a certain way (either good OR bad)—in effect labeling them—we can give each of their posts a fresh outlook depending on the thread. It's perfectly normal that there are posters we like more than others, but reading only certain posters (our favorites) limits our personal growth since they tend to mirror a viewpoint we already have. Looking objectively at all posts, even if they come from someone we may not have agreed with in the past, may lead to us having a broader outlook. We may also build a friendship.
OUR NEEDS/POINTS OF RECOVERY ARE DIFFERENT
In http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=19474&site=3, JerryTX said this:
Why do we need to get along better? I think the question is rather shallow.
People are at different stages of their recovery from the Watchtower. Some need to scream. Some need to rant. Some need to blow off steam. Some need an intellectual slant. Some need a gentle listening ear and kind support. Some have matured past needing this group and move on.
Who could argue with the truth of that?
On this topic in yet another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18711&page=2&site=3, many offered insights on the matter of the variety of posts that are made here (fluff and otherwise). While highlighting the common history we have in the Organization, Bigboi summed up many posters when he said,
"This place is full of different people who have a variety of interests. Not all are looking for some validation for being ex-JW's... or a savior post that clears up something we've struggled with due to the WTS although these types of posts also have their place here.... there is more than enough room here for the silly and the serious."
If we don't care for a particular topic, that's our choice. But trying to decide what is good for the board as a whole or trying to choose for others what THEY need or want is foolish. By giving people the freedom to make up their own minds about what posts they want to make and what threads they want to participate in, many disputes will never even happen.
PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS
Someone once said: "I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." With that in mind, in a recent thread Ginny forced me to acknowledge a truth I hadn't thought of before. I had made the statement that all viewpoints were valid. She disagreed.
To support what I said, I looked the word up to find what it actually meant. A definition that I liked is: having sufficient strength or force; founded in truth; capable of being justified, defended, or supported; not weak or defective; sound. She was right. I learned something really useful. While different opinions on any subject might be "valid," not all are.
I went all the way through school with a girl who even in highschool still believed the world was square because of a scripture in Revelation that mentions the four corners of the earth. That's not a valid opinion and it can be refuted with facts, but my friend was within her rights to have it. She was not a stupid person—was quite bright, in fact. Many of the other ideas she had on other subjects were very valid and I agreed with many of them. With that in mind, her having that one, crazy, invalid belief would not have justified me calling her names. Besides, she was my girlfriend, so *I* would have been the stupid one if I had hit her with a barrage of insults!
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS
In Larc's "Misdiagnosed" thread that spoke of the harm that is done when a poster is mislabeled, with my emphasis Ranchette made this observation:
I have been fooled both ways and I know I’m not the only one. I had to make it right. Our past experiences tend to bleed over on to others and I don’t know how to stop this from happening. There is nothing wrong with admitting when we are wrong and saying we are sorry.
It is so cleansing and freeing to do this yet so many don’t know this experience.