Subscribe to our RSS feed
Rules of engagement
These days it is becoming more difficult to enjoy good faith discussions.
We used to disagree on policy prescriptions but now reality itself is under contention as science is moving beyond empirically observed fact into wildly speculative theories such as the multiverse and wormholes, biology is being politicised as the right wing attempts to define what is a woman, and algorithmic bubbles are fragmenting and sensationalising our perception of the world as YouTube videos and Tiktoks tell us how X DESTROYS Y!!!
In this brave new world, we need to establish some ground rules in order to have good faith discussions where we're talking to each other rather than past each other. Here's our proposal for the fundamental rules for a meaningful and constructive conversation:
1. There is no fate
We don't accept that the world or specific outcomes are predefined. No external being or force controls the world. We do not preclude the existence of a higher power, but we reject the idea of a being that is actively controlling the world, leaving no room for human agency. We also reject the notions that we are living in a simulation or that there's no such thing as free will. Without the possibility of our actions affecting outcomes, we are crushed under the heel of inevitability.
2. Humans are made and must be treated equally
No human can be reduced to a category such as "terrorist", "murderer", "immigrant", etc. We can debate their actions and disagree on whether what they are doing is right or wrong, good or evil, but we must insist on their humanity.
3. Policies are a human choice and can be re-made
Any policy that exists does so because humans chose to enact it, and thus can be changed. Think of policies guaranteeing a minimum wage, the right to vote, the right to protest, and the right to marry your chosen partner regardless of your gender; think of policies extending personhood to corporations and treating money as speech; think of policies limiting your bodily autonomy: we can decide if these policies are for the better or worse instead of accepting them as "just the way things are". Documents, even religious or founding documents, can be reinterpreted; the constitutions of nation states around the world were made by humans and humans can and have changed them. The Bible and Koran have many interpretations and translations, written and re-written by humans.
4. Information is always partial
Hard facts are few and far between; our knowledge of the world is always evolving. The scientific method offers us a way to make falsifiable assertions and then test those assertions against observed reality to incrementally update our understanding. This is not to say that science or scientists are flawless or that they deserve our uncritical trust.
Many narratives are possible when all the facts are not known, and it's rare or perhaps impossible for all the facts to be fully known and uncontested in any context. Whilst we accept that many things are open for discussion, the facts that are known should be used to inform the narrative with a minimum of speculation. Wild speculations over unfolding events can and do threaten people's wellbeing and even their lives (see the recent case of asylum seekers being targetted in the UK following a stabbing assumed by some commentators and politicians to have been perpetrated by a newly arrived asylum seeker but later discovered to have been committed by a native British person).
5. Humans are always more valuable than computers
Computer systems can perform some tasks better than humans; it's incontrovertible to assert that computer systems are better at adding and subtracting large numbers, for example. They can also search enormous troves of documents near instantaneously, features which are the basis of much modern hardware and software. However, no matter how valuable these features are, they pale in comparison to the value of the innate humanity contained without each and every person on Earth, with their ability to laugh, love, doubt, fear, and experience life and the universe around them.
If you can agree on these terms, then we can have a debate that is grounded in how we as humans can participate in and affect reality. When discussing politics and technology, we will debate what certain things mean and why we have arrived at those conclusions, but we will not discard human agency, human equality, and human value, nor will we assert that we and we alone are in sole possession of all the facts.
We expect and welcome good faith disagreement and debate and we will engage in discussions with people who accept and abide by these basic terms. @ us on BlueSky or Mastodon to join the discussion!