Wanted to get your feedback on our updated mission statement on the about us page (see [slug.com] ). I updated it today to reflect a refinement to what I think is the overarching goal of this website - that is, to make real improvement to modern politics. I realize that it's pretty ambitious and we've a lot more coding to do to facilitate it, but it might be worth it. Thoughts?
Since I may update it again, here's a current copy:
Our mission is to improve society by raising the bar of communication and civil discourse. One of our goals for 2019 is to become the preeminent politically-unaffiliated space to propose - and intelligently adjudicate by our community - specific policy recommendations. Our current political system has become progressively more identity-based and tribal, which is destroying the ability to build consensus and jeopardizing our ability to solve the issues of modern life - such as climate change, income inequality, growing under-employment, and disparities in racial and gender outcomes. Policy positions on important topics are becoming increasingly based on emotion, personal identity, and the dehumanization (and subsequent fear and vilification) of those with contrary views - on both extremes of the political spectrum. We fight for the free exchange and debate of ideas so we can promote practical, reasoned solutions.
We will provide a platform to enable a virtual, crowd-sourced think tank wherein people of differing views can humanize each other while using commonly-approved problem-solving methods, including the Socratic Method and independent data gathering, to address a variety of issues with the purpose of resolving the issues without descending into uncivil discussion. Fallacies will be called out and fake news will be identified, and all sides agree to concede a point when presented with unassailable facts or logic. Most importantly, all discussions on The IDW.Community begin with the premise that all involved parties are good people who want to do good and think they are right. Just like you!
9
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.@Admin you've kept the "main issues"--which are Leftist worries--and you've also added or kept " Policy positions on important topics are becoming increasingly based on emotion, personal identity, and the dehumanization (and subsequent fear and vilification) of those with contrary views -" ---the use of emotion and "de-humanization" seems to be typical of the Left, and not the crowd that would be attracted to IDW type site, although anger is warranted against much of their self-righteousness. Government policy positions should be based on the duties assigned by the Constitution, and not on what some bureaucrat or paid lobbyist or a majority of knuckleheads thinks is fair or un-de-humanizing. Also you seem to attack Trump admin policy decisions as being based on emotion or personal identity--and that is an opinion that better fits Obama and Clinton, IMO.
MarPep
Level 7
Mar 20, 2019
1
I'm not that wordy. Say the same thing in 1/3 as many words. I'll post a pic of my companies bio. It's no good. I had a school librarian proof read the 12th edition and she asked me why should I hire you. It has useful info but are you telling people what they need to here. Notice I did not say " What they want to hear" I just keep thinking about the writing school in A River Runs Through It.. if I haven't said it already Thank You.
Allen-Qiller
Level 4
Mar 5, 2019
1
Good feedback... I'll see about trimming it down.
I would take out the specific societal issues comment "- such as climate change, income inequality, growing under-employment, and disparities in racial and gender outcomes". Some people don't believe these are issues, or the facts on these issues are being muddied by propaganda, greed, and emotions. Yes, I realize later you mention emotions clouding people's reason and ability to critically thinks about these topics - but even saying these are issues might be interpreted as promoting the bias. To me it initially read like this site accepts the main stream opinion on these topics (which the loudest voice is typically leftists in most media today). I think we are all aware of the issues being discussed in the media; I don't feel the need to specifically highlight certain ones, while inadvertently excluding others.
Other than that little complaint - the rest of the MS sounds great.
jondspen
Level 6
Feb 27, 2019
3
I agree with you that the social issue part may contain trigger/loaded meaning if put along side "solve". "Solve" implies that there is an agreement that there is a problem. While I personally believe that the examples I put there are topics that if, let unabated, pose a threat, I've changed the text to now read "ability to address important issues of modern life" as it is more agnostic and doesn't imply a consensus. Thanks!
@Admin "which is destroying the ability to build consensus and jeopardizing our ability to address important issues of modern life" - I would try and find another word besides using ability twice in the same sentence. Maybe replace the first with 'desire'?
"which is destroying the desire to build consensus and ...." - just one suggestion. I know it's nit-picking, but my professors dinged me hard b/c I always did stuff like this...so it's really stuck with me to vary my wording. They even went as far to say you shouldn't use the same type of qualifier in the same paragraph.
A solid mission statement there, sounds reasonable to me.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Feb 27, 2019
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Canadian Politics
4021 members
Saving Western Civilisation
2056 members
Conspiracy Research
575 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.