Hello, im new to Tildes, and iv been very active in spiritual subs (from the other website) and i was wondering if its possible to have a page here as well dedicated to spirituality and all relating topics? its a great and very popular theme that only grows with time, im sure it could be of great benefit to this platform, thank you!

Sorry everyone for yet another post about the ~life.women post but the second thread about that same topic in ~life.men made me realize we could have used two separate threads from the start.

Instead of hoping that all the men instinctively knew to stay quiet and be dissappointed when some inevitably failed to notice, there'd be less friction if the people had two separate discussion spaces, one meant for women as the current default expectation (and be in ~life.women), and another (either in ~life.men or ~life) to provide an outlet for those who have things to say but nevertheless feel uneasy doing so in the same space.

There need not be any compulsory gatekeeping. The conversations in the two above 2 threads have me believe that if the option was available, and people were made aware, most would be considerate enough to know where to go and respect boundary.

Women who don't want to having to bother wading through seas of men's opinions regardless of how well-intentioned, could now conveniently hit 'Ignore' on the alternative thread once and be done with it. Or if that thread was in ~life.men and they have already unsubscribed, nothing to be done and the experience would be seamless.

Some potential concerns:

Ideally this setup needs to be done as early as possible from the moment the sensitive post goes public.

Maybe the poster themselves could create the two threads from the start.

However, I imagine in practice this would not be most common scenarios. The average users are not tuned in to all the potential sources of drama and just post whatever they find interesting first, only realsing when there's blowback after the fact. So the cases when this approach may be needed would also more likely be reactive. (Maybe with a pinned comment, a title change and a 2nd post. Since we cannot do pinned comment, probably have to rely on boost voting to keep it on top).

The people who are in position to make the judgement of when to create this setup are veteran and highly trusted member of the community. Someone who has been around enough to be able to quickly recognize the common painpoints for the community, able to remain impartial without getting dragged into the conflicts themseves, and know when such intervention is warranted. They're users who people can trust that if they do so, it's not an attempt to control the narrative.

Normally if I come up with any random ideas, I'd prefer to test it out myself and see the results directly. However, this is the kind that requires buy-in from the whole community, as well as the right people to take the helm. Hence this post. The ultimate aim is maintaining harmony among the community. If you think it's worth a try, you may also choose to nominate who you think is trustworthy enough for this responsibility. Those who may want to step in could benefit from the confidence boost that others trust them.

This post is motivated by the recent event with the ~life.women post but I hope it's clear the proposal is aimed at being a more general approach to future conflicts of similar nature.

Edit: Welp, I gave this a shot. See everyone here again in a few months :)

I'm posting this as a new topic because it's long. This idea came out of thinking of a response to @TaylorSwiftsPickles ' suggestion to have a "Misinformation" label. I agree that misinformation is a problem on Tildes and that the playing field is often unfairly set for the ones trying to rectify it, due to how the site works.

On the other hand, like some already said in the comments, such a label could be easily abused because it would be a frictionless way to make someone else do a lot of work. Showing the validity of some piece of information requires digging up sources and those sources can usually be endlessly contested, no matter how good they are.

Another issue is that most people who spread misinformation, just like @TaylorSwiftsPickles said, are in fact not aware of doing so. They believe they're just teaching others the correct information. If it would be a lot of work on their part to ingest opposing material and then a lot of emotional work to allow their worldview to change (a process that for some people will cause physical pain), there isn't much hope to make real difference, save for some exceptionally adept people who've grown used to this process - but those people are usually not the ones spreding misinformation because they've already checked themselves before hitting "post topic".

When a misinformed view happens to be the majority view on Tildes, a label like this will more likely burden the people trying to rectify it than those holding the view. That's unless we expect the admin and moderators to evaulate every case individually and be diligent and objective enough to accurately gauge all or at least most of them. Being that we are all humans, it's a big ask.

Which brings me to ask what kind of label would enable the misinformed person to proactively perform a sanity check on their own post/comment, without introducing hostility. I believe that failing to consider alternative perspectives is a major factor in adopting and spreading misinformation. I am assuming that most people here on Tildes would agree with the principle that an idea that takes into account diverse opinions and experiences is better considered than one speaking from a single perspective only.

Therefore I propose a label that could be used to point out when someone's comment is clearly overlooking information that would be readily available if only they cared to consider other people and different points of view. It would then fall on the person who made a one-sided comment to further educate themselves if they so wish. They could perform an online search or ask for more information on Tildes (but no one would be obligated to give it). I think it would be ideal if the label could be later removed, in case sufficient edits were made to the labelled comment.

Evaluating whether a text is one-sided is usually easier than deciding whether or not it is misinformation, so this label wouldn't be as easy to abuse. People can detect its misuse simply by looking at the text itself, without having to read a bunch of additional material. It's also easier for the person who made the comment to try to broaden their perspective. Not everyone will want to do so, of course, but at least those who are unintentionally appearing obtuse will have a chance to do better.

Finally, in terms of design, I wouldn't want the label to be eye-catching like the "Exemplary" label. Rather, it could appear as normal text with a normal background, perhaps a tad smaller size and in brackets. If more than one such label was given to the same comment, it could affect the text colour of the whole comment, making it gradually more and more faint. In other words the label would reduce the visual weight of the comment while still keeping it readable.

I realize this has become something like a political statement to do this for whatever reason. But a 100% wordcel medium where your only avatar is a text string of your username means if I want to talk about someone I have no idea what to call them. I have to use awkward constructions like “that user” or “OP.” This doesn’t sound nice. This disrupts the delicately crafted meter and flow of my sentences.

Mayhap we could introduce a teeny-tiny configurable logogram next to the username to disambiguate preferred pronouns. Or maybe even a subscript. It’d be small enough and faded so as not to impact the clean visual but visible enough to free me from having to guess.