CM-BlueButterfly

I'd be happy to create a new forum. (Could be subforum, too). What do you think is preferable/more convenient?

At the end of the day, what matters most, though, is that we keep in mind that all of us are human. We all have feelings, hopes, dreams, fears, we all make mistakes, we all say (or do) things we later realize we shouldn’t have said (or done) or maybe should have said (or done) differently. While it's what didn't work so well that tends to prompt the reaction that leads to conflict (or notes), it's not that which defines us and not what the focus should be on. Instead, it should be on how we move on from it: Considering the intention of a comment and how it came across, what could have been said or done differently? How could we have reacted differently? Might there have been another approach? Did we assume the worst or did we give the other individual the benefit of the doubt? What information might we have been missing to respond differently? In short, what can we do to avoid running into whatever issue we ran into again? Lastly, thank you for the appreciation expressed about having this thread to discuss. I agree that it’s important to have as well. I don’t know who it’s from originally, so I can’t give credit but I came across this quote on social media about a year ago: “Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understanding of politics and religion. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic.” While it’s about society in general (and can probably be applied to more than just politics and religion), I thought I’d share it as it sums up the process I’m following quite well: The intention isn’t to avoid or cut-off discussion or disagreement. If you ask me, differing opinions are what makes life interesting and in the long-run, I imagine life would be quite boring if we all agreed all the time. The intention is also not to set rigid rules and punishments and be done with it. Rather, it’s to create an environment where we can have those civil conversations about difficult topics and “listen” with the objective to understand (each other). That way, those who are ready to, can find common ground that can help bridge the divide or we can learn the information we need so we can understand and respect why others may not be ready yet. And with that, I'm done (for the time being anyway). Thank you and please take care of yourselves in whatever way feels right for you!

On a more general - and informative - note, many, if not all of you, have seen the notes that often include a reminder that differing opinions are important to a healthy community. They are representative of who we are and as such, can help create an understanding for our diverse backgrounds, upbringings and experiences and the diversity of society as a whole. It is that, the uniqueness of our lives, which determines the impact of challenges we face and is the reason we may react differently than another individual even when faced with the same or similar challenges. It doesn’t make either of us right and the other one wrong, it simply makes us individuals who react based on our individual circumstances. Hence, the reminder you've probably also seen, that opinions are equally valid. At the same time, that opinions should be seen as equally valid, doesn’t mean they can’t be met with questions, challenges or be disagreed with. (Questions, especially, can be an important tool to gaining understanding and while I’m at it, I’d like to thank everyone who’s asking questions in an attempt to reach out and understand). What it does mean is that questions, challenges and disagreements shouldn’t be phrased in a way that dismisses us or our opinions/feelings (as wrong), they shouldn’t shame us (for how we feel or the opinion we have), they shouldn’t tell us what our opinion should be or how we’re supposed to feel and they shouldn’t get personal. There's a "but", though, and that's that questions, challenges and disagreement don’t have to feel comfortable. Uh? you may ask. Wasn’t there something about a comfortable posting environment? Yes, there was. But a comfortable posting environment isn’t synonymous with another individual being responsible for making us comfortable with our opinion or conviction. The former is connected to how we say something. The latter is connected to what we say. More specifically, the individual who asks questions, challenges or disagrees with us should make sure they do so in a way so that we’re still comfortable voicing our opinions and convictions (create a comfortable posting environment). It’s not their responsibility to assure that the (respectful and constructive) what - the what can be anything from a differing opinion, to questions, facts, feelings or the mere fact that there is disagreement - makes us comfortable with our opinions and convictions (or actions or words). That responsibility falls on us. We own our opinions, convictions, actions, words. We should make sure that we’re comfortable with that and we should check in with us and ask ourselves how our own comfort level, assumptions, expectations or prior experiences might be influencing our perception and reaction.

While there is fewer name-calling/labeling/stereotyping/generalizing at the moment than several pages ago, as we’re approaching the Inauguration, kindly remember that it should be avoided altogether. Having read through the posts, I think I have a fairly good idea about the motivation behind the name-calling, labeling and stereotyping that I’m seeing. In the context of politics, it may feel good in the moment. It may allow us to vent frustration. But let’s step away from politics and affiliations for a moment and consider the impact in general. How does it affect us? Fellow community members? The posting environment? If we entered a room and one individual or a group of individuals spent much of their time name-calling/labeling/stereotyping/generalizing what would the atmosphere in the room feel like? Relaxed? Tense? Welcoming? Frustrated? Open-minded? Confrontational? What would our impression of the individuals who are doing the name calling be? How would we be left feeling on a human level? What if a community member has a past that comes with triggers, isn’t as confident or is very perceptible to environments? Sharing an opinion makes us vulnerable as it opens us up to criticism from potentially anyone who is around us, so, how safe and confident might the name-calling/labeling/stereotyping make them feel? How comfortable might they be to voice their own opinion? How is name-calling/labeling/stereotyping/generalizing different when it's engaged in from when it's criticized? What about the impact on the post itself? How constructive is name-calling/labeling/stereotyping to a conversation? If someone else said something to us and includes a personal attack, stereotyping, generalization, labeling or name-calling, what is it that we’ll likely focus on and respond to? The point the other party is trying to make or the part we find offensive? On that note, how would we want someone else to respond to us? How and where do we want the conversation to go and is our choice of words the best way to get there? Might there be a different way even though we're frustrated, hurt or upset? With all that said, a quick, little tip to conclude this part of the note: Generalizations can be addressed easily as oftentimes, all that’s missing to recognizing that groups aren't monoliths is a qualifier to who we’re talking about. (Eg, “Voters want” vs “Many/A majority of voters (seem to) want” or “No one believes that” vs “Few (seem to) believe that”).

Hi everyone, how’s everyone doing? I’ve tried to keep the note as short as possible but I’m touching on a number of subjects, so, it got a little long-ish. As I know that some of you use cell phones and, for general reading convenience, I decided to split it up. So, all the mod notes posted within the next 24 hours or so, even if posted with posts in between, are all part of one. Some of what I’m touching on references discussions from a few pages ago. Nevertheless, I’d like to use the opportunity to address them as they’re still relevant when it comes to navigating what can be difficult subjects. First of all, thank you for handling the debate about who this thread is intended for (largely) without making it personal. Secondly, in an age of mis- and disinformation, I’d like Primetimer to be as transparent as possible. So, kindly include a link to the source not only for articles (I believe everyone is doing that, thank you) but also for any cartoons and pictures you may post. If it’s something you came across on social media and you’re sharing it because it resonates with you, please mention that. It helps to keep the intention behind the posts transparent and to avoid misunderstandings.

I'm not aware of anything new that was implemented. One possibility is that this particular VPN was connected to a lot of recent spam activity and considered unsafe by a spam plug-in.

I've passed it on.

Hi everyone, a brief update about the headers. Unless I misunderstood AllAstronaut's completely, there'll likely be the option to automatically include headers from a show database. (I believe the toggle to opt out is also on the list of requests). Therefore, I'd like to pause header requests for now. Thank you for all your contributions so far!

It's currently at 7 days. However, I usually shorten it when I index documentaries as not all of them are new.

The list is only active for a certain number of days after new shows have been added.

Replied via PM.

This may be relevant to others as well but the email address gets blanked out automatically.

Sounds good to me.

I've forced a password reset. You should have received an email but if you didn't, there's one other option that usually works.

Doing it now wouldn't be a necessity but if you do it now-ish, you'd be all set.