Geoff I’m going to push back on your “essential” claim, but first let me contextualize my usage of the word “conflict”:
I personally like to use the word “conflict” to mean the feeling of activation that one gets when a difference threatens something that we value and our sympathetic nervous system kicks into gear with some “fight or flight” or “activation” or “trigger” state shift physiologically. I recognize that this is my own idiosyncratic definition and usage, but I like having a word that contrasts with “difference” which I can use to define as a subset of conflict where difference can feel just fine and conflict adds the “and that’s not okay!” activation.
So now in my vocabulary, in the context of creating and holding a healthy forum space together here, I’m all for “difference without conflict” wherever and whenever it shows up. In contrast, conflict that shows up as interpersonal feelings of wrongness is not in itself “wrong” or to be avoided but, when it shows up, is a signal to pop up/out to the relational layer, notice and name what is going on, and attempt to re-connect our interpersonal security before we can productively engage back on the object/topical layer.
I’m not sure in which ways you’re attempting to characterize the nature of your conflict with either Jonah or Jonah’s views. You may be correct that there is an “underlying ideological conflict” (i.e. difference) that is unavoidable or even irreconcilable. And my position on that would be: fine, great, no problem. I think that difference can exist and we can still interact with each other to explore our differences to whatever degree we have the energy or interest to do so.
On the other hand, when I read “to avoid further conflict” I’m getting an idea that you mean interpersonal conflict (i.e. feelings of wrongness)? When I hear your claim that, in the name of avoiding conflict, “it is absolutely essential … that <someone else> responds to my 5000 word” my immediate embodied reaction is “no way dude, no one owes you anything, you’re still responsible for your own behavior no matter what other people do”. But I can also see a way you may be trying to point to something like “making progress on our ability to understand each other and process our differences productively” which if that’s the case sounds to me like a worthy and admiral goal. It’s just a goal that would IMHO need to be signaled as being the friendly context of your “absolutely essential” claim, because otherwise it sounds to me like you’re making some sort of threat to generate more future conflict!
I’ll close by noting and affirming your distinction (a couple posts up) between “you as a person” and someone’s beliefs, and additionally distinguish between someone’s beliefs/opinions/judgements and the abstraction of an “ideological system”. I have no problem with “attacking” systems, of course none of us want to attack people, and in the middle people tend to be somewhat-but-not-fully identified with their beliefs, so we need to exercise care that “ferocity” is held and expressed cleanly, if one wants to express ferociously without creating interpersonal conflict.
My opinion of this thread so far is that your “you statements” above are quite sloppy, at best, at maintaining a boundary line of expressing respect for people while disagreeing with their beliefs. I’m also of the opinion that Jonah’s choice of words “disrespectful of other people’s views” is not precisely pointing to the thing I care about (or Jonah either, whom I do not believe wants to censor your beliefs/views), which is:
Please communicate in ways that respect other people. Equivalently, please communicate in ways that others can usually experience feeling respected. Creating lots of conflict feelings (a.k.a. drama), or doing so purposefully, is a tax on the conflict-holding/processing energy of any community system, by which I mostly mean other forum participants (whose tolerance for feeling put-on-blast may be quite a bit lower than the average moderator-type person).
I like passion and even ferocity - when held cleanly in ways that avoid most friendly fire incidents, and are swiftly repaired relationally when applicable, so that people can engage with your ideas which I presume is why you Geoff and any of us are here in the first place. Thanks.