We need a new conscientious objection. After the fighting starts, it doesn't matter why the fighting started. It doesn't matter if the fight started over somet

We need a new conscientious objection. After the fighting starts, it doesn't matter why the fighting started. It doesn't matter if the fight started over something important. After the fighting starts, whatever you are fighting about seems important. In wartime objectors may still have had a 'side', they just didn't want to kill people on 'the other side'. We need to be able to have conversations where 1. we don't intentionally try to shame 'the other side' and 2. 'the other side' does not feel like we are trying to shame them. A new conscientious objection would mean not participating in conversations about duelling moralities. Don't insult someone else's righteousness, don't try to make them feel shame about political or religious beliefs. You can certainly still feel your own morality, but you don't need to use it like a weapon. I don't know if this is possible in large groups on the internet. I don't know if it's worth trying in large groups on the internet. It might be worth trying with people you care about on an individual basis and who also have beliefs on 'the other side' --- "Both sides" is an utterly poisoned phrase. Just because there is a fight with two sides does not imply that either side is righteous, and it certainly does not imply that both sides have points of view worthy of consideration. Sometimes one side is just wrong and the debate is settled. "Both sides" has been used to justify a lot of hateful speech, and a lot of speech that cannot be scientifically supported. I think people have a limited right to use hateful speech, and non-scientific speech, but not an absolute right to use that in every venue.