The on-going debate about gun-control might be a good example.
If this issue is raised in any Internet discussion,
opponents of gun-control are certain
to weigh in with their standard arguments.
These knee-jerk responses can be filtered out,
since everyone has already heard them.
But the various sides of the debate might have something new to say.
When their communications are returned because of partisan content,
this could encourage them to do some original thinking about the subject
and to submit novel arguments
instead of the canned responses of one group or another.

     Ethnic and religious loyalties may be the most difficult to transcend.
When members of such a group feel that their group has been attacked,
they may respond in an irrational, tribal way.
But, here again, there may be some good thinking contained in the message
—beyond the original tribal response.
So when such messages are returned because of their tribal content,
the writers can reconsider their positions
and perhaps eliminate the tribal parts of their responses.

     Because the Unitarian Universalist movement
embraces both people who believe in some kind of God
and people who do not,
the theists and non-theists often engage in vigorous debate.
Such exchanges are constructive
when they encourage all sides to reconsider their beliefs.
But blanket rejection of everything someone says
because he or she is a theist or a non-theist adds nothing to the discussion.

     Racism is not as likely on the Internet
than in face-to-face communication
because it is seldom evident from the start what race a certain writer is.
This is one advantage of written communication.
Racial prejudices need not get in the way of clear thinking.

     Sexism may not be as easy to eliminate,
especially when people use their real names,
which often reveal the sex of the writer.
Sexist thinkers are wary of any comments that come from a hated sex.
Men who have developed prejudices against women
will be more prone to criticize thoughts that come from women.
Women who have developed prejudices against men
will might have difficulty being open to comments that come from men.

     Members of sex-and-gender minorities (like racial minorities)
will not be known to have some variation of sex or gender
unless they identify themselves in their communications on the Internet.
But once the sexual orientation (for example) of a writer is known,
some people will have a tribal response
—either pro or con—to the ideas that come from that person.

    Even Unitarian Universalists
sometimes come with rather narrow agendas.
But let's illustrate this phenomenon from a Methodist snapshot.
Years ago, when I was in the process of being ordained
as a Methodist minister,
I overheard an outburst from a mother
who was trying to get her son certified as a lay preacher.
He evidently had no seminary training.
And during this encounter he did not speak for himself.

    She had decided that her son should be certified
so that he could "preach labor unions".
Probably she came from a family of strong labor union people;
and she felt that the Methodist Church should
do more to support this part of the human population.

    She did not get her wish, as far as I know,
since the Methodist Church does not certify lay-preachers
merely because they are good advocates
of some social cause or movement.
Of course, the mother took this rejection
as a proof that the Methodist Church was "against labor unions".

    Many other groups in our society have members
who are just as strong for their own cause or identity.
If the group identity is strong enough
(which is sometimes reinforced by oppression, past or present),
the advocate of the group sees everything
in terms of how it disfavors or reflects negatively on their group.

    Flame-catchers will have to be tactful when returning messages
from people who are strong advocates for such groups,
because the rejection might be understood
as resulting from some sort of prejudice,
such as being "against labor unions".

    Unitarian Universalists are generally known as open-minded,
but because we are open to all who wish to identify with our movement,
we sometimes do find narrow-agenda people among us.
And we will tolerate all such individuals as persons,
even tho we might resist their attempts to use UU organizations
merely for promoting their narrow agendas.

    This is one good reason for maintaining
our strong commitment to democratic procedures
in all our decision-making.
When we allow a narrow-agenda person to speak,
that person's voice can be counter-balanced
by other reasonable voices with a different emphasis.

    Even the president of the UUA
is not immune to narrow-agenda thinking.
If we were to elect someone who had a blind spot
based on a strong group-identification,
then the democratic checks and balances
within the UUA might have to counter-balance
any decisions that arose mainly from that narrow-agenda commitment.

    For example, if appointments were made
mainly because candidates belong to the same group as the president,
then boards responsible for affirming all appointments
will have to exercise their veto power in such cases.

    It would not be fair to people
who have no labor union background in their families
for labor union people
and people who have descended from labor union members
to be given a preference merely because of that connection.
Even tho terrible crimes have been committed
against labor union members in violent strikes of the past,
this is not sufficient reason to give preferences
to present members of labor unions
—or to people who have descended from labor union members.

    And even the narrow-agenda advocates within UUism
might be able to notice their tribal/partisan responses
when they are compared to this mother
whose identity was completely absorbed
in promoting the labor union cause.