As political ethics develop, the lines can be blurry almost all the time. A few of the rules, though, don't really change. They define the do's and don'ts of the core. Some are:
- One/a group can choose to believe what is not factually true for himself/themselves. That is allowed. It is not cardinal sin. The factual consequences are theirs to bear.
- Thought doesn't hurt and is not detrimental by itself. If one/a group wants to hold on any thought they like, they are free to. They may only be restricted once they adversely inflict it on another person in action.
- No individual's views automatically bear upon any other person. Offence is a personal matter, defined by intent to offend.
- Ridiculing and mocking another's thinking doesn't help. It happens often with people who have different viewpoints that are, by a more prevalent standard, advanced but not prevalent for everyone. In order to understand, relate, and build, basic idea tolerance is necessary.
- Mere holding of a view does in no way turn into action, and therefore makes it infectous to society.
- Freedom to accept, reject, debate and question everything is always allowed in a cordial, respectful and orderly manner.
- Definitions of right & wrong are better exchanged with those of true & false, factual & non-factual or destructive & beneficial ones
With opinions and views as diverse, the discussion tends to go south. What follows is colourful chaos in the core that makes it becomes multi-planar. Every element has a different touch point, resting between planes representing wholly different ideas that can be opposite or contradictory. This is essential to an open, evolving environment. While for some this is a wonderful thing with the learning one can have, for the others, who are puritanical, it is a place of cardinal sin. They don't believe that blood and water mix. They have sacred views about how things should be, and about change itself. In a land that is filled with variety, it is impossible to allow everyone in with views like that. You're bound to have struggles to be let in to what's theirs by right, and you cannot do right by pushing them away.
So, by the above list, can have a sworn communist who is a little liberal (depends on who's defining it) who won't be defaced by a purist—however hypocritical that seems, or maybe he isn't satisfied with the best combination of views to have. You can have a liberal who understands where a purist comes from and sympathises with (comparatively) closed view without being berated by a fellow liberal. You can have someone who isn't for or against anything, or anyone, for which they are not nailed against the wall because they are seeking till they find, and maybe they haven't found yet. The permutations and combinations are immense, and under the system each one of them is allowed. Accepting all of them is not done according to a fixed list. Rather the list is added to after accepting them, all which are debated as a matter of course. The cogs of society can, after all, be used for betterment as well.
This also means that taking offense is almost meaningless in this space. If there is a difference of opinion, and it comes down to offense being taken, you're simply in the wrong place. It should hit you before you even entered the space that you're going to be at the other end of the discussion. The best you should do is offer your arguments, and make your peace. As long there's no injustice done in the process, you'd be doing a great job of keeping up the democracy. And no one has to be right. It is the wrong place to come to for validation. Some forms of thinking will never meet and we should learn to accept that. That doesn't mean we should be less human first and not learn to live like that. The happiest politics earns its place within humanity without a fight.
With all this openness, there are clear no-nos defined. No abuse or violence (in action or words) that can be justified, even if one is justifiably angry. No hate action should be inspired, despite reason to. No discrimination against a person/group of people for being and fighting for who they essentially are. If we'r looking at any kind of agreement, we must stay away from these things. Sometimes, with a diverse set of people and groups, an equally amicable solution will eat into some of that (for everyone). We can only do the best we can do so that everyone benefits equally, even if it has to be littler than we thought for ourselves. We should all get the same privileges, at any cost.