Respectful disagreement
Argue with claims and evidence. Do not require political or theoretical conformity.
C Community
The community layer begins with bounded, moderated activities. This page lists only activity the project can verify.
Participation principle
Attending a discussion, suggesting a source, offering an interview, appearing in a future directory, and participating in research are separate decisions. The site does not bundle those permissions.
Criticism of the project and disagreement about the term are welcome. Moderation should address conduct—harassment, threats, privacy violations, spam—not enforce agreement with the framework.
Verified activity
Events
An event will appear here only after an organizer, date, time zone, format, and participation route are confirmed.
Continue via Built To Resist ↗Groups
The project will not manufacture local chapters or label adjacent organizations as affiliates. A consent-based directory can be added later if real groups self-identify.
Forum
Open discussion software creates moderation, privacy, abuse, and stewardship obligations. Moderated discussions and reading groups come first.
Reading group starter
Use this without creating an account or sharing participant data with the site.
Read the canonical definition and identify what is unclear or overbroad.
Choose a collective process where central coordination remained stronger than the framework would predict.
Ask where informal influence comes from when formal hierarchy is weak.
Identify which organizations can redirect the process even without controlling it.
Write one question the group thinks the project should investigate.
Proposed community charter
Argue with claims and evidence. Do not require political or theoretical conformity.
Do not expose private contact details, private-group material, or precise participant locations without permission.
Credit work accurately and respect pseudonymous public attribution where appropriate.
Threats, targeted harassment, stalking, and abuse are conduct problems, not protected “disagreement.”
Plan activities so participants can identify access needs without making sensitive disclosure public.
Substantive moderation decisions should have an explained route for review when capacity exists.
Status: proposed. This charter has not been adopted through a movement-wide governance process, and the site does not imply that it represents universal consensus.