The Messy Art of Conversation
December 14, 2024 1:42 PM Subscribe
Although the brief fractious era of Israel-Palestine campus discord has been much discussed, and the bitter Hatfield-McCoy divisions wrought by Trump's first presidency have been much examined, “the gentler but also messy art of conversation as an antidote to unrest,” has been less well spotlighted.
Born of a partnership with Braver Angels, BridgeUSA, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), the College Debates and Discourse Alliance has partnered with nearly 16,000 students at 100 university and colleges across the U.S. to teach young Americans to talk about hard things. Like all such groups, they make a point of honoring ideological diversity, fostering civil discourse, and cultivating civilized conversation, empathy, insight — even respect.
Known collectively as dialogue facilitation organizations, a strikingly long list of these groups also serve those not in college. Civi, for example, focuses on bubble-bursting, while the Civil Conversations Project focuses on the power of asking better questions..." There's also a group for New Yorkers, another for Hawaiians, and others for residents of Richmond, VA and St. Louis.
Some groups organize thematically. For one, it's dinner. For another, it's supper. Some skip the meal entirely, hopping from table to table. Missions also vary. Some groups stress peace, others emphasize diversity. The focus is democracy in one case, or interfaith issues in another. Then there are issues of inclusion, in this instance that of the military and other center right groups seeking bipartisan discussion. A full list is here.
Civil conversation is crucial because we live in interesting times. We've suffered from a global pandemic and, by all accounts, we are still suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Many Americans and Europeans are mired in affordability crises — and the high anxiety that tends to accompany not being able to afford your own life. In the U.S. and elsewhere, many feel our governments are failing. This has led to a widespread rejection of democratic leadership and the subsequent rise of authoritarian populism. Many have been thinking about ways to connect and welcome difference of all kinds, including geographical, ideological and economic. Respectful conversation across difference is really the only path for finding unexpected commonality. It's how we build richer lives and stronger communities. Metafilter is long overdue for thinking through these issues too: how or if it cultivates respectful conversations, who and what ideas it welcomes and how or if it bridges ideological gaps.
Born of a partnership with Braver Angels, BridgeUSA, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), the College Debates and Discourse Alliance has partnered with nearly 16,000 students at 100 university and colleges across the U.S. to teach young Americans to talk about hard things. Like all such groups, they make a point of honoring ideological diversity, fostering civil discourse, and cultivating civilized conversation, empathy, insight — even respect.
Known collectively as dialogue facilitation organizations, a strikingly long list of these groups also serve those not in college. Civi, for example, focuses on bubble-bursting, while the Civil Conversations Project focuses on the power of asking better questions..." There's also a group for New Yorkers, another for Hawaiians, and others for residents of Richmond, VA and St. Louis.
Some groups organize thematically. For one, it's dinner. For another, it's supper. Some skip the meal entirely, hopping from table to table. Missions also vary. Some groups stress peace, others emphasize diversity. The focus is democracy in one case, or interfaith issues in another. Then there are issues of inclusion, in this instance that of the military and other center right groups seeking bipartisan discussion. A full list is here.
Civil conversation is crucial because we live in interesting times. We've suffered from a global pandemic and, by all accounts, we are still suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Many Americans and Europeans are mired in affordability crises — and the high anxiety that tends to accompany not being able to afford your own life. In the U.S. and elsewhere, many feel our governments are failing. This has led to a widespread rejection of democratic leadership and the subsequent rise of authoritarian populism. Many have been thinking about ways to connect and welcome difference of all kinds, including geographical, ideological and economic. Respectful conversation across difference is really the only path for finding unexpected commonality. It's how we build richer lives and stronger communities. Metafilter is long overdue for thinking through these issues too: how or if it cultivates respectful conversations, who and what ideas it welcomes and how or if it bridges ideological gaps.
Mod note: Several comments removed. In a post about civil conversation, please avoid starting off with snark, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:31 PM on December 14, 2024 [14 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:31 PM on December 14, 2024 [14 favorites]
I've had wildly mixed experiences engaging in dialogue like this. When it has gone well, it's been some of the most rewarding hours of my adulthood. When it hasn't, I ruminate obsessively about what didn't work and why. It's a real high-wire act.
Maybe the most important thing I've learned is to accurately gauge my own ability to engage in this work. I started out very pollyanna-ish and kumbaya, swung all the way to believing no engagement would ever move another's soul one single inch, and have ended up in the middle: sure this work is uniquely effective and aware of the energy it requires.
Thanks for the great FPP, Violet Blue.
posted by minervous at 2:45 PM on December 14, 2024 [6 favorites]
Maybe the most important thing I've learned is to accurately gauge my own ability to engage in this work. I started out very pollyanna-ish and kumbaya, swung all the way to believing no engagement would ever move another's soul one single inch, and have ended up in the middle: sure this work is uniquely effective and aware of the energy it requires.
Thanks for the great FPP, Violet Blue.
posted by minervous at 2:45 PM on December 14, 2024 [6 favorites]
interesting about the Hatfield/McCoy link I get it, but chronologically is this 1868 or 1869. Mingo county, you can also draw parallel to the miners strikes in the 20s and the 30s for example the Battle of Matewan Perhaps another example of breakdown in communication between the worker and capital. Though when conversation fails, a strong voice can speak volumes.
posted by clavdivs at 2:47 PM on December 14, 2024
posted by clavdivs at 2:47 PM on December 14, 2024
An interview with Jessica Tarlov, the sole democratic co-host of Fox’s The Five, on how to disagree on politics.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:11 PM on December 14, 2024
posted by Violet Blue at 5:11 PM on December 14, 2024
My best friend is on the opposite end of the political spectrum, I always vote Left and he always votes Right. Our political arguments were more contentious in the past, but they are a lot better now. In fact, this difference even gives us something to talk about.
Why are we having conversation? You could argue it's primarily social self confirmation and validation. If you stop conversing with your best friend, partner, or even a community, those bonds break down. You listen, empathize, support, and also challenge them where necessary.
But there are other toxic forms of conversation, where you are just trying to obtain a resource the other person has. Or the preach to the choir mode, where the goal is to just repost extreme positions to farm upvotes or favorites from your own supporters. You see behaviors like cherry picking, bias, contempt and shaming.
There is the truism at work that everything boils down to a political problem and solution. Building political capital has to happen first: and I think that's why religion has been such an effective organizing tool - you build a community of people who genuinely care for each other, even if they are from different parts of the political spectrum. We have left and right wing voters who are Christian, even significant factions who are LGBT friendly. Once that capital is built then we can make the asks: but it's the one who built the capital (not destroyed it) who gets to make that ask.
posted by xdvesper at 5:50 PM on December 14, 2024 [2 favorites]
Why are we having conversation? You could argue it's primarily social self confirmation and validation. If you stop conversing with your best friend, partner, or even a community, those bonds break down. You listen, empathize, support, and also challenge them where necessary.
But there are other toxic forms of conversation, where you are just trying to obtain a resource the other person has. Or the preach to the choir mode, where the goal is to just repost extreme positions to farm upvotes or favorites from your own supporters. You see behaviors like cherry picking, bias, contempt and shaming.
There is the truism at work that everything boils down to a political problem and solution. Building political capital has to happen first: and I think that's why religion has been such an effective organizing tool - you build a community of people who genuinely care for each other, even if they are from different parts of the political spectrum. We have left and right wing voters who are Christian, even significant factions who are LGBT friendly. Once that capital is built then we can make the asks: but it's the one who built the capital (not destroyed it) who gets to make that ask.
posted by xdvesper at 5:50 PM on December 14, 2024 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted, apparently miss-posted (have contacted OP), plus one more by poster's request
posted by taz (staff) at 9:18 PM on December 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 9:18 PM on December 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
I think this misses the way that debate (or the trappings of debate) was weaponised by the right over the last decade or so.
The right wing grifters, the "logic bros", the Just Asking Questions crowd, the endless refrains of "debate me!", "not a valid argument!", and so on.
There's a reason so many are wary of getting into "debate" with right wingers.
The way that the current crop of right-wingers were radicalised in a milieu that fetishised debate as a cudgle with which to harass and undermine women and queer people.
posted by june_dodecahedron at 1:12 AM on December 15, 2024 [11 favorites]
The right wing grifters, the "logic bros", the Just Asking Questions crowd, the endless refrains of "debate me!", "not a valid argument!", and so on.
There's a reason so many are wary of getting into "debate" with right wingers.
The way that the current crop of right-wingers were radicalised in a milieu that fetishised debate as a cudgle with which to harass and undermine women and queer people.
posted by june_dodecahedron at 1:12 AM on December 15, 2024 [11 favorites]
It comes down to good faith. If someone is genuinely interested in understanding then maybe there's a chance, but so many folks not interested in good faith or doing the research to get their facts correct. Personally, I don't have the spoons or patience these days to justify/explain my existence to someone else, so I hope there are cis allies out there doing the good work.
posted by kokaku at 2:51 AM on December 15, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 2:51 AM on December 15, 2024 [4 favorites]
My comment was not a "miss-post." It was not snarky. It was not off-topic. It pertains directly to how discussions of "Israel-Palestine"— the opening words of the FPP— have typically proceeded for many years and why it's so difficult. I will repost it in its entirety:
Zionist talking points haven't changed since at least 2014:
Zionist talking points haven't changed since at least 2014:
Israel's style of public relationsposted by ftrtts at 5:23 AM on December 15, 2024 [10 favorites]
SIR – A quick guide to Israel's PR methods:
Test this against the next interview you hear or watch.
- We haven't heard reports of deaths, will check into it;
- The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb;
- OK we killed them, but they were terrorists;
- OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields;
- OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose;
- OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are!
- Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-semite?
—Adam Johannes, Secretary, Cardiff Stop the War Coalition
...that's why religion has been such an effective organizing tool - you build a community of people who genuinely care for each other, even if they are from different parts of the political spectrum...
Perhaps your experience with religion is very different from mine, but in no encounter with groups of religious people have I got the impression that they genuinely care for one another unless they're all already from the same part of the political spectrum. Small congregations of Unitarians and the like seem to do an okay job of it, but what's always struck me about groups of religious people—and I mean from the same church/congregation, here—is how much they all loathe and sit in judgment upon one another. There is no hatred like churchly love.
To echo someone else's point, I don't have the spoons to engage in respectful debate with MAGAs, theo-bros, etc. And I'm a cisgendered white guy, FWIW. They're sea lions who are either somehow not quite stupid enough to forget to breathe, or arguing in bad faith, and in either case, what's the point? I haven't the patience to argue with my own father, who's been thoroughly captured by the right-wing bubble, let alone a bunch of relative strangers.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:12 AM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
Perhaps your experience with religion is very different from mine, but in no encounter with groups of religious people have I got the impression that they genuinely care for one another unless they're all already from the same part of the political spectrum. Small congregations of Unitarians and the like seem to do an okay job of it, but what's always struck me about groups of religious people—and I mean from the same church/congregation, here—is how much they all loathe and sit in judgment upon one another. There is no hatred like churchly love.
To echo someone else's point, I don't have the spoons to engage in respectful debate with MAGAs, theo-bros, etc. And I'm a cisgendered white guy, FWIW. They're sea lions who are either somehow not quite stupid enough to forget to breathe, or arguing in bad faith, and in either case, what's the point? I haven't the patience to argue with my own father, who's been thoroughly captured by the right-wing bubble, let alone a bunch of relative strangers.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:12 AM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
Something I'm noticing is folks talking about "the work" a lot. You'll note in no example above are the conversations geared toward talking to (or as) political operatives or activists. It's all about ordinary people talking to ordinary people.
If the ordinary person you're having trouble talking to is a family member or someone else you can't escape, and may have other baggage with, maybe don't start there. Or maybe do, and instead of starting with you, start with them. Ask a question. Listen to the answer, and if you have it in you, ask more questions, and then listen to more answers. That's what respect looks like. You should listen as much, or even more, than you talk. You consider their feelings as much as you want them to consider yours. Don’t approach them as a project, or an idiot, but as a real live person with thoughts and feelings, accomplishments and insecurities.
It's true "right wing grifters, the "logic bros", the Just Asking Questions crowd, the endless refrains of "debate me!", "not a valid argument!", and so on," as well as "MAGAs, theo-bros," may well not be looking for good faith discussions, though, really, painting everyone with the same broad brush, "they're sea lions who are either somehow not quite stupid enough to forget to breathe," is not a helpful prejudice. That said, they make up only a fraction of the conservative electorate.
"It comes down to good faith," is, I think, really apt here. Expecting people to "do the research to get their facts correct" is, on the other hand, wishful thinking. People don't always know the things you wish they knew. They don't always know what to look up. They may not have time to look stuff up. They may look stuff up, but not have the time or skill to find a reputable source. By the same token, no one should feel they need to explain/justify their existence. If it's unintentional, maybe just say they hurt your feelings? If someone does intentionally make you feel like you do need to justify yourself, they're being disrespectful.
Start with your neighbor, your postal carrier, a friend of a friend, someone from your old job. And start slow. It's widely agreed, I think, that a key reason the democrats lost the election was refusing to acknowledge that there is a major affordability crisis with the economy. To put that another way: They wouldn't listen. As one of the 60%, say, who did not get a raise last year, and who could decidedly not afford a 20% rise in prices, I didn't feel heard or respected when politicians, pundits, reporters and other folks with a platform kept condescending to repeat ever more slowly that the economy was really good, when for those not making high-end professional-class wages it’s not. Instead, I felt angry. Now I'm a life-long democrat, so I was going to vote democrat either way. But for the apolitical or undecided voters, talking at them did not persuade them, it just alienated and offended them.
To ftrtts, specifically, speaking of alienating, you have twice now plopped down 10-year-old PR talking points about Zionists with zero context or even acknowledgement of the post at the top. As far as I can make out, you're trying to start a conversation here deep in the middle of your issue without ever explaining what your issue is. You also give no sign of being prepared to listen to views that don't match your own, whatever they are. That's not a way to start a conversation, it's a way to start a fight. Maybe analyze your point, and talk about it more abstractly, so as not to immediately start by offending folks who don't already agree with you, and then post again. Starting with more neutral subject matter, generally, by the way, can help jumpstart unexpected conversations: Things that impact us all, like the economy or the climate.
As for religion, different communities and denominations will obviously handle political discussion differently. The ones famous for welcoming good faith discussions about politics and other subjects are the Unitarians, Reconstructionist Jews, and the completely secular Society for Ethical Culture.
Finally, it's worth noting the words "debate" and "conversation" are used interchangeably in the post. Perhaps they shouldn't have been. The intent was to talk about conversations, and having enough respect for other people to allow for differences of opinion — and maybe even keep talking.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:15 AM on December 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
If the ordinary person you're having trouble talking to is a family member or someone else you can't escape, and may have other baggage with, maybe don't start there. Or maybe do, and instead of starting with you, start with them. Ask a question. Listen to the answer, and if you have it in you, ask more questions, and then listen to more answers. That's what respect looks like. You should listen as much, or even more, than you talk. You consider their feelings as much as you want them to consider yours. Don’t approach them as a project, or an idiot, but as a real live person with thoughts and feelings, accomplishments and insecurities.
It's true "right wing grifters, the "logic bros", the Just Asking Questions crowd, the endless refrains of "debate me!", "not a valid argument!", and so on," as well as "MAGAs, theo-bros," may well not be looking for good faith discussions, though, really, painting everyone with the same broad brush, "they're sea lions who are either somehow not quite stupid enough to forget to breathe," is not a helpful prejudice. That said, they make up only a fraction of the conservative electorate.
"It comes down to good faith," is, I think, really apt here. Expecting people to "do the research to get their facts correct" is, on the other hand, wishful thinking. People don't always know the things you wish they knew. They don't always know what to look up. They may not have time to look stuff up. They may look stuff up, but not have the time or skill to find a reputable source. By the same token, no one should feel they need to explain/justify their existence. If it's unintentional, maybe just say they hurt your feelings? If someone does intentionally make you feel like you do need to justify yourself, they're being disrespectful.
Start with your neighbor, your postal carrier, a friend of a friend, someone from your old job. And start slow. It's widely agreed, I think, that a key reason the democrats lost the election was refusing to acknowledge that there is a major affordability crisis with the economy. To put that another way: They wouldn't listen. As one of the 60%, say, who did not get a raise last year, and who could decidedly not afford a 20% rise in prices, I didn't feel heard or respected when politicians, pundits, reporters and other folks with a platform kept condescending to repeat ever more slowly that the economy was really good, when for those not making high-end professional-class wages it’s not. Instead, I felt angry. Now I'm a life-long democrat, so I was going to vote democrat either way. But for the apolitical or undecided voters, talking at them did not persuade them, it just alienated and offended them.
To ftrtts, specifically, speaking of alienating, you have twice now plopped down 10-year-old PR talking points about Zionists with zero context or even acknowledgement of the post at the top. As far as I can make out, you're trying to start a conversation here deep in the middle of your issue without ever explaining what your issue is. You also give no sign of being prepared to listen to views that don't match your own, whatever they are. That's not a way to start a conversation, it's a way to start a fight. Maybe analyze your point, and talk about it more abstractly, so as not to immediately start by offending folks who don't already agree with you, and then post again. Starting with more neutral subject matter, generally, by the way, can help jumpstart unexpected conversations: Things that impact us all, like the economy or the climate.
As for religion, different communities and denominations will obviously handle political discussion differently. The ones famous for welcoming good faith discussions about politics and other subjects are the Unitarians, Reconstructionist Jews, and the completely secular Society for Ethical Culture.
Finally, it's worth noting the words "debate" and "conversation" are used interchangeably in the post. Perhaps they shouldn't have been. The intent was to talk about conversations, and having enough respect for other people to allow for differences of opinion — and maybe even keep talking.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:15 AM on December 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Upon review and feedback from a member we’ve undeleted one of the first few comments posted to this thread.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:29 AM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:29 AM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
To ftrtts, specifically, speaking of alienating, you have twice now plopped down 10-year-old PR talking points about Zionists with zero context or even acknowledgement of the post at the top. As far as I can make out, you're trying to start a conversation here deep in the middle of your issue without ever explaining what your issue is. You also give no sign of being prepared to listen to views that don't match your own, whatever they are. That's not a way to start a conversation, it's a way to start a fight. Maybe analyze your point, and talk about it more abstractly, so as not to immediately start by offending folks who don't already agree with you, and then post again. Starting with more neutral subject matter, generally, by the way, can help jumpstart unexpected conversations: Things that impact us all, like the economy or the climate.
Opening your FPP with "Although the brief fractious era of Israel-Palestine campus discord has been much discussed" is not neutral or abstract. The protests on campus are not over. NYU professors were arrested yesterday. Protests about divestment are no more fractious than investing in genocide in the first place. It seems unrealistic to open with dogwhistles about the most heated topic on this website and expect people to ignore it.
I'm reminded of a recent interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates (YouTube):
Opening your FPP with "Although the brief fractious era of Israel-Palestine campus discord has been much discussed" is not neutral or abstract. The protests on campus are not over. NYU professors were arrested yesterday. Protests about divestment are no more fractious than investing in genocide in the first place. It seems unrealistic to open with dogwhistles about the most heated topic on this website and expect people to ignore it.
I'm reminded of a recent interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates (YouTube):
But Sean, it is complex. It's just not complex in the way they say it is. There is complexity. It is extremely complex. But the complexity they're selling you is not the complexity.posted by ftrtts at 9:28 AM on December 15, 2024 [10 favorites]
Your premise is disingenuous, and there's nothing respectful about hi-jacking a thread to talk about about your political passions.
This is also a great example of the kind of behavior that makes Metafilter suck. Please start your own thread to talk about I/P.
posted by Violet Blue at 10:04 AM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
This is also a great example of the kind of behavior that makes Metafilter suck. Please start your own thread to talk about I/P.
posted by Violet Blue at 10:04 AM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
To make it more obvious that the I/P conflict is off-limits in this post, perhaps the words, "Although the brief fractious era of Israel-Palestine campus discord has been much discussed" could be removed from the OP, as they're inaccurate (the 'era' is not over nor was it particularly brief) and I can't see how they add anything apart from an invitation to derail.
posted by ngaiotonga at 10:52 AM on December 15, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by ngaiotonga at 10:52 AM on December 15, 2024 [6 favorites]
Anyway this was an interesting post with lots to dig into, thanks Violet Blue! I'll be spending some time over the next few days looking at all these links and seeing what's relevant to my (outside US) application.
posted by ngaiotonga at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by ngaiotonga at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deletion error on my part! The deleted comment that was reinstated by me earlier has been deleted once more because the original deletion had been requested by the poster and I missed that detail. Apologies to the user who requested the deletion in the first place.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2024
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2024
For anyone interested, this is an interview with Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist from Berkeley, has spent a chunk of the last decade in ruby red areas of the United States. During that time she’s written two books: Strangers In Their Own Land (which was a finalist for the National Book Award in 2016) and now, Stolen Pride. Arlie interviewed dozens of people from Pike County, Kentucky–the whitest and second poorest district in the country–to better understand what’s happening in the rust belt and why those voters are so drawn to Donald Trump.
In her view, it’s not just about the economy, trans rights, or climate change, but about loss, shame, and ultimately pride. When asked how a professor from Berkleley could connect with, say, an unemployed former addict from Appalachia, she mentioned first finding commoniality — and then by focusing on their emotions.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:21 PM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
In her view, it’s not just about the economy, trans rights, or climate change, but about loss, shame, and ultimately pride. When asked how a professor from Berkleley could connect with, say, an unemployed former addict from Appalachia, she mentioned first finding commoniality — and then by focusing on their emotions.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:21 PM on December 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
FIRE, Aim, Ready: (May 2018)
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 7:56 PM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
The report goes on with the predictable criticism of campuses that create safe spaces and speech codes as antithetical to free speech. ACTA makes the perplexing argument that “these ostensibly progressive measures are, in actuality, chilling free speech and frustrating the open dialog that is essential to academic freedom on campus.” As with most criticism of safe spaces, the report fails to define the safe spaces it is concerned about. Colleges are traditionally full of safe spaces where like-minded people gather -- think faculty lounges and locker rooms as well as culture houses. Why do safe spaces only come under fire from groups like ACTA when they are spaces for people who disagree with controversial speakers or when they are spaces for underrepresented students to gather to support each other?Seems to have worked out, though, since they got a nice invite from the Heritage Foundation to be a "coalition partner" on Project 2025.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 7:56 PM on December 15, 2024 [2 favorites]
This is an important conversation and I agree with ngaiotonga that the opening sentence of the post is doing no favours to the ostensible aims of the post
In my community I am surrounded by people who habitually and generationally vote right/conservative and more and more, I feel like survival is capitulation. I feel like the space for conversation is collapsing.
posted by ginger.beef at 12:25 AM on December 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
In my community I am surrounded by people who habitually and generationally vote right/conservative and more and more, I feel like survival is capitulation. I feel like the space for conversation is collapsing.
posted by ginger.beef at 12:25 AM on December 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
Braver Angels
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on December 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
David Blankenhorn is the president of Braver Angels.[7] Prior to Braver Angels, Blankenhorn worked to prevent the legalization of gay marriage; in 2012, he announced that he continues to believe gay marriage is morally wrong, but is in favor of its legalization as a political compromise.[29] John Wood Jr. produces the Braver Angels podcast and YouTube channel. He is a Republican politician in LA county. The board of directors include Blankenhorn, social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, and Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family. [30]It's always the case with these organizations. Dig a little deeper and you'll find embarassed conservatives who are appalled by the current Republican party platform but lack the courage to oppose it. So they hide behind wishy-washy calls for decorum and conversation. Because they believe their own tax rates and freedom to innovate are more important than trans rights or racial equality.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on December 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Good grief, ACTA's Twitter feed is mostly angry Roganbro anti-woke ranting, there's not even any serious pretense about actually bringing people together. Just incessant whinging about the Ardent Progressives of the authoritarian left picking on the poor, powerless conservatives.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:26 AM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:26 AM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
Also, despite their repeated insistence that they want to fight misinformation, it really looks as if BridgesUSA's "debates" are just more chances for right-wing nutjobs to spew bullshit. It's just more of the centrist tendency to assume that there has to be a "reasonable" halfway point between being allowed to exist peacefully and elimination or oppression.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:57 AM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:57 AM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
At least the Civil Conversations Project has a perspective:
But most of these groups seem to place a greater emphasis on having a conversation than having a conversation about issues, and one gets the impression that they're deliberately not taking a stand because that might impact their business model of launching a social network or doing a speaking tour about conversations or something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:10 AM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
Our mission is to bring an end to American racism by telling significant historical and contemporary stories and by engaging in dialogue in order to bring an accurate perspective to the structures and systems that perpetuate racism, thereby informing the public dialogue on the local and national level.I respect that. We need to have more conversations about structural racism, just like we need to have conversations about a lot of things.
But most of these groups seem to place a greater emphasis on having a conversation than having a conversation about issues, and one gets the impression that they're deliberately not taking a stand because that might impact their business model of launching a social network or doing a speaking tour about conversations or something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:10 AM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
and the bitter Hatfield-McCoy divisions wrought by Trump's first presidency have been much examined
I'm a little unclear about this reference to the Hatfield-McCoy feud. On the one hand, the feud was an intensely bitter conflict that was exacerbated by stark political and economic divides which persisted for decades and frequently erupted in violence and murder. On the other hand, the feud has gained a reputation through popular media as a deranged fight between passionately ignorant hillbillies who can't remember let alone articulate what they disagree over. Is this reference supposed to invoke the former interpretation or the latter?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:33 AM on December 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
I'm a little unclear about this reference to the Hatfield-McCoy feud. On the one hand, the feud was an intensely bitter conflict that was exacerbated by stark political and economic divides which persisted for decades and frequently erupted in violence and murder. On the other hand, the feud has gained a reputation through popular media as a deranged fight between passionately ignorant hillbillies who can't remember let alone articulate what they disagree over. Is this reference supposed to invoke the former interpretation or the latter?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:33 AM on December 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
So they hide behind wishy-washy calls for decorum and conversationI wouldn't sniff at decorum and conversation. Both are central to the kind of diplomatic persuasion necessary for creating peace agreements in war zones.
But most of these groups seem to place a greater emphasis on having a conversation than having a conversation about issues, and one gets the impression that they're deliberately not taking a stand because that might impact their business modelThat's the sad thing about a lot of nonprofits. I'm just glad folks are thinking about it, no matter how imperfectly.
Is this reference supposed to invoke the former interpretation or the latter?Probably a bit of both. But, really, I was just using it as shorthand for famous feuding, and added a link to provide context for any non-American readers.
posted by Violet Blue at 11:15 AM on December 16, 2024
It isn't a "war zone" when one side just wants to exist in relative peace and the other wants to send the first to camps and/or eliminate them completely. It's genocide. And yes, the people and groups Ronbutnotstupid listed out are most certainly part of that second category.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:26 AM on December 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:26 AM on December 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
I think there have been some illuminating recent news items about peace agreements that were mainly the side with more weapons and money demanding concessions from the other side and then wringing their hands when the other side balked, but I guess that would need to be in a different thread.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:00 PM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:00 PM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
I'm not talking about Palestine, these people want home-grown genocides of wide swathes of Americans. Jonathan Haidt's ideas on trans "contagion" is straight out of the Nazi playbook.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:11 PM on December 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:11 PM on December 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Both are central to the kind of diplomatic persuasion necessary for creating peace agreements in war zones.
But what war and what kind of peace are these groups trying to persuade people into working towards and agreeing to? They don't ever identify any differences other than to make vague references to "polarization" and the "current political climate" and they don't offer any vision for achievements beyond "unity" and "coming together". They're taking no stands and they're making no promises! At best they're fetishizing conversation as some sort of panacea that will maybe manifest a solution; at worst they're running yet another poltiical grift that appeals to misplaced ideas about how politics used to be civil.
There's nothing wrong with trying to bridge the divide. But anyone who tells you that they want to bridge the divide while downplaying their own motives is either selling something or trying to take advantage of you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
But what war and what kind of peace are these groups trying to persuade people into working towards and agreeing to? They don't ever identify any differences other than to make vague references to "polarization" and the "current political climate" and they don't offer any vision for achievements beyond "unity" and "coming together". They're taking no stands and they're making no promises! At best they're fetishizing conversation as some sort of panacea that will maybe manifest a solution; at worst they're running yet another poltiical grift that appeals to misplaced ideas about how politics used to be civil.
There's nothing wrong with trying to bridge the divide. But anyone who tells you that they want to bridge the divide while downplaying their own motives is either selling something or trying to take advantage of you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
But what war and what kind of peace are these groups trying to persuade people into working towards and agreeing to?
There are more than 100 armed conflicts in the world right now. You decide.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:26 PM on December 16, 2024
There are more than 100 armed conflicts in the world right now. You decide.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:26 PM on December 16, 2024
the having conversations industrial complex (from 2020)
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:38 PM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:38 PM on December 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
As someone commented above, you can't have a civilized conversation with people conversing in bad faith and not only are "right wing grifters, logic bros, Just Asking Questions crowd, MAGAs, and theo-bros," difficult, if not impossible, to talk to, but so are Metafilter's own under-moderated trolls. These are the folks who threadshit or hi-jack conversations by intentionally posting provocative, inflammatory, or off-topic comments. Their goal is to ruin conversations and upset people, which they mistake myopically for some kind of victory. As you can see in the useful examples provided, it's characteristic of trolls to behave in a manner so stereotypical, it's boring. They are typically defined by their:
posted by Violet Blue at 2:12 PM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
- Deliberate intent — These are folks who actively seek out threads to disrupt. Rather than creating their own threads or genuinely participating in pre-existing threads, they are driven to score points at other people's expense.
- The desire to provoke — They often use inflammatory language, personal attacks, or misinformation to stir up reactions. Anything will do, really, so long as it shows dominance and causes offense.
- Lack of concern for the topic — They couldn't care less what you're talking about. They're happy to break right in. They star in their own shows, these people.
- Lack of concern or respect for others —This typically goes hand in hand with low self-esteem, narcissism and childishness.
- Enjoyment of chaos — They often take pleasure in seeing others become upset or engaged in heated arguments due to their posts. What's more fun than making others feel as bad as you feel?
- The tendency to huddle together — What's the point of attacking or dissing someone if no one's there to cheer you on. So, like overaged teen gangsters, they frequently travel in packs.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:12 PM on December 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
That list fairly represents far too much activity around here, at times
And I say this as someone who comes at the subject of Palestine and Palestinians with a fairly pronounced bias
Conversation: if not here and now, where and when?
posted by ginger.beef at 5:14 PM on December 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
And I say this as someone who comes at the subject of Palestine and Palestinians with a fairly pronounced bias
Conversation: if not here and now, where and when?
posted by ginger.beef at 5:14 PM on December 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
Mod note: A couple deleted. Please return to discussing the post rather than fighting with each other or complaining about Metafilter. Violet Blue, you have the option of requesting your post be deleted, but you can't moderate the thread or control opinions that differ from the premise of the article(s). As far as Mefi posts go, generally speaking, the guidelines are that members post something they think others here may be interested in reading / discussing (ie posting for others), and not the idea that members are a moderated audience for the ideas presented (ie only agreeing / supportive comments). I think this thread has been fine in terms of people having a discussion, but if you want more controlled engagement, it would be better to post in your own blog or similar space.
posted by taz (staff) at 9:42 PM on December 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 9:42 PM on December 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
In a recent interview on enduring the trauma of genocide, Dr Gabor Maté said "... when I come from a place of rage or if I come from a place of bitterness, my speaking is not that effective. ... If you want to speak to people and have any hope of getting through you've got to speak in a way that doesn't immediately threaten them, and I don't mean that in any way to censor your words or to suppress your truth. I'm talking about the tone and how you talk to them."
I try to do this but it's a lot easier said than done (and of course is unlikely to change anything if the person you're talking to does not view you or the people you are acting in solidarity with as human beings).
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 11:39 PM on December 16, 2024
I try to do this but it's a lot easier said than done (and of course is unlikely to change anything if the person you're talking to does not view you or the people you are acting in solidarity with as human beings).
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 11:39 PM on December 16, 2024
As someone commented above, you can't have a civilized conversation with people conversing in bad faith and not only are "right wing grifters, logic bros, Just Asking Questions crowd, MAGAs, and theo-bros," difficult, if not impossible, to talk to, but so are Metafilter's own under-moderated trolls.
Nice direct comparison! Such a great example of "Civil conversation".
posted by lalochezia at 7:13 AM on December 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
« Older The best science images of 2024 | in the fascist weight room Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
. I would respectfully ask you favorite their comment and this one in the name of comity.
posted by lalochezia at 1:51 PM on December 14, 2024 [2 favorites]