"I mean, we're all against poverty and child abuse and that weird face Tucker Carlson makes when he's listening."
Sure, but what are we for? I read and encounter so many activists who are rarin' for a fight to take down whoever is the latest racist/fascist/conservative/anti-environmentalist/Russia-apologist they encounter online, but I w…
"I mean, we're all against poverty and child abuse and that weird face Tucker Carlson makes when he's listening."
Sure, but what are we for? I read and encounter so many activists who are rarin' for a fight to take down whoever is the latest racist/fascist/conservative/anti-environmentalist/Russia-apologist they encounter online, but I want to know what people like Tom (and you Steve!) actually stand for. That's the hard work - stake out a position on something you care deeply about and defend it, rather than squat in internet fora and attack everyone who sticks their neck one millimeter beyond what you believe.
"I want to know what people like Tom (and you Steve!) actually stand for."
Haha! Hmm, I was equal parts pleased and concerned by this comment!
On the one hand, I feel like I've always been pretty clear about what I stand for. I stand for a world where we judge each other by the content of our character and not the colour of our skin or our sex or who we love or how we present ourselves. I stand for humanism instead of tribalism. I stand for equality that doesn't slip into lowered expectations and kindness that doesn't slip into pandering. I stand for open, honest, thoughtful conversation when we disagree on how to achieve these aims. I've defended these positions countless times.
But on the other hand, maybe it's not such a bad thing if it's not always crystal clear what I believe. Because I also believe we should always leave room for the possibility that we're wrong. I have very strong opinions on pretty much every topic. 😅 But as I said recently, I do my best to hold those strong opinions weakly. One of the reasons I spend so much time engaging with people is that I'm genuinely open to the possibly that I'm missing something. I'm not sure if that comes across as not standing *for* anything, but it's more about trying not to let myself become dogmatic.
Either way, thanks for the food for thought. It's always really valuable to get a window into how I'm coming across.
I suppose I also have split feelings about this. You deserve the benefit of the doubt because, after all, posting your responses to people is what The Commentary is designed to be. We know what we signed up for, and we can go to Medium if we want to read longer pieces where you work through what you believe and what that means nowadays. But I can't help shake the feeling that, even if these pieces are nominally designed to spur dialog, they often read (to me) like "someone on the internet is wrong!"
"I can't help shake the feeling that, even if these pieces are nominally designed to spur dialog, they often read (to me) like "someone on the internet is wrong!""
Okay, well now I know what you're against, but what are you *for*?😉 What changes would you like to see that would address your concerns?
As you say, The Commentary exists to share conversations that were inspired by my Medium articles. And if the conversation is going to go deeper than"Great job Steve!" or "I was thinking the same thing!", then the person I'm talking to will usually disagree with me. I think that's a good thing. I argue my side, they argue theirs, and I present both sides here. It's not about right and wrong. It's about exposure to differing perspectives.
But one of the things I'm happiest about with this place is that the community is full of smart people who don't always agree with me. And even when they do, they often provide nuance that may not have been in the original conversation. I think it's tough to argue that these conversations haven't spurred dialogue. In fact, this is part of that dialogue!
You said earlier that the hard work is staking out a position on something you care about deeply and defending it. But I don't think that's quite right. I mean, I do stake out positions in my articles and conversations. And I do defend them. But that's the easy part. The hard part is listening. The hard part is engaging with differing points of view and nuancing your perspective. The position I stake out in my articles is just the starting point for that.
I like this perspective: what are we for? A lot of times, "what we are for" is a goal that is shared across the aisle in the most general or universal of ways e.g. fairness, freedom, safety, understanding. Describing yourself primarily in anti terms means that your identity is one based on conflict rather than connection or even dialogue. It is living in battle mode, always.
I was recently taught or at least reminded of this lesson in, of all things, my agency's work with a DEI consultant. My colleagues were very eager to immediately rebrand our social services agency as "antiracist" and eventually the consultant pushed back, asking us in so many words "Why is the first thing that you want to do... is to define yourself as 'anti' something? Why not start with what you are for?" The fact that this was coming from a black woman may have been the initial reason that some didn't try to argue the point, and I guess I say that with some cynicism about my colleagues and activists in general. But the point really resonated with me.
Time and time and time again I see that if you define yourself as anti-___ (anti-racist, anti-woke, antidisestablishmentarianism), you end up simply mimicking the behaviors you abhor on the "other side" but in the opposite direction, and justifying it because all that matters is defeating them. No way to run a movement!
hehe, Charlie you don't pull your punches! Yeah, I agree with your sentiment. but reality in today's internet. You are far more likely to get attacked by claiming something that you are for. There are too many exceptions or cases... if you say you are for something, you are opened to all of those attacks in a way that you are not if you merely lodge a specific complaint. Hence the general trend.
To be fair, over time I do think that QJ and provided a clear "what he believes" on a few key topics... though perhaps less of that lately. People only open up about what they believe when in 'safe' communities of like believers.
"I mean, we're all against poverty and child abuse and that weird face Tucker Carlson makes when he's listening."
Sure, but what are we for? I read and encounter so many activists who are rarin' for a fight to take down whoever is the latest racist/fascist/conservative/anti-environmentalist/Russia-apologist they encounter online, but I want to know what people like Tom (and you Steve!) actually stand for. That's the hard work - stake out a position on something you care deeply about and defend it, rather than squat in internet fora and attack everyone who sticks their neck one millimeter beyond what you believe.
"I want to know what people like Tom (and you Steve!) actually stand for."
Haha! Hmm, I was equal parts pleased and concerned by this comment!
On the one hand, I feel like I've always been pretty clear about what I stand for. I stand for a world where we judge each other by the content of our character and not the colour of our skin or our sex or who we love or how we present ourselves. I stand for humanism instead of tribalism. I stand for equality that doesn't slip into lowered expectations and kindness that doesn't slip into pandering. I stand for open, honest, thoughtful conversation when we disagree on how to achieve these aims. I've defended these positions countless times.
But on the other hand, maybe it's not such a bad thing if it's not always crystal clear what I believe. Because I also believe we should always leave room for the possibility that we're wrong. I have very strong opinions on pretty much every topic. 😅 But as I said recently, I do my best to hold those strong opinions weakly. One of the reasons I spend so much time engaging with people is that I'm genuinely open to the possibly that I'm missing something. I'm not sure if that comes across as not standing *for* anything, but it's more about trying not to let myself become dogmatic.
Either way, thanks for the food for thought. It's always really valuable to get a window into how I'm coming across.
I suppose I also have split feelings about this. You deserve the benefit of the doubt because, after all, posting your responses to people is what The Commentary is designed to be. We know what we signed up for, and we can go to Medium if we want to read longer pieces where you work through what you believe and what that means nowadays. But I can't help shake the feeling that, even if these pieces are nominally designed to spur dialog, they often read (to me) like "someone on the internet is wrong!"
"I can't help shake the feeling that, even if these pieces are nominally designed to spur dialog, they often read (to me) like "someone on the internet is wrong!""
Okay, well now I know what you're against, but what are you *for*?😉 What changes would you like to see that would address your concerns?
As you say, The Commentary exists to share conversations that were inspired by my Medium articles. And if the conversation is going to go deeper than"Great job Steve!" or "I was thinking the same thing!", then the person I'm talking to will usually disagree with me. I think that's a good thing. I argue my side, they argue theirs, and I present both sides here. It's not about right and wrong. It's about exposure to differing perspectives.
But one of the things I'm happiest about with this place is that the community is full of smart people who don't always agree with me. And even when they do, they often provide nuance that may not have been in the original conversation. I think it's tough to argue that these conversations haven't spurred dialogue. In fact, this is part of that dialogue!
You said earlier that the hard work is staking out a position on something you care about deeply and defending it. But I don't think that's quite right. I mean, I do stake out positions in my articles and conversations. And I do defend them. But that's the easy part. The hard part is listening. The hard part is engaging with differing points of view and nuancing your perspective. The position I stake out in my articles is just the starting point for that.
I like this perspective: what are we for? A lot of times, "what we are for" is a goal that is shared across the aisle in the most general or universal of ways e.g. fairness, freedom, safety, understanding. Describing yourself primarily in anti terms means that your identity is one based on conflict rather than connection or even dialogue. It is living in battle mode, always.
I was recently taught or at least reminded of this lesson in, of all things, my agency's work with a DEI consultant. My colleagues were very eager to immediately rebrand our social services agency as "antiracist" and eventually the consultant pushed back, asking us in so many words "Why is the first thing that you want to do... is to define yourself as 'anti' something? Why not start with what you are for?" The fact that this was coming from a black woman may have been the initial reason that some didn't try to argue the point, and I guess I say that with some cynicism about my colleagues and activists in general. But the point really resonated with me.
Time and time and time again I see that if you define yourself as anti-___ (anti-racist, anti-woke, antidisestablishmentarianism), you end up simply mimicking the behaviors you abhor on the "other side" but in the opposite direction, and justifying it because all that matters is defeating them. No way to run a movement!
hehe, Charlie you don't pull your punches! Yeah, I agree with your sentiment. but reality in today's internet. You are far more likely to get attacked by claiming something that you are for. There are too many exceptions or cases... if you say you are for something, you are opened to all of those attacks in a way that you are not if you merely lodge a specific complaint. Hence the general trend.
To be fair, over time I do think that QJ and provided a clear "what he believes" on a few key topics... though perhaps less of that lately. People only open up about what they believe when in 'safe' communities of like believers.