"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…
"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 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.