A recent frank exchange between Geminauts was interesting in some ways, unfortunate in others.
The Supreme Court has completely lost all credibility at this point
re: The Supreme Court and other fools
I miss when point was simply a beer
It was interesting for passionately held views clearly expressed.
It was unfortunate because, overall, when the dust has settled—it looks like there were no winners. The Internet is a famously bad medium for important discussion; it provides enough detachment to hide compassion but lets the punches through full strength.
There were, sadly, more than a few punches thrown.
I have tried hard to think of a way of replying to the discussion that is compassionate without being patronizing. It’s hard. It may be impossible. But I’m going to try anyway, because I “know” all of you from following your posts—and would hate for there to be a rift, or any ongoing unhappiness, or people avoiding posting for fear of the response.
I am also trying hard not to minimize anyone’s point of view. Valid points were made by everyone.
Here I put myself in a difficult position because I could be taken to be an apologist for points of view that others found offensive. Okay, this gets complicated. The Paradox of tolerance is important:
—it is not the case that “everyone is entitled to their point of view”. Some points of view are just wrong, and must be shunned by all right-thinking people.
Bigotry is wrong—for sure.
The background for the disagreement was bigotry, but the actual points of disagreement were not—at least, not if read assuming the best intentions.
I personally would suggest that it’s unwise to enter a discussion about bigotry with fine-grained points about the best way(s) to tackle bigotry; there is considerable risk that given the strong emotions involved, it will end up badly. “We’re screwed” and “here’s what we/you should have done instead” are different topics.
But then, with everyone posting to their own capsule, everybody is on their own home turf and can talk about anything they like. Launching into a different topic is fair play. Who’s “right”? As I said—there were no winners.
Are we required to “read assuming best intentions”? Generally, no. On the web it would be utterly exhausting, a waste of time. There are too many bad intentioned posts, and they float to the top of attention-based ranking systems. Here on Gemini I hope we can do a little better—post a little slower, read a little more kindly, write a little more thoughtfully. It’s small enough that this might actually work, and be worth it.
Should I post this? It’s already on the second rewrite from scratch, and I waited a couple of days to make sure I didn’t post too hastily. It still might be wisest to delete it.
But StackSmith just posted something that gives a quote too good to let go to waste, so I think I’ll go with it:
Read: Mutual Aid by Dean Spade
We live in a society based on disposability. When we feel bad, we often automatically decide that either we are bad or another person is bad. Both of these moves cause damage and distort the truth, which is that we are all navigating difficult conditions the best we can, and we all have a lot to learn and unlearn. If we want to build a different way of being together in groups, we have to look closely at the feelings and behaviors that generate the desire to throw people away. Humility, compassion for ourselves, and compassion for others are antidotes to disposability culture. Examining where we project on others and where we react strongly to others can give us more options when we are in conflict. Every one of us is more complex and beautiful than our worst actions and harshest judgments. Building compassion and accountability requires us to take stock of our own actions and reactions in conflict, and seek ways to treat each other with care even in the midst of strong feelings.
I don’t want to dispose of any of you and I hope you are all okay.
Thinking beyond the group directly involved, I hope we can establish, or re-establish, that this is a place for civil discussion—where all who practice tolerance are welcome; where we are all prepared to learn, unlearn, disagree, and make progress, with respect.
I will restate, because it’s important: this is not “everyone is entitled to their point of view”. Bigotry is wrong—for sure. It already feels like that is part of the background of Gemini, something that goes without saying—there is such a range of different voices and so many posts that are thoughtful, careful, insightful, sharing. But maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see.
That’s part of why I’m posting this; maybe Gemini being a place for open, respectful and frank discussion is fragile, and needs support. Well, I have no idea if it will help, but for what it’s worth: if I can figure out how, I’ll give my support. Feel free to email me directly, any time.
So far today, 2024-11-25, feedback has been received 2 times. Of these, 0 were likely from bots, and 2 might have been from real people. Thank you, maybe-real people!
———
/ \ i a
| C a \ D n |
irc \ /
———