Can We Talk? (about community dialog)

Yesterday, I critiqued an article that was full of character assassination as a form of political opinion writing. Later that day, the author posted a final article claiming that she was subject to discrimination here. She believes that PNN is not willing to pay her for her writing because of her conservative viewpoints. I have nothing to do with PNN and know nothing of their interactions, so I can make no assessment of her claim. I'm assuming it's just an odd coincidence that her final communications with them happened as I wrote my article.  I did however, comment on her post that offensive character assassination is unacceptable in a public forum and that this may be why she was not hired, rather than the fact that she is politically conservative. I posted an example of something written that I found offensive.

What ensued was interesting. I was accused of discriminating against her or supporting PNN's discrimination. I was accused of being "bitter". Of having a "vendetta". I'm not even sure what the source of my need to have a vendetta would be. What I am sure of is that people don't understand why I would take the offensive writing so seriously and why I would stand up against it so fervently. So, let's talk about that.

Demonizing people is a danger to democracy. The key to a functioning democracy is the ability to freely express dissent. What we have seen in the past 8 years is how the bullying tactic of accusing people of being un-American caused a relative silence of dissent and allowed Bush and Cheney and Rove and others to lie us into an illegal invasion of a country that we were not prepared to handle, to trample on our civil rights and to allow deregulated financial institutions swindle us out of a functioning economy. We've lost the right to habeus corpus. We've lost the right to keep weapons. (Yes, Bush's directive #51 states that he can determine at any time that you are a threat and he can take away your right to bear arms.) All because, just in the McCarthy era, if you dared to speak out against them they would publicly denigrate your character. They cherry pick information out of context, knowing that most people won't bother to check for misrepresentation and unfairly destroy your credibility. This is a tactic we must be vigilant about. Peace is achieved very differently.

PNN is a public community forum. People from many walks of life and with many different worldviews will be writing their experiences, thoughts and opinions. We each know we aren't going to agree with them all. We might even furiously disagree. You are writing in a open environment, so it is reasonable to expect that people might express their opposing views. Or submit that some of your facts are false. How do we express these without insulting one another, and, moreover with any chance of actually engaging one another for better understanding or the possibility of finding common ground?

I submit that first and foremost we have to understand that disagreeing with an opinion or disputing a fact is not an attack on the person. We must be able to differentiate criticizing an idea, an act or an expression from criticizing, or judging, the human being behind them. We know this when we are raising a child. When that child "steals" a toy from a friend, we correct the behavior, we teach them why it is not acceptable. We don't then define them as theives unworthy of their place in the household. We know that the lesson may need to be repeated and we lovingly stick with it. We need to do this with each other as adults, too. I'm not saying to treat each other like children, I'm saying we need to remember to embrace the person even when we reject actions or expressions. What's the alternative? We turn our backs on one another? What kind of society is that?

I am suggesting that in order to communicate with someone you need to assume the best about them rather than the worst. Assume there is misunderstanding or something you haven't considered. You aren't giving up your perspective or your point by doing this. You are simply staying open to the idea that the other person's point may be valid, too. None of us is privy to the whole, absolute truth of anything. As Gandhi put it, the truth is a many-faceted diamond and no-one can see into all the facets at one time. If you are to work together to build peaceful society, you must assume that the other person is looking into a facet you can't see into right now. It is a gift.

This may all seem impossible when discussing something that seems important to you and you feel frustrated that others aren't seeing things your way. Again, it's only human to be limited and to have emotions. If you can continue to remind yourself that the other person is just looking into another facet of the diamond, you can at least keep talking. Not necessarily to come to agreement, but to at least come to mutual respect.

So, how do we distinguish a dissent from an attack:

      Dissent: I disagree about the color blue, I find it unattractive.
      Attack: You're stupid for liking the color blue, it's an unattractive color.

Which is more likely to encourage you to remain amicable? The response to the dissent might be, "hey, then you can wear all the blue shirts." The response to the attack might be, "Don't call me stupid, asshole."

This is a learned technique for most of us. It certainly wasn't modeled for me in my childhood. It has to become a practice. (which means you'll make mistakes and have to ask for do-overs and keep on practicing) You have to make a commitment to it. It is a commitment to peaceful communication. Peaceful communications are the only chance for a peaceful society. You really can't fight your way to peace.

To tie this to the dialog where I was accused of discrimination, I will point out that I was not criticzing the woman who wrote the offensive words. Nor was I claiming that she should not be allowed to express her conservative political view. I do object strenuosly to her labeling anyone who disagreed with her assessment of Sarah Palin as anti-American, faithless or rotten. How does one defend this as civil dialog? I see no place for that kind of vitriol in a public forum. It is destructive and hurtful and disrespectful. I am not saying that the author is destructive and hurtful. Her words are. If she can express her opinion about Sarah Palin without insulting others, or inquire as to why others don't support Sarah Palin without insulting them, I might disagree but I wouldn't object to her stating them.

I also accept that she can write whatever information she wants about, say, Barack Obama. If I know that information to be false, particularly when multiple fact-checking sources have confirmed it to be false, I will exercise my right to dispute her facts. Again, i am disputing the facts. Not her as a person. I would expect that I not be insulted or accused of dark motivations for having done so. Research it yourself and find references that contradict me, that's fine. But don't call me an idiot. Because then I'll object to your personal attack on top of disputing the erroneous information. All without having a single bad thought about you as a person. All in the spirit of peaceful communication.

At some point, we can agree to disagree. Or we can keep on talking and see where it goes. Persistence is often necessary to bring disputes to resolution. Who knows, somewhere down the line, we might find the formula for world peace, or maybe just the recipe for the most awesome chocolate cake on Earth. Either way, no one gets attacked and we're all safe to express ourselves.