Civil Conversations Project
Aug. 18th, 2013 08:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
You are not the only one who wishes that we could just be decent and human to each other, even when we disagree. This is an idea that I hold deeply, a value that I work toward. It does not matter if we don't see eye to eye, what matters is that we are human with common needs and feelings. What matters is that if we are willing to treat each other with respect, we can reach compromises and understandings that serve us all better than perpetual shouting matches and hateful standoffs.
I just heard someone speak on this subject on NPR, and found this link to several other speakers. This is good stuff: http://www.onbeing.org/project/civil-conversations-project/1960
I just heard someone speak on this subject on NPR, and found this link to several other speakers. This is good stuff: http://www.onbeing.org/project/civil-conversations-project/1960
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 04:27 am (UTC)Let's hind-cast 150 years or so. How easy do you imagine it was for the abolitionists to see pro slavery advocates as "decent and human"? That was the debate at that time, and it was in roughly the same place as "same-sex marriage" is today. with enough people won over to the "new way" to swing several states, but enough hold-outs to keep it from being universally adopted.
What makes things so much more nasty these days is the sheer *number* of issues that have risen to that level, and the bifurcation of the issues. It's all too easy to see someone opposed to (say) SSM, and to assume that they are creationist, AGW denying, anti-abortion, pro-war, anti-welfare type. All that *may* be true, or it may not. They *may* have reasonable arguments, or they may not. But how many times does a person need to have the conversation before they can expect a similar result?
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 11:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 03:49 pm (UTC)