This will work with some, but not all people. The person has to engage in good faith. It wouldn’t have worked with my former MAGA friend. I repeatedly tried to engage with him about underlying values he held (some of which we may have had in common) but he would rarely go there, even with me, whom he trusted with many other life topics. If the person continually tries to evade honest good faith dialogue, it’s time to walk away.
Hi Nancy, I know you've struggled with this and it's caused you pain. I appreciate your continuing to engage with the ideas behind work, even when you feel frustrated by the challenges.
From what you've shared with us in the past in other posts, at the very least it sounds you at least wanted to maintain a connection with your friend, and if so--even if you end up avoiding politics--that's positive and productive (if frustrating). I'll be writing more this week about the different effects this work can have, and how sometimes--especially right now--just remaining friends with someone can go a long way towards lowering the polarization and possible dehumanization.
Maybe that's something you can do, maybe not at this time. As we always say, you have to do what feels right and safe for you, first and foremost--take care of yourself and your boundaries. Are you still talking at all with your friend, or have you hit pause on that or backed away?
Either way, thank you so much for being open and honest about the challenges.
Hi Momma Nancy, you’re right. Nothing will work with everyone. What we teach are strategies that have proven to have the highest likelihood of working for the greatest number of people.
Gary, you say that in your life you’ve never seen improvements initiated by the government. I disagree with that greatly, but regardless, HARM is being done by the government now. And my friend voted for all that harm happening to me and people I cared and was gleeful in his denial that it was happening. When the harms escalated after Trump’s inauguration, and started happening to me and people close to me, I realized that we had fundamentally different values. It took harmful conditions to reveal this. So no, it wasn’t just about Democrats vs. Republicans. That’s a piece of cake. This was about empathy and compassion. I’m not going to share hopes and dreams with someone who doesn’t share those with me.
I think speaking ill of the dead won't help, and this will he seen as that. Perhaps it's better to let this blow over and just listen without trying to manipulate.
Hi Gary, you feel that what I laid about above is "speaking ill of the dead?" How so?
My intent with the piece was to help steer progressives away from that and towards listening and understanding Kirk supporters. You keep saying "manipulate," but what I'm encouraging right now is talking and listening. I will always encourage that, at all times, on every topic, around every event.
That said, given how propagandized Kirk's murder has become on the Right, I do believe it's a legitimate time to actually have respectful conversations with Trump and Kirk supporters. Not to attack Kirk, but to open or maintain communication and understanding on both sides around a very shocking and provocative crisis, and to work together to lower the rhetoric and prevent cycles of political violence.
I believe now is exactly the time to talk about it.
Correct, given the political nature of the assasination my feeling is that non-progressives will see any attempt to inject more politics as an affront.
Folks are grieving now, and no matter how you feel about this as an opportunity to convert them to a more progressive agenda, I do not think it will be seen in a good light to further mention the progressive stance that many feel is responsible for the bloodshed.
Again, it's not how you feel, it's how they feel. Rational conversation is understandably not appropriate. Only support is in order. Support your human brethren in a human way.
I think the golden rule should be in effect, treat others as you would want them to treat you. Think about how you would like a non-progressive to approach you if a progressive icon was assassinated and act in reverse. What would you want from them if the roles were reversed?
Regarding "How can you and I actually lower the temperature?", what if the answer is (sardonic phrasing, but the issue is real) "You must unfailingly denounce any liberal anywhere who ever insinuates that any right-winger is racist, sexist, etc, and agree that right-wingers have been grievously injured by liberals who should grovel and admit they were deliberate liars about Covid and vaccines and also grant that Trump won the 2020 election which was stolen by liberals [on and on] ..."
If that's too broad, consider the specific efforts to whitewash what Charlie Kirk actually believed. The above is a trap, where one either has to go along with the PR campaign, or is a bad bad person for speaking ill of the dead.
This is an excellent article. We need more concrete tools for practicing nonviolence and this Substack provides it. Thank you , thank you!!
This will work with some, but not all people. The person has to engage in good faith. It wouldn’t have worked with my former MAGA friend. I repeatedly tried to engage with him about underlying values he held (some of which we may have had in common) but he would rarely go there, even with me, whom he trusted with many other life topics. If the person continually tries to evade honest good faith dialogue, it’s time to walk away.
Hi Nancy, I know you've struggled with this and it's caused you pain. I appreciate your continuing to engage with the ideas behind work, even when you feel frustrated by the challenges.
From what you've shared with us in the past in other posts, at the very least it sounds you at least wanted to maintain a connection with your friend, and if so--even if you end up avoiding politics--that's positive and productive (if frustrating). I'll be writing more this week about the different effects this work can have, and how sometimes--especially right now--just remaining friends with someone can go a long way towards lowering the polarization and possible dehumanization.
Maybe that's something you can do, maybe not at this time. As we always say, you have to do what feels right and safe for you, first and foremost--take care of yourself and your boundaries. Are you still talking at all with your friend, or have you hit pause on that or backed away?
Either way, thank you so much for being open and honest about the challenges.
Hi Momma Nancy, you’re right. Nothing will work with everyone. What we teach are strategies that have proven to have the highest likelihood of working for the greatest number of people.
Nancy, it seems you are saying you lost a friend over politics ("former MAGA friend").
If so, I'm sorry for you. I can't imagine why politics would be more important than friendship.
In my life, I haven't seen any real improvements initiated through the government. Important things are almost always done in the private sector.
And the challenges I see are also primarily in private businesses. Regulatory and congressional capture are the main issues to me.
I do not think those captured by corporations can fix corporate capture. It makes little sense to think the captured can uncapture themselves.
I'm not saying its hopeless, but business as usual in DC needs to be ousted for all of our good and frankly that isn't likely to happen.
Still though, there remains nothing more important than family and friends. Politics is way down the list.
Gary, you say that in your life you’ve never seen improvements initiated by the government. I disagree with that greatly, but regardless, HARM is being done by the government now. And my friend voted for all that harm happening to me and people I cared and was gleeful in his denial that it was happening. When the harms escalated after Trump’s inauguration, and started happening to me and people close to me, I realized that we had fundamentally different values. It took harmful conditions to reveal this. So no, it wasn’t just about Democrats vs. Republicans. That’s a piece of cake. This was about empathy and compassion. I’m not going to share hopes and dreams with someone who doesn’t share those with me.
I think speaking ill of the dead won't help, and this will he seen as that. Perhaps it's better to let this blow over and just listen without trying to manipulate.
Hi Gary, you feel that what I laid about above is "speaking ill of the dead?" How so?
My intent with the piece was to help steer progressives away from that and towards listening and understanding Kirk supporters. You keep saying "manipulate," but what I'm encouraging right now is talking and listening. I will always encourage that, at all times, on every topic, around every event.
That said, given how propagandized Kirk's murder has become on the Right, I do believe it's a legitimate time to actually have respectful conversations with Trump and Kirk supporters. Not to attack Kirk, but to open or maintain communication and understanding on both sides around a very shocking and provocative crisis, and to work together to lower the rhetoric and prevent cycles of political violence.
I believe now is exactly the time to talk about it.
To be fair, you did say "this will be seen as" "speaking ill of the dead," presumably by Kirk supporters. I see the distinction now.
However, for me that's all the more reason to talk now with them.
Correct, given the political nature of the assasination my feeling is that non-progressives will see any attempt to inject more politics as an affront.
Folks are grieving now, and no matter how you feel about this as an opportunity to convert them to a more progressive agenda, I do not think it will be seen in a good light to further mention the progressive stance that many feel is responsible for the bloodshed.
Again, it's not how you feel, it's how they feel. Rational conversation is understandably not appropriate. Only support is in order. Support your human brethren in a human way.
I think the golden rule should be in effect, treat others as you would want them to treat you. Think about how you would like a non-progressive to approach you if a progressive icon was assassinated and act in reverse. What would you want from them if the roles were reversed?
This is not an opportunity to proselytize IMHO.
Regarding "How can you and I actually lower the temperature?", what if the answer is (sardonic phrasing, but the issue is real) "You must unfailingly denounce any liberal anywhere who ever insinuates that any right-winger is racist, sexist, etc, and agree that right-wingers have been grievously injured by liberals who should grovel and admit they were deliberate liars about Covid and vaccines and also grant that Trump won the 2020 election which was stolen by liberals [on and on] ..."
If that's too broad, consider the specific efforts to whitewash what Charlie Kirk actually believed. The above is a trap, where one either has to go along with the PR campaign, or is a bad bad person for speaking ill of the dead.
Randomly or selectively get people off of social media?
If selectively, what selection criteria? Are you suggesting a limit on a user's feed or the number of posts they can make?
This might make sense if one sees social media as a threat to society (and for which it seems to have been shown true for some subgroups).
Well, that ain't gonna happen, so there's that, but I hear you about the ills of social media.