In a message dated 3/5/99 6:51:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< To take the metaphor
one step further, can we put our heads together and figure out some way to
"inoculate" our list? >>
Dear Elizabeth,
What interests me is that these flame-throwing debates (I've witnessed
3-christianity, vegans, and race) all play out in the same way, regardless of
content. They are all micro versions of how war develops. To wit: 1. Someone
expresses a passionate opinion. 2. They are viciously and sneeringly
critiqued and told they are illogical. 3. They respond in kind, attacking
their attacker's own logic. 4. Their authenticity and right to speak is
questioned; they are cast as "outsiders" or destroyers. 5. People are asked
to choose sides, to defend one or the other of the disputants. And so on and
on and on.
If the goal is to prevent war, and mine is, what options do we have? We've
seen people attempt an intervention, asking for some cooling off. We have
asked for the discussions to go off-line. Ignoring it. Dropping out.
Nothing works, the escalation just continues, and the interveners are told
they are imbeciles who can't see the real picture.
I suggest we all agree that passionate beliefs are sometimes going to be
expressed passionately and, instead of casting ourselves in the role of
wounded defenders of our "homeland," or moral stance, realize, with some
objectivity, that we are, after all, only an exchange of opinions, and that
any such exchange will die as surely from lack of diversity as it will from
all-out warfare. It is not taking the high road to simply spew what is
"right" about something in a debate, but also necessary to ensure that one's
tone and vocabulary serves the larger purpose of keeping the debate open. We
need to find common ground and explore the options that presents, not "expose"
others as "enemies," and go to battle. What ecofeminist agenda is served by
escalating the mud-slinging? I lose the points in these arguments, buried as
they are under the arrows. Remember that, in writing, venom speaks more
loudly than reason or compassion, but the only point it gets across is its own
hatred.
The underlying lesson is lost.
If we can honestly assess where we have contributed more to destruction than
peace-making, and try, in thefuture, a different tack, we will, I hope,
occasionally be able to debate passionately and freely without all the name-
calling. I don't mind that people feel strongly enough about something to
express anger about it, but there are ways to do this that aren't attempts to
"pull down" the other. If we can't learn this, then neither can the rest of
the world, and we can look forward to eternally escalating wars of every kind.
Love, Jane
