Very well said Jane. :)
><< 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
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
