How should we dialogue?

[andrewlittle]

Especially during, but certainly not limited to, Equality Ride events, we get many kinds of visitors, new members and temporary posters entering through the virtual doors of Soulforce. As we each strive to reach out and dialogue, certain kinds of approach or verbal behavior, however, trigger emotional and vociferous responses. This is not just limited to the longer-term constituents, but also the guest can feel overwhelmed and out-gunned by large numbers of responses taking a variety of stands or approaches on an equally large number of issues. Our guest, then, can feel damaged by us, if care isn’t taken.

Considering most of see a distinct benefit in entering into dialogue about the issues, tempered with the fact that rarely is an argument developed that we have not heard a zillion times before (okay, slight exaggeration), how do we encourage discussion and avoid getting hurt or hurting others in the process?

Now, don’t get me wrong here – I have a long way to go to be the pacifist I’d like to be, so I am not concerned about avoiding conflict. But, I think it seems appropriate to most that conflict, when it is present, be used for growth and positive outcomes for each of the participants. How can we use that possible conflict to explore issues together and gather more complete understanding of perspectives?

We know the basic rules – or should – but what are other ways we can engage without overpowering or opening ourselves up to continued emotional damage or pain, using the tools (Private Messaging, for example) that already exist. Face it, there’s not much time to invent new tools and we have a good number of well-thought out tools already, as well three articulate, concerned, passionate moderators to boot. (I will accept no comments about toadying to authority.)

This is an issue that is being discussed widely, if I’m not mistaken, in PM. How about we accumulate out thoughts and expertise in this thread.

Please keep in mind, I am inquiring about solutions – not inviting a running commentary on the evils of anyone in particular or any group in general.

While you’re at it, I can always use feedback on my approaches to newcomers. I’m thick-skinned, as well as quite able to pout by myself if I feel assaulted (which is now highly unlikely, BTW).

[scott snedeker]

I Encourage phrasing opinions as just that. When a new poster says: "homosexuals must repent"

Instead of bashing perhaps we could advise them that they phrase the same opinion as one if they want to dialogue. For example: "I have always felt that homosexuals should repent"

This begs dialogue and is not overbearing. It could be considered a forum etiquette. In fact we could start out saying that this is forum etiquette to phrase sensitive issues this way.

[BenL]

Instead of bashing perhaps we could advise them that they phrase the same opinion as one if they want to dialogue. For example: "I have always felt that homosexuals should repent"

I think that "I" statements are extremely important in these kinds of conversations. They show ownership. More important for the conversation, "I statements" invite others to state their opinions. What needs to be avoided are absolutes that condemn or belittle. This is true of all participants.

Unlike Andy, I shy away from confrontation. So I don't often weigh in on the kinds of debates that may occur. I'm perfectly willing to talk about my own experience. I'm wary about telling people what they ought to do.

BenL

[Daniel]

Andy- thanks for starting this thread. It gives me an opportunity to articulate some of the thoughts that have been going through my head the last few days, thoughts that have arisen, not only as a result of recent events, but also my time spent here posting. I joined this forum almost a year ago- on March 13, 2006- and have made a large number of posts since then. So the time seems right for a look back and a bit of reflection.

Boy....have I gotten into some tussles. Two people in particular really set my hair on fire. I was a man with a mission. My mistake, I believe, was in assigning myself a role and rushing in 'where angels fear to tread'. Looking back, I would have waited before posting. And when things got heated, I could have let things cool off before responding further. This has lead me to think about making a few rules for myself.

Rule # 1: Post only when you have achieved a measure of calm. Don't post when you are angry Mr. Know-it-all. And remember that a soft answer does indeed turn away wrath.

My other mistake? Thinking that I knew what the other person was saying when they weren't exactly saying it.

Rule #2: Patience Mr. Hasty. Don't jump the gun. Let people tell you who they are- don't decide for them. Follow the steps of nonviolence, the first of which is gathering information. This means asking questions, not making pronouncements.

Rule #3: Daniel darling....listen to me very carefully now....You don't have to be right. Really. You don't. Having to be right is all about fear. Practice that compassion stuff you are always blah blah blahing about. You know the drill. Practice makes permanent. And I'm not talking about hair silly- you lateral thinker you. Oh....yeah...on that score...you're older now....better keep it short.

[andrewlittle]

There's something that represents a very simple first step in the responses so far. I have another thought I'd like to share, before making a follow-up suggestion to those, however. Ths is a long-winded post - what a surprise, eh?

In a conversation with a good friend the other day, he reminded me of the "less anxious presence" concept from Family Systems Theory.

Basically, for those unfamiliar, every human structure can be likended to a family. Within families there is a tendency towards homeostasis - to stay at the level of internal stress (somewhere on the spectrum from 0 to 10, let's say) that has become the norm for that family.

The Soulforce family has a level of stress that is "normal" for it. When internal disagreements push the stress level beyond that point I, for one, have noticed a shift in dynamic - some people become symptomatic and experience heightened anxiety even if they are not directly involved. The more the participants are considered "leaders" (FST describes them as parent-like), the more symptoms will be experienced.

Likewise, when the system becomes too quiet, and hence a little uncomfortable, a post will appear aimed at generating interest or advocacy, or in some other way bring the stress level back to normal.

That's how families work - seeking to maintain the familial equilibrium.

When outside pressures occur to a family, the system reacts differently. Almost everyone becomes symptomatic, and sometimes the differing reactions lead to conflict internally as well as with the outside force. This is, I think, a reasonable description of the phenomenum we experience when the E-Riders are out in the world. The internal dynamics change with an influx of new members, guests and posters.

In a family situation that needs counseling, the work is best begun with the least symptomatic family member. And the counselor is supposed to represent a non-anxious presence to the family and individual been counseled.

In the case of group dynamics, counseling isn't, of course, the issue. It is more a matter of how to deal with the external force and keep the internal dynamics within a comfortable range. Considering that Soulforce's new voices may be suffering heightened anxiety anyway, due to a variety of reasons, I think this becomes even more critical.

Depending on the nature of the new post - what aspects of the issues they may be confronting (if, in fact, confrontation occurs) - different people within Soulforce may be better suited to addressing the poster. This would take some networking to figure out.

Two groups become important.

First, there needs to be a non-anxious presence - the person(s) capable of watching, listening, observing in an almost detached manner. This(these) people may not do a lot of responding - just interacting primarily with the people who are addressing the new posts. Ordinarily, I would say that the moderators fill this role - but, when tensions are increased, how do people who are passionately and personally involved in the issues remain non-anxious?

One solution might be for the moderators to select some people who have shown an ability to be detached and remain very even in times of strife to act as interpretors/consultants. The onus on the moderators of superhumanly detaching themselves from the arguments is then removed - or at least mitigated. I am sure it is lost on no-one that I, andrewlittle, in no way, shape or form qualify for this kind of role - remember, my problem is that I am not inherently nice.

Secondly, the direct responders also need to be able to engage appropriately. Rather than being non-anxious, these people have to remain less-anxious than the other participants - especially the new posters. By remaining less-anxious, there will be a reduced likelihood of responding as if the poster was an intruder. When an anxious poster is faced with equally anxious response, anxiety all the way around increases.

If the new poster is a low anxiety, high logic type of person, the respondent(s) needs to be lower anxiety, logical and able to bring in some elements of relational and emotional issues. E.g. In a recent situation, I think I responded to a low anxiety, high logic person in equally low anxiety, but also in equally logical fashion. The result was anything but engaging. If I had been more relational and less logical, the outcome may have been better. In an even earlier occurence, I engaged with a higher anxiety person by being highly emotive. Bingo, that didn't work either. Anxiety just increased to the point of combustion.

Networking needs to occur to help select the various likely respondents to new posters, depending on the characteristics of the new person. The respondent has to be lower anxiety, but also should be a little different in their approach than the poster. Other people who wish to be heard could funnel their ideas or suggestions through the respondent(s), at least until the point where the plan doesn't appear to be working.

I don't know that there is the time or the inclination to brainstorm the who's and how's of this approach, but the results could prove to be more beneficial, I think. First, it would take some discussion about whether this idea has any merit, before deciding if it is even workable. Let's face it, I've been full of shit before, this could be a repeat.

Please tell me what you think, so far.

I will offer a different suggestion in another post, based on the first two responses above.

[andrewlittle]

The first three responses (sorry, Daniel, we were writing at the same time) dealt with attitudes, decorum, manners or etiquette for posting. I think they were the beginning of something very good. I know we have rules of engagement, but they are not to be found within the various forum divisions.

Since we have those sticky-post thingees (sorry for the technical jargon) that stay at the top of a forum listing, could someone develop a list of simple etiquette reminders including simple things like what was posted by Scott, Ben and Daniel? It could function as a reminder for all of us - but also provide a simple means of showing people, "Look, if you post like this you can expect this kind of response." "If you want a different kind of response, post opinions this way."

If the posters, me included, then fail to follow some simple manners - well, that's why they make howitzers (I may be able to function in THAT capacity).

[WillySF]

I am new here, but from what I have read so far I must say I am quite impressed. You folk not only are an intelligent lot, you are also compassionate and self-critical. I'm glad I stumbled in here and I hope to stay awhile.

Daniel, I especially like what you wrote. Those are fantastic guidelines – and not just for these boards, but for all those moments in life where we can choose to be silent or simply not react to a given event. I hope you don't mind if I copy them and read them from time to time.

[u-dog]

I was the good friend who triggered Andy's thinking about family systems, though I could never in a million years have produced so cogent a synopsis of it ! (Nice work Andy!)

I agree with 95% of What Andy is suggesting but am dubious about the workability of "designated responders". Its too cumbersome I think. But what if we had some "Designated Anxiety Coaches" in our midst? A few gentle souls (Zerbie comes to mind as an example) who could, with our expressed permission, coach us back channel (through PM) about how we are coming across. They could alert us when our tone is getting a little shrill or when we have missed the point that the poster is trying to make. We would promise (cross our hearts and hope to die) that we won't get defensive with our coaches but simply take their words under advisement and be more careful in future.

Dave

[andrewlittle]

I was the good friend who triggered Andy's thinking about family systems, though I could never in a million years have produced so cogent a synopsis of it ! (Nice work Andy!)

Dave, are you feeling okay? That was a public compliment, and search though I might, I can't find the other shoe that will drop any moment. But, that synopsis came as a result of the interminable brow-beating you gave me a few days ago. There, that feels more normal.

I agree with 95% of What Andy is suggesting but am dubious about the workability of "designated responders". Its too cumbersome I think. But what if we had some "Designated Anxiety Coaches" in our midst? A few gentle souls (Zerbie comes to mind as an example) who could, with our expressed permission, coach us back channel (through PM) about how we are coming across. They could alert us when our tone is getting a little shrill or when we have missed the point that the poster is trying to make. We would promise (cross our hearts and hope to die) that we won't get defensive with our coaches but simply take their words under advisement and be more careful in future.

Dave

Much, much easier to arrange in the short run. Very nice. And, isn't it amazing that Zerbie's name always comes up when one thinks of "gentle soul"? (I want to be like her when I grow up.) I think you have the percentage backwards, this improves the workability by 95% - it helps move it from being cumbersome to seemingly quite easy.

The Anxiety Coaches could actually, then function to help both respondents and moderators - they would be the ears of reason and help us see ourselves and our posts through different eyes. The moderators, of course, still have the uncomfortable responsibility of calling us to task when we go off the deep end, and deciding when it's time to pull the plug on a particularly vociferous or nasty guest.

I think a modification of Diane's idea - different forums for different type - may be workable to, except in Coaches. The Coaches could be from different faiths/levels of tradition or conservatism. It would provide for a wider range of interpretation.

[Zerbie]

isn't it amazing that Zerbie's name always comes up when one thinks of "gentle soul"? (I want to be like her when I grow up.) I think you have the percentage backwards, this improves the workability by 95% - it helps move it from being cumbersome to seemingly quite easy.

The Anxiety Coaches could actually, then function to help both respondents and moderators - they would be the ears of reason and help us see ourselves and our posts through different eyes. The moderators, of course, still have the uncomfortable responsibility of calling us to task when we go off the deep end, and deciding when it's time to pull the plug on a particularly vociferous or nasty guest.

n.

Awwwwwww, Andy, Dave . . . .:love: :love: :love: :love:
Waita minute - have I just been elected to an Unofficial Official Office? :p

Willy aka Geoff: Me too, I adore Daniel's post. :D Heck, I adore Daniel. :love:



Now back to task:

For my part, I try to adhere to one rule whereby if I have nothing but angry things to say I don't post. Operative word being 'try.' We all have varying threshholds about what we can and cannot gracefully handle when chatting on these fora. I crossed mine a few times and each time I experienced myself as being so right and so righteous I had a right to blast in with both barrels, and of course it put the other poster on the defensive. In other words, it didn't work.

What we require of ourselves then, is the self-awareness of where our threshhold is so that we don't cross it. If a post bothers me so much that I can't write back anything but "**** you, you ****" or in so many words the equivalent, then it is up to someone ELSE to respond, someone who is not equally triggered. I must step back. There is always someone who can deal with the grievance more calmly and effectively if I step back.

Why don't we agree out loud to do what we do most of the time, which is refrain from engagement when we are triggered, and if we see that someone else is triggered, step in to mediate things back to a less volatile conversation style. (?) It takes awareness to note when you're the one who needs to step in or the one who needs to step back. We need to practice being aware of ourselves internally AND relationally.

Before I sign off: Andrew I loved your analogy to family systems. I'm not family with family therapy and now I want to look into it more (could help me get along better with my parents.;) )

But Andy, I think perhaps what you're really saying is that we all need counseling. Yep. :agree: I can see it already, "Well, Doctor, y'see, there's this *website. . . * :lol:

[andrewlittle]

But Andy, I think perhaps what you're really saying is that we all need counseling. Yep. :agree: I can see it already, "Well, Doctor, y'see, there's this *website. . . * :lol:


Well, Zerbie, I'm not really saying all of us. I have made friends with my psychoses (each and very one), and I relate well with every one of the people that reside in my head. They're really quite charming, in a slobbering barbarian kind of way, once you get to know them.

But, then, perhaps you're correct for all you mono-personality types. I mean, if I didn't have all this fine company with me wherever I go, I'd really be quite lonely and lost - I never have to play by myself.

[tdogg]

Great ideas everyone. I especially love Daniel's 'rules', they are simple and clear, and a great start to personal dialogueing. Andrew, what you say makes total sense to me, you are definitely not full of..well..you know...

I've found on these forums, we have natural 'moderators' who will respond to posts from SF regulars, kindly admonishing us to be kinder. Rarely will a thread get too carried away without those showing up and adding to the conversation. Not everyone listens, but I think most of us come away with some thoughtfulness of our own shortcomings and the wisdom of either not posting, putting more thought into it, and adding anything else with more compassion.

I'm not sure it's practical to oversee what each poster is doing, other than the controls already in place. We are all learning and gaining wisdom and insight here - even at times when I've posted things I later wish hadn't, it's been a learning experience for me. It makes me do more thinking well before deciding to put words on a public forum. Often that thinking leads to no posting.

Anyway, all good thoughts, but I really think we have a pretty good system going and are good at self-moderating for the most part. We aren't perfect, but that's part of what makes it interesting and relevant.

[andrewlittle]

From http://www.soulforce.org/article/1100:
The Equality Ride is two months of sustained activism inspired by the Freedom Rides of the civil rights era. It is a journey by bus to initiate discussion about faith and sexuality in communities where it is most controversial... Honest exchange around these topics, which belongs at academic institutions, creates a mutual learning experience that breeds genuine understanding.

The dialogue fostered during the Equality Ride, while scripturally focused, is very much about faith itself. This nation's history is punctuated by hateful acts of violence and pandemic oppression. However, there is a reciprocal legacy of truth seekers and peace keepers.

The Equality Ride is love in action, movement towards reconciliation. Candid testimony softens hearts. Humble words change guarded minds. And audacious young activists humanize an abstract issue. The Ride exemplifies a spirit of change that is long overdue.

Homophobia is globally pervasive, and no community or school escapes its reach. The route has less to do with specific priority and everything to do with the urgency of this conversation.

This year, the journey continues with fifty-seven young adults going to thirty-two Christian colleges and universities.

Fifty-seven young, and not so young, people are investing 2 months each (collectively, that's almost 10 years of personal investment in activism), plus innumerable hours of planning and preparation, to bring about this conversation.

I couldn't be one of them. Most of us could not be with them. But, we are with them if we further THEIR goals and vision as demonstrated in their accumulated investment of almost 10 years worth of effort - if we invest a little time to make sure people who come to this site are engaged - not just enraged.

The other side of Family Systems is that an external force (visiting poster) will gravitate towards the most anxious person(s). The most emotive will attract the subsequent posts, which many times will just become more emotionally charged and unfruitful.

I was interested in making sure I could do all I could to further the efforts of these "audacious" activists, especially after several PM's from members who were a little disturbed by some new poster's reception. I thought it might we worth a little effort on our part to examine the way in which people are engaged.

It appears that it may not be necessary. We may be doing quite well, I guess. I wonder if some of the new guests and lurkers, and the young people working so hard on the buses, would agree.

I know certain other people within the Soulforce forums do not - some are concerned that at least one guest was "chased" off, and that could be witnessed by many lurkers. But, maybe now is the time for them to step forward themselves and be heard. Possibly it was arrogant on my part to try to resolve this issue for them - and to try to do it in a gentle fashion. How about it, folks, are you willing to state your opinions? If not, perhaps the issue should just be dropped.

Thanks for participating, all of you.

[Daniel]

Andy-

I've found this to be a very fruitful discussion, It's not always that a group of people, or an organization, takes a good look at itself in a cool (and by that I mean objective) way, the aim being the well-being of everyone involved.

Thank you for seeing the need for this discussion.

I would like to second Zerbie's thoughts on awareness. For me, it really is about having the presence of mind to listen to each other, just like a choir that is singing Gregorian Chant does, which, when it is well-versed in its universe of melody, has no need for a conductor. When the listening gets refined, everyone breaths and sings together. There's no forcing. There's nothing to do but sustain the unison- the point being to revel in community and lift each other up. Some people absolutely hate this kind of singing. But I like the analogy it elicits. If you've ever tried to do it, you know what I mean. It makes one 'focus' big time.

I think there is something else to keep in mind here, and that is, before we can successfully 'sing along' with others, we need to listen to our own 'voices, both for motivation and message. The two are sometimes in conflict, which make for confusion rather than clarity. The words may all be 'nice', but the 'tone' all wrong.

A subtle thing to be sure, but once one's ear becomes attuned to such things, everything goes better.

This has a practical side- something I learned from a writing class- which is this:

Read your post out loud before you click Submit Reply.

Yeah....this can be annoying and induce a fit of self-consciousness- but that's the whole point. One immediately 'gets' one's tone of voice. ;)

[Daniel]

This story came in a 'daily emo' from Rev. Barbara Crafton, I thought it applied to the discussion.

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked, "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

[WillySF]

Right On!

Don't feed the mean wolf, he'll come after you next!

[Joe Brummer]

Daniel,
I have used that story dozens of times, even today when I met with a Sunday School for Young Jewish Teens who have been doing a 4 week training in nonviolence. We discussed what violence is and and how it is fed. I used this story then.

To all of us,
I would hope that we could remember MLK's steps of nonviolence when we dialogue with others.

1. Gather information
2. Educate about all sides of the issue
3. Self-commitment to the cause
4. Negotiate for a win win answer to the question (conflict)
5. Direct Action (when negotiations fail, direct action is necessary)
6. Reconciliation. (the goal of nonviolence is the Beloved Community)

[tdogg]

One thing that has really touched me, mainly through posts by Joe and Daniel, is to approach something that may offend me or I may vehemently disagree with, and instead of reacting with/to my emotions, try to see what to say to get more information (the researching part). Now, I'm not saying I'm great at this and do it all the time. But I think about it more and more. Hopefully it will begin to be more than thought and become a natural pro-active way to approach what is to me negativism (gosh is that a word?). So, if I find someone's posts to be offense to me, make me angry, or pull enough emotion out of me, to make me feel I must respond - my hopes are to strive to approach it by requesting more information from that poster, so I can see where they are coming from and give me more information. Which I think would enable me to not only take a time out, but to respond intelligently and compassionately.

In a perfect world of course I would do this all the time. It's definitely something that's heavy on my mind and I'm trying to practice.

[Diane Vera]

Fifty-seven young, and not so young, people are investing 2 months each (collectively, that's almost 10 years of personal investment in activism), plus innumerable hours of planning and preparation, to bring about this conversation.

I couldn't be one of them. Most of us could not be with them. But, we are with them if we further THEIR goals and vision as demonstrated in their accumulated investment of almost 10 years worth of effort - if we invest a little time to make sure people who come to this site are engaged - not just enraged.

The other side of Family Systems is that an external force (visiting poster) will gravitate towards the most anxious person(s). The most emotive will attract the subsequent posts, which many times will just become more emotionally charged and unfruitful.

I was interested in making sure I could do all I could to further the efforts of these "audacious" activists, especially after several PM's from members who were a little disturbed by some new poster's reception. I thought it might we worth a little effort on our part to examine the way in which people are engaged.

I totally agree with this. Inevitably this forum will attract visitors from the colleges that have been visited by the ERiders. These visitors will inevitably have a wide variety of attitudes, ranging from enthusiastic agreement to a blind parroting of typical fundie attitudes.

The big challenge is to avoid losing one's temper when dealing with the latter. And, apparently, for some people here, an even bigger challenge is to avoid losing their temper at people who basically agree with what Soulforce is doing, but who have some disagreements over strategy.

To complicate matters, quite a few people here seem to want this forum to be a "safe space," a haven away from homophobia -- and, for some Soulforce members, a haven away even from people who are basically on Soulforce's side but have some relatively minor disagreements with what the ERiders are doing.

But how can this forum be both a "safe space" and a place to dialog productively with our enemies? It can't . These two goals are mutually exclusive, it seems to me.

That's why, in another thread, I suggested sub-forums with different rules. That way, for example, any visiting homophotic fundies can be confined to a particular sub-forum, where those who are emotionally prepared to confront them in accordance with the principles of nonviolence can do so, while others can be spared the pain of having to encounter them on this board at all.

Otherwise, the only other two alternatives, it seems to me, are to (1) ban the homophobic fundies from this board completely, or (2) bring them into contact with everyone on this board, including people who will lash out at them in anger. Neither of these two alternatives would constitute a good follow-up to what the ERiders are doing, it seems to me.