Assumptions about other people’s intent
In my experience, when people appear to be causing problems or disagreements:
- Typically, they’re trying to be helpful, even if doesn't seem that way. (For example, when my Mom asks for the nth if I’ve met someone nice.) When I’ve ruled that out…
- Typically, the remaining people are just plain oblivious to their actions. (For example, as my friends well know, I’m prone to pontificate on things I’m really interested. I just get on a roll and fail to notice the eyes glazing over.) When I’ve ruled that out…
- Typically, the remaining people may just have goals at that are in opposition to mine. They’re opponents, but ones who aren’t acting out of malice. (For example, when haggling with the auto dealer over buying a car.) When I’ve ruled that out…
- Then, and only, then is it a safe bet that someone’s acting antagonistically.
This process doesn’t require Mother Theresa-esque patience — usually you can assess this quite quickly. But it’s important because each case is best handled by difference responses.
In personal life, oblivious is often the easiest to deal with. Gently point out what’s going and people are often mortified and stop/change what they were doing. In spaces like this one, it’s a thornier problem, since often the oblivious actions are tied to someone’s obliviousness about their privilege – and people often get pretty defensive when they privilege is pointed out.
(For what it’s worth, having “privilege” doesn’t mean that you’re a bad pa bad person, or that you’re actively engaged in oppressing others, it just means you’ve benefitted from outside forces. For example, among my privileges, I had a proverbial rich aunt leave me some inheritance money that allowed me to go back college and change careers. Did I work my ass off in college and in my new career? You bet. But the fact of the matter is that the opportunities that I was able to make the most of stemmed from that inheritance.)
Dealing with people are trying to be helpful is similar to dealing with oblivious people: point out how what they’re saying/doing is counter-productive from your POV. Though I’ve found it helps a lot to acknowledge their good intent. Is that giving them a cookie? Possibly. But I’ve found people are often more receptive to changing their ways if you do so, and it helps focus both of you on what you want to happen. On the other hand — particularly in activism, and in spaces like this one — you both may discover that your goals aren’t the same. If the goals are opposed, then you’re in a situation where you’re opponents — but it’s possible to compete without being antagonists. More commonly, you’re at least have some common goals and you can figure out how to work together on those.
If someone genuinely hates you and is hostile to your interests, then they’re an enemy you’ll need to fight — and fight hard if need be. If I’m taking on the wingnuts, then the gloves are off. But it seems like too often people go straight to the attack without considering whether it’s any of the other cases.
Please don’t let me be misunderstood
Conversations have a lot of places where they can get tangled up, so it’s useful to break down how conversations occur — since normally it all happens so instantaneously we don’t even think about it.
You say something to me. What you actually said may not be what you meant to say. In one way, online discussions are clearer because everything’s in written, but they’re also missing the important bits of meta-communication that occurs in face-to-face conversation, where for example you can tell that someone’s joking.
What I hear may not be what you actually said. In face-to-face conversation, I may having trouble hearing. I might not understand, or I might misinterpret, the language you use. You might (unintentionally or intentionally) be using language that causes me to feel like you’re being irrelevant, so I don’t pay close attention, or that causes me to go into “fight or flight” mode where I stop listening. Or I may have my own issues and biases that cause me to close my ears.
From what I thought I heard, I form a conclusion, partly based the message itself, partly based on my own experience and my past experience with you. (When we talk, we often omit important information and rely on the listener to fill in the information from their own experience, which usually works, but sometimes listeners fill in different information that we expected.) I may — or may not— reach a reasonable conclusion (i.e. if a dozen people heard the same thing, would the consensus interpretation match mine?).
I then react emotionally to that conclusion. The emotional significance is not just about the message itself, but how it relates to my goals, concerns, broader feelings, values, past experiences and what else is happening around me. I also decide (usually unconsciously) whether it’s OK to feel what I’m feeling. It’s not a question of whether the feeling is pleasant, but rather whethr whether I’ll allow myself to that particular feeling at all. For example, I may have been punished in the past for feeling angry, or may have been taught that I “should” or “should not” express certain feelings in certain situations.
Based on all that, I start thinking about possible responses. How I respond may be affected by “rules” I learned about how I “ought” to do so. For example, I was taking BART back home from Pride, when a drunken guy tugged on my wig and wanted to know if it was my real hair. If he’d tried that with my drag mother, she would’ve decked him — she grew up in a tough urban neighborhood where she and others were expected to deal any disrespect like that immediately and violently. I come from a white, middle-class, suburban background, so my response was disdainful snark and the Stare Of Death. Those “rules” may be appropriate for the current situation, they may not be.
I respond — saying something that may or may not be want I meant to say — and the cycle starts all over.
All this occurs in a blink of an eye, and we rarely give any thought to it, and most of the time it works fine. But each step depends on the prior step, and so things can quickly snowball. True to Murphy’s Law, it’s usually in the middle of stressful conversations when things get tangled. So often it’s good to take a step back and consciously walk through these steps.
Asking yourself: what am I trying to accomplish?
Are you venting, trying to convince someone, or trying to prove that People Are Wrong on the Internet.
Just as in personal relationship, sometime people are frustrated and/or hurt and/or angry, and need to just vent. And sometimes the people who are the target of that anger need to shut up and just listen, and try to understand what’s driving that anger.
Much of the anger being vented by trans people over 101 questions derailing trans discussions is that expecting us to educate others means that all-too-often all the air gets sucked out of room, leaving no discussion of the original issue at hand.
That said, venting often isn’t sufficient to change someone else’s views. Convincing someone is essentially selling them on your POV, and that means focusing on communicating things in ways that are meaningful to them. I’m definitely mindful of oppressed minorities being expected to be deferential to the majority, as well as being expected to educate the majority about their own oppressing. That said, it’s a not an either/or situation between spoon feeding people and telling them to just frakkin' Google it.
When I was journalist one of the professional adages was: never underestimate your readers intelligence, nor overestimate their education. News, by definition, may involve subjects your readers are unfamiliar with. So it’s standard practice that when there’s an acronym or term that may be unfamiliar, to insert a brief parenthetical explanation the first time it’s used. Likewise to provide a “nut graf,” a sentence or two after the lead that quickly explains why the story is important, or a brief summary of context or background info. (Just like I’ve done here.) The web has the added advantage over my days in print because it’s easy to link to a definition or resource. Is it pandering to the majority to do these sorts of things? Possibly. But I find it really doesn’t take much extra effort — and if nothing else helps head off well-intentioned-but-clueless 101 derailing because you can point people back to the definition or resource link.
But too often in online communities of all sorts, I’ve seen people who aren’t really interested in convincing others, but rather want to prove that they’re right and other people Are Wrong. Put a couple of these people with differing views in the same discussion and it almost always ends a pissing match that sucks the air out of the room. So when I get into a heated argument, I try to take a step back from time to time to assess my intent.
Recognizing the difference between a failure to communicate and fundamental disagreement
On a related note, often argumentative death matches seem to occur when the people involved fail to recognize that they have a fundamental disagreement, not a failure to communicate their arguments clearly. How How can you tell when this is the case? When each side can summarize the other’s arguments in a way that the other side agrees accurately states those arguments. If you can’t do that, then further discussion may change people’s minds, since they may not have fully understand your POV. But once a fundamental disagreement has been reached, often further discussion makes things worse — because each side feels the other is talking past them and tends to feel “I get your point, whatya think I am, stupid?”
At that point generally you either have to agree to disagree, or reframe the issue. Thomas Friedman had a great example of reframing: When talking with the Chinese about global warning, invariably someone insisted that they shouldn’t have to reduce their greenhouse gases, after all the West didn’t have similar constraints during its development. Which Friedman agreed those constraints were unfair. Then he said, pollute all you want because in the years before you get serious about this, “America will invent all the clean-power technologies you Chinese are going to need as you choke to death on pollution. Then we’re going to come over here and sell them all to you, and we are going to clean your clock.” Needless to say, the thought of missing out on the next big global industry caused them to rethink the issue.
---
Anyway, as I said earlier, I can ramble on... so I’ll stop here.
This is difficult for me to write about, and I really hope I strike the right tone. I really, really appreciate the hard work that everyone in the trans, LGBTQ communities and our allies have placed on publicizing the senseless violence that takes places against trans people. I love that much (albeit not all) of the discussion has kept the humanity of the victims front and center. Nobody deserves to be murdered, much less to have their identity stripped away after the fact by the media, and by defense attorneys looking to justify the taking of a life. Lateisha Green’s murder troubles me deeply. I’m a transsexual woman and a mother. Talking about the taking away of somebody’s child because of who they makes me nauseous. I won’t be surprised if I spend much of the next week trying to stay away from news of the trial, because I simply can’t take it. I understand the need to focus on the horrifying consequences—and the need to prevent homophobia and transphobia (yes, the two are intertwined, and yes, that’s a discussion that’s been ongoing elsewhere).
Something about the response to Lateisha Green’s murder troubles me, though.
I live in Syracuse. My friends and neighbors live in Syracuse. I feel the need to point out that crimes like Lateisha’s murder don’t happen in a vacuum. Furthermore, while violence against trans and gender non-conforming people is one of “my” issuo; issues, something I take very personally, I also care about all of my friends and neighbors, be they cisgender or transgender. When I see people from around the country speaking up about one of my neighbors’ lives being treated as disposable due to her identity, while remaining unaware or ignoring the rest of my city, I feel uneasy. I live here, and this city’s issues are my issues. How can I expect my neighbors to fight for my rights, when people like me seem hesitant to fight for my neighbors’ rights?
Don’t get me wrong—anti-LGBT bigotry is an important fight for all of us. Community leaders in the near-Westside neighborhood where Green lived (including Green’s mother) are working to provide LGBT youth of color with a space safe from all the hostility and violence they often face. Just this week, my neighborhood is participating in a constructive response to anti-queer vandalism (for a look at what some folks are willing to say anonymously to get a rise out of people, check out the comment thread on the newspaper coverage of the incident).
However, it’s also important to address the perceived disposability of other parts of the community. Upstate New York is not disposable. Syracuse is not disposable, nor are other urban areas. The poor are not disposable. People of color are not disposable. People with disabilities are not disposable. Young people are not disposable. This shouldn’t be news to readers, yet on many levels, power structures treat the above groups (and many other) like garbage. This needs to change. A focus on the issues of LGBT people is important, but it’s not enough to fix our communities nor is it all that is required to give many trans people the quality of life that they, like all people, deserve.
Why am I so upset? Well, here’s part of what I see in my city: I see rampant violence within groups of young men. I recall rerouting a recent trip out due to a massive brawl in the middle of the street, in the middle of the day. The issue here isn’t that I was inconvenienced. However, things seem to have gotten far too out of hand when violence is creating a traffic hazard, in addition to less frivolous concerns, such as the loss of a life earlier this week. A neighbor of mine who is about to be redeployed to Iraq complained that our neighborhood was md was more dangerous than Baghdad, and confessed his hesitancy to leave his loved one behind. I sense a heavy dose of hyperbole. Still, it is troubling when you hear someone emptying a magazine across the street from the playground where you take your child. While I’m not behind the drug war, I’m not at all torn about having to kick drug paraphernalia out of the reach of my daughter when we’re on walks, or about the strung out junkie who broke into a neighbors’ locked apartment and began rifling through her couch while she slept, only to be chased off by her mother. It’s painful to watch a city that at times seems on the verge of an outright race war, with epitats of all types clouding all parts of the city; the sidewalk, the grocery store, the playground, the post office. Regardless of your race, you simply can’t escape the threat of racially motivated harassment if you spend any time here. Of course, you can’t always escape violence, either; earlier this year a 14-year old sniper shot and killed a man as he got in his car to start the second shift.
There’s no single reason why so many of us experience such futility and violence. The economy certainly hasn’t helped. The latest recession has cost greater Syracuse some of its last manufacturing jobs, with Syracuse China and New Process Gear moving jobs out of the country, and Crucible Materials preparing to fold in the face of a disastrous market for American steel. As an Eastern outpost of the rust belt, this is simply an extension of a decades-long decline, marked by previous blows such as Carrier corporation’s foreign outsourcing. Speaking of the lack of media coverage that the media has given Green’s murder, economic considerations led Syracuse’s CBS affiliate (arguably the most community oriented station in town) to close its newsroom and effectively merge with our NBC affiliate, costing us jobs, and limiting the number of corporate perspectives of current events. In addition to the economy, Syracuse is faced with the same crises as many other cities.
We can measure the distain in which the powers that be hold us in slashed school budgets funded by unfair mechanisms, the environmental degradation of poor neighborhoods of color (and yes, segregation is an issue), in underfunded and borderline useless mass transit systems and the general lack of effective health and human service programs for many folks not privileged enough to live outside of the city’s South side (or the North side, or the East side).
What’s being done to allow all of the chance of upward mobility, or at least to be treated with dignity while we live in poverty? Thanks in large part to Gerrymandering, a city Republican and two conservative Democrats from outside Onondaga county are supposed to be representing us in the State Senate. Of course, if you’re playing along at home, you know that the Senate is (or until this evening was) in deadlock, as members of both parties court a tax cheat who openly flaunts campaign finance laws and a man indicted on two felony counts for beating his girlfriend. This whole schism largely seems to have been paid for by the former richest man in New York State, who recently moved his official residence to Florida in order to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. Of course, it’s not entirely clear that his tax dollars would have gone to help the majority of Syracuse residents, considering the incredible corruption in New York State government. While hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks went to help a developer build a “green” shopping mall (that may never be completed) finding the means to create actual jobs that pay a living wage has been elusive.
You could write a book (and people have) about what’s behind the violence within the poorer pockets of this (or any other) city, particularly among young men. Certainly, there are problematic issues with outdated, violent visions of respect and masculinity, and it takes strong families to keep children on the right path. However, it’s all too easy to blame violence on laziness or otherwise imperfect families, and doing so misses a massive part of the story. We as a society systematically disrespect the poor and people of color. The power structure in this country helps ensnare people in poverty. While violence is never excusable, much of our country seems to leave young men with very few outlets with which to make a living, or which to gain status within a community. This is complicated stuff, and discussions of it are fraught with peril—particularly discussion that involve a diverse audience. However, if we don’t all engage in a critical analysis of our actions and force ourselves to engage in dialogue on the tough issues, we’re merely enabling a culture where lots of human lives, LGBT or otherwise are treated as disposable. To me, the tragedy of Latiesha Green’s murder lies not only in the taking away of a human life for no good reason, but with my fellow white LGBT’s repeated unwillingness to consider the countless other lives snuffed out in Green’s neighborhood, or the rest of my city, or all of urban America, for no good reason. This stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Cross-posted from Duck, Duck, Gay Duck
.
Happy Civility Day!
Today at Pam's House Blend, we're begining by reposting Pam Spaulding's June 3, 2007 diary Civility on the Blend. It's the kick-off post for a day we've declared here to be Civility Day.
Pam's Civility diary goes hand-in-hand with the Trans-Ghettoized diary (that posts later this morning), as both of these diaries from PHB's past go to drawing lines regarding civil comment behavior within The Blend's threads. 
So grab yourself a virutal cup of coffee or tea, and remember we're a virtual LGBT coffee house where friends meet to discuss what's on our minds. So,ds. So, be a friend today (and every day) at The Blend; be civil to others sitting at the virtual coffee house table with you.
And, in conjunction with Civility Day, there will be a number of diaries posted on the front page today regarding civility. Please feel free to include your thoughts on civility towards others -- even behaving civilly to those who disagree with your opinions -- in the comments of all of today's posts.
Hey! It's Civility Day! Woo-hoo!
Warmest thoughts,
~~Autumn~~
Pam's House Blend is for civil discussion of issues. We may not all agree on political matters, but we can stay above calling each other names in threads. From the Community Rules:
This Blog is not a haven for trolls, threats, or people wishing to spam or harass...We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable. Please respect the rights of others to be heard and to be respected. We welcome all viewpoints, but we do not welcome personal attacks on our users, in any form. The moderators of The Blog retain the right to ban any user from posting at The Blog for behavior deemed inappropriate.Most folks can handle debate and discussion without losing their cool and resulting to lashing out at fellow commenters; others can't even manage to handle themselves after being warned. I have no patience for this and I'm ready to drop the hammer on any user who persists in being uncivil or hijacking threads simply to be contrary and antagonistic. You're not likely to change any minds, and quite frankly, the responses become quite predictable and boring.
Repeated, flagrant use of cursing against fellow commenters, violent threats (even in jest) can result in you getting trapdoored. And no, we don't have to give anyone a warning, but we do out of courtesy. Everyone receives the terms of service when you sign up, so no one can claim ignorance of the house rules.
Comment threads that are mostly full of bickering simply drive readers away, no one commenter is worth keeping in the coffeehouse if they cannot behave. Your booty will be bounced onto the street.
And for the rest of you: the rule of the game is don't feed the trolls.
Oregon advocate Bonnie Tinker was killed in a tragic bike accident last Thursday while attending a conference in Virginia. Tinker has been a dedicated activist in Oregon’s progressive community for decades. She championed equality as founder and director of Love Makes a Family, peace through her work with Seriously P.O.’ed Grannies, and justice as a member of the Religious Society of Friends. Her energy, commitment, and vision of a more just and peaceful world will be missed. Visit Love Makes a Family for links to remembrances and information about memorial services. 
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment