#constructive dialogue

[fructo]

currently reading "archer's voice" by mia sheridan and I just wanna say. why can't we have any male love interests that aren't physically perfect? yes, I know that this is the type of book that caters to a specific audience—and there's nothing wrong with that, let me be clear—that doesn't include me and it's not necessarily JUST this book

give me a love interest that ISN'T perfect. that doesn't have an "eight-pack" and a perfect body, according to the norms of society. give me a guy/girl who may not be pretty/handsome/perfect according to standards because it doesn't matter!! realistic characteristics that the reader may see in everyday life that are just as beautiful and they're not really flaws!!!

and yes, I'm also aware that these book love interests do exist, and I am very well picking out that niche genre of books as I already mentioned

but this is so important to me because my younger sister—someone who very well should NOT have been reading such a book in the first place, but that's another issue for another time—recommended this book to me. I wholly believe in the power of books and fiction in someone's life, and raising these unrealistic beauty standards and then exposing them to young adults and teenagers (as i said, that other issue for another time) is so damaging. when she was giving her copy to me, she spoke so passionately about how much she didn't want me to destroy it, and as i'm sitting here reading it, i'm just shocked.

so yes, I think we should 100% promote love interests with physical 'flaws' and great, healthy personalities. i may be biased simply due to the fact i'm very unaffected by physical characteristics myself but it's just so bloody exhausting to hear about these people's unrealistically perfect bodies.

especially when the author uses as an excuse to have the protagonist fall in love with the love interest so quickly. they share two conversations... but one shirtless scene and all of a sudden they're in love??? sex appeal should NOT justify unhealthy, toxic relationships. that could just be the asexual in me talking, but I really, really believe this.

I've always been so, so picky about the romance genre, and the slew of "booktok books" that my siblings consume is the antithesis of what I consider a good romance story, but that's just my personal opinion.

I don't shame people for reading; read what you want to!! but please, if anything I've said upsets you, please understand that this is my personal opinion and that my whole stance on these types of books does not matter. I just would like to see more realistic perspectives of romance in fiction.

[slowtumbling]

A House Divided

The Media and Societal Polarization The phrase “a house divided against itself cannot stand” resonates deeply in both biblical and historical contexts. Originating from Matthew 12:25, Jesus warns that “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” This powerful statement was echoed by Abraham Lincoln in his famous 1858 speech, where…

[burning-beneath]

The Lost Art of Civil Discourse

Free speech and open-minded discussion—concepts that have been debated endlessly, yet remain as crucial as ever. The ability to engage in a conversation, even one that touches on sensitive or controversial topics, without hostility or personal attacks, should be the foundation of any meaningful dialogue. Whether in business, politics, religion, or personal relationships, the key to progress is…

[civicsavvy]

Beyond Polarization: Bridging the Divide in a Divided World

In today’s world, marked by ever-deepening divides, polarization has become one of the defining features of our social, political, and cultural landscapes. Whether it’s ideological differences, religious beliefs, or social identities, people are often entrenched in opposing views, leading to an erosion of constructive dialogue and understanding. In such a climate, the ability to communicate across divides without hostility is becoming both rare and precious. The question arises: how can we bridge these divides? Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, a psychologist and cultural critic, and Gregg Hurwitz, a novelist and political activist, delve into this issue in their recent discussion, offering insights on how we might move beyond polarization to foster a more connected society. Their perspectives, which merge insights from psychology, literature, and social science, underscore the significance of open-minded conversation and empathy in an increasingly divided world.

The Role of Constructive Dialogue

Constructive dialogue is not merely about exchanging words but about understanding and empathy. In a polarized world, where emotions run high and divisions deepen, people are often caught up in echo chambers, where they reinforce their beliefs without examining or questioning them. Constructive dialogue, as Peterson and Hurwitz argue, requires us to step outside of these echo chambers and engage with others’ ideas—even those that may be uncomfortable or challenging. They believe that it’s only through genuine engagement and active listening that we can begin to address misunderstandings and work toward common ground.

To bridge divides, one of the primary tools they advocate is empathy—the ability to understand and relate to another person’s experiences and emotions. Empathy allows individuals to see the world from others’ perspectives, making it possible to find value in different viewpoints. Peterson and Hurwitz suggest that by cultivating empathy, people can engage in more meaningful conversations that don’t reduce complex issues to simplistic, adversarial terms. Instead, empathy can be a bridge, allowing for nuanced discussions where mutual respect and understanding can flourish.

Understanding Our Own Biases and Limitations

Another key to overcoming polarization lies in the recognition of our own biases. Both Peterson and Hurwitz argue that we tend to approach issues with preconceived notions shaped by our backgrounds, experiences, and media consumption. These biases often cloud our judgment and reinforce our existing beliefs, making it difficult to approach conversations with an open mind. By recognizing these biases, we can become more aware of how they affect our perception of others and are more likely to approach discussions with humility and curiosity rather than judgment.

Peterson emphasizes the importance of understanding that no one has a monopoly on truth. Each perspective, no matter how flawed it may seem, holds a fragment of truth that is valuable in understanding the larger picture. Hurwitz adds that even in fictional storytelling, characters who appear morally ambiguous or flawed can offer profound insights into the human experience. This perspective encourages us to look beyond binary categories of "right" and "wrong" and to appreciate the complexity of individual experiences and beliefs.

The Value of Storytelling in Bridging Divides

One of the most powerful tools in bridging divides is storytelling, a theme that Hurwitz, as a novelist, explores in depth. Stories have a unique ability to transcend individual differences, connecting us to universal human experiences and emotions. Through stories, we can experience different lives, beliefs, and values, which can lead to greater empathy and understanding. Hurwitz suggests that by telling and listening to each other’s stories, people are better able to understand the motivations behind others’ beliefs, even when they disagree.

Peterson echoes this sentiment, pointing out that storytelling is fundamental to human communication. Stories shape our identities, values, and perceptions, and they often carry the lessons of past generations. By sharing our own stories and listening to others, we create connections that go beyond intellectual debate and reach the heart of human experience. This approach, according to Peterson and Hurwitz, allows individuals to find shared meaning even in the face of deep differences.

Building a Culture of Respectful Engagement

To bridge divides in a polarized world, Peterson and Hurwitz emphasize the need to build a culture of respectful engagement. This requires people to treat each other with dignity, even when they fundamentally disagree. They argue that respect doesn’t mean agreement; rather, it means recognizing the inherent worth of others and their right to hold their beliefs. In a polarized society, where differing opinions are often met with hostility, creating a space for respectful engagement can be transformative.

Peterson stresses the importance of responsibility in maintaining respectful dialogue, encouraging individuals to hold themselves accountable for how they communicate and engage with others. Hurwitz adds that courage is essential, as it takes bravery to step out of one’s comfort zone and engage with opposing views openly. Together, they highlight the idea that building bridges requires both strength and vulnerability—strength to stand by one’s values and vulnerability to be open to change and growth.

Conclusion

In a world that often feels divided beyond repair, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Gregg Hurwitz’s discussion on bridging divides offers a hopeful vision of unity through dialogue, empathy, and respect. They remind us that polarization is not an inevitable outcome; it is a challenge we can overcome if we are willing to make an effort to understand each other. By embracing constructive dialogue, acknowledging our biases, engaging in storytelling, and fostering respectful engagement, we can begin to bridge the divides that separate us. Ultimately, Peterson and Hurwitz’s insights encourage us to see beyond our differences and to connect on a deeper, more human level. In doing so, we can move toward a world where division gives way to unity, and hostility is replaced with understanding.

The Manufactured Polarity

In the contemporary landscape of social discourse, the phenomenon of manufactured polarity has emerged as a significant force that exacerbates division within society. This polarization is largely driven by the mechanisms of social media and the sensationalism prevalent in news outlets. These platforms do not merely reflect societal divisions; they actively perpetuate and deepen them, creating an environment where constructive dialogue becomes increasingly difficult.

The Role of Social Media and News Outlets

Social media platforms, designed to prioritize engagement and virality, often amplify extreme viewpoints over moderate ones. Algorithms tailor content to users’ preferences, creating echo chambers where individuals are primarily exposed to ideas that reinforce their existing beliefs. As a result, nuanced discussions and diverse perspectives are marginalized, leading to a distorted perception of societal consensus. This tendency to prioritize sensational content fuels outrage and intensifies divisions, as users become more polarized and entrenched in their viewpoints.

News outlets also play a crucial role in perpetuating division. Many mainstream media organizations prioritize ratings and audience retention over responsible reporting, leading to sensationalized coverage that inflames partisan passions. Rather than presenting balanced viewpoints, news reports often focus on conflict and controversy, reinforcing existing biases. This coverage contributes to a culture where viewers are more likely to perceive opposing sides as adversaries rather than fellow citizens with whom they can engage in dialogue.

The resulting environment is one in which individuals become less willing to engage with opposing viewpoints. The immediacy and emotional intensity of social media can make it tempting to dismiss or attack those who hold different opinions. The challenge is compounded by the tendency of many individuals to curate their online experiences, intentionally avoiding content that challenges their beliefs, thus creating a feedback loop of division.

The Influence of Bad Actors and Foreign Powers

While social media and news outlets contribute to manufactured polarity, they are not the only actors at play. Bad actors, both domestic and foreign, exploit these platforms to manipulate public opinion and sow discord. These entities utilize disinformation campaigns, often disseminating false narratives designed to exacerbate existing divisions within American society. Such campaigns are particularly effective during times of social unrest or political contention, capitalizing on the existing tensions to create further polarization.

Foreign powers have increasingly engaged in these tactics, utilizing social media to influence elections and public sentiment. For instance, Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election exemplifies how foreign actors can exploit the vulnerabilities of social media to manipulate American thought. By targeting specific demographic groups with tailored misinformation, these entities seek to deepen societal divides and disrupt the democratic process. This manipulation serves to undermine trust in institutions and fosters an environment of suspicion and animosity.

In addition to disinformation, bad actors may also engage in astroturfing—creating the illusion of grassroots movements to manipulate public perception. By generating coordinated campaigns that appear to be spontaneous expressions of public sentiment, these entities can further exacerbate divisions and create a sense of urgency around contentious issues. This manipulation not only distorts public discourse but also discourages authentic engagement, making it challenging for individuals to discern genuine grassroots movements from orchestrated efforts designed to incite division.

The Impact of Manufactured Polarity

The impact of manufactured polarity is profound and far-reaching. As divisions deepen, individuals may become less willing to engage in constructive dialogue, viewing those with opposing views as enemies rather than fellow citizens. This mindset leads to an erosion of trust in institutions, as individuals increasingly perceive news outlets, social media, and even one another as unreliable sources of information.

Moreover, manufactured polarity can hinder collective action on critical issues. When individuals are divided along ideological lines, finding common ground becomes increasingly challenging, stymieing efforts to address pressing social, economic, and political problems. As polarization intensifies, so too does the difficulty of creating policies that reflect the diverse needs and perspectives of society.

In this climate, the call for bridging divides becomes urgent. Recognizing the manufactured nature of polarization is the first step in countering its effects. By understanding the mechanisms at play, individuals can become more discerning consumers of information, seeking out diverse viewpoints and engaging in constructive dialogue rather than retreating into ideological silos.

Conclusion

The manufactured polarity in our society is a complex issue fueled by the dynamics of social media, sensationalized news coverage, and the manipulative tactics of bad actors. Understanding these factors is essential for navigating the current landscape of division. As we grapple with the consequences of this polarization, the importance of fostering constructive dialogue and empathy cannot be overstated. By actively seeking to bridge divides and promote understanding, we can begin to dismantle the barriers that separate us and work toward a more unified society. The responsibility lies with each individual to engage thoughtfully and compassionately, recognizing that our shared humanity transcends ideological differences.

The Dangers of Groupthink

In a polarized world, the phenomenon of groupthink poses significant dangers to individual and collective thought processes. Groupthink occurs when the desire for conformity within a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making, stifling critical thinking and discouraging the consideration of alternative viewpoints. This mindset not only perpetuates ideological divides but also poses risks to societal progress and individual autonomy.

The Risks of Uncritically Accepting Ideologies

One of the primary dangers of groupthink is the uncritical acceptance of ideologies, which can lead to a number of detrimental outcomes. When individuals prioritize group cohesion over independent thought, they may adopt beliefs or decisions without thoroughly evaluating their validity or implications. This uncritical acceptance often results in a lack of skepticism towards prevailing narratives, causing individuals to overlook important evidence and arguments that challenge the status quo.

This phenomenon can be particularly pronounced in highly polarized environments where ideological homogeneity is prevalent. In such contexts, dissenting voices are frequently marginalized or silenced, creating an environment where alternative perspectives are viewed as threats to group identity. As members of the group reinforce one another's beliefs, critical inquiry diminishes, and the group's collective understanding becomes less nuanced.

The consequences of uncritically accepting ideologies can be severe. In extreme cases, this can lead to fanaticism, where individuals become so entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to engage in harmful actions against perceived adversaries. History is replete with examples where groupthink has led to catastrophic consequences, from social movements that devolve into violence to political regimes that perpetuate oppression in the name of ideological purity.

The Importance of Critical Thinking and Nuance

To counteract the dangers of groupthink, the cultivation of critical thinking is essential. Critical thinking involves the ability to analyze information, evaluate arguments, and draw reasoned conclusions based on evidence rather than emotion or conformity. By fostering critical thinking skills, individuals can become more adept at questioning prevailing ideologies and considering a wider array of perspectives.

In addition to critical thinking, embracing nuance is crucial in breaking free from the constraints of groupthink. The complexities of social, political, and cultural issues often resist simple categorization into “right” or “wrong.” Recognizing that most issues exist on a spectrum allows individuals to engage more thoughtfully with opposing viewpoints. Nuance encourages individuals to appreciate the valid concerns underlying differing beliefs, promoting empathy and understanding in the process.

Educators, leaders, and communities must prioritize the development of critical thinking and nuance in their interactions. This involves creating spaces where diverse viewpoints can be shared without fear of retribution or dismissal. By encouraging open dialogue and fostering a culture of inquiry, individuals can break free from the confines of groupthink and engage in more constructive conversations.

The Role of Individual Responsibility

Ultimately, overcoming the dangers of groupthink requires a commitment to individual responsibility. Each person must be willing to reflect on their beliefs, challenge their assumptions, and actively seek out opposing viewpoints. This commitment to self-reflection and growth can be uncomfortable, but it is essential for fostering a more open-minded society.

Moreover, individuals must recognize the power of their choices in the context of information consumption. In an age of misinformation, it is crucial to approach media critically, seeking out reliable sources and diverse perspectives rather than simply consuming content that reinforces existing beliefs. By cultivating a mindset of inquiry and skepticism, individuals can contribute to a culture that values critical thought over blind conformity.

Conclusion

The dangers of groupthink serve as a potent reminder of the need for critical thinking and nuance in our increasingly polarized society. As individuals navigate complex issues and engage with differing viewpoints, the importance of questioning prevailing ideologies cannot be overstated. By fostering a culture that encourages independent thought and values the richness of diverse perspectives, we can mitigate the risks associated with uncritical acceptance of ideologies. Ultimately, promoting critical thinking and embracing nuance are essential steps toward bridging divides and fostering a more empathetic, connected society. In doing so, we affirm our shared humanity and our capacity for growth and understanding in a world that often seeks to divide us.

Gregg Hurwitz's Work: A Case Study

Gregg Hurwitz is a multifaceted writer and activist known for his compelling novels and thought-provoking engagement with pressing social issues. His work spans various genres, including thrillers, young adult fiction, and graphic novels, but he is particularly recognized for his ability to weave intricate narratives that explore the complexities of human experience. Alongside his literary contributions, Hurwitz has been actively involved in social activism, using his platform to raise awareness about critical issues such as political polarization, cultural misunderstandings, and global conflicts.

Overview of Gregg's Writing and Activism

Hurwitz’s novels often reflect themes of morality, justice, and the human condition, with well-developed characters facing ethical dilemmas that challenge their beliefs. His background in psychology informs his storytelling, allowing him to delve deep into the motivations and emotions of his characters. Works such as The Rains series and Orphan X reflect his knack for creating tension and suspense while exploring larger societal themes.

In addition to his fiction, Hurwitz is dedicated to social activism. He frequently engages in discussions around the importance of empathy and understanding in bridging ideological divides. Through interviews, public speaking engagements, and social media, Hurwitz emphasizes the necessity of dialogue and the importance of hearing diverse perspectives. His activism is rooted in the belief that literature can inspire change and foster a greater understanding of the complexities of contemporary issues.

One of the pivotal aspects of Hurwitz's activism is his commitment to addressing cultural misunderstandings, particularly in relation to the Middle East. This is exemplified in his short film Ask An Iranian: The Truth About the Middle East, which serves as a case study in his approach to storytelling and activism.

Analysis of "Ask An Iranian: The Truth About the Middle East"

Ask An Iranian is a thought-provoking short film that seeks to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about Iran and its people. The film is structured around a simple yet powerful premise: what if we asked everyday Iranians about their lives, thoughts, and experiences? This approach invites viewers to move beyond the often sensationalized portrayals of Iran in mainstream media and engage with the voices of those who live there.

Thematic Exploration

The film’s central theme is the importance of personal narratives in dismantling preconceived notions about cultures and societies. By allowing Iranians to share their stories, Hurwitz emphasizes the common humanity that transcends geopolitical divides. The film features a diverse range of voices, from students to artists, each providing unique perspectives that reflect the complexities of life in Iran. This diversity of experience challenges monolithic representations and underscores the idea that there is no single “truth” about a culture or country.

Impact of Personal Narratives

Hurwitz effectively uses personal narratives to foster empathy and understanding. As viewers hear directly from individuals in Iran, they are invited to engage with their humanity, shifting the focus from political rhetoric to personal experiences. This narrative technique serves as a powerful tool in counteracting stereotypes, illustrating how real people often defy the simplistic narratives that dominate media portrayals.

The film also addresses the impact of social and political issues on everyday life in Iran, highlighting the struggles and aspirations of its citizens. By shedding light on these realities, Hurwitz encourages viewers to consider the broader implications of their perceptions and to recognize the interconnectedness of global experiences. The film serves as a reminder that individuals are shaped by their circumstances but also possess agency and resilience in navigating their challenges.

A Call for Dialogue

In Ask An Iranian, Hurwitz not only seeks to inform but also to inspire dialogue. By encouraging viewers to engage with the complexities of Iranian culture, he advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the Middle East. The film is a call to action, urging audiences to question their assumptions and to seek out diverse voices in their quest for knowledge.

Hurwitz’s emphasis on dialogue extends beyond the film itself; it reflects his broader approach to activism. By promoting conversations about culture and identity, he hopes to foster a sense of connection that transcends ideological divides. In an era marked by polarization and misunderstanding, Hurwitz’s work serves as a powerful reminder of the potential for storytelling to bridge gaps and cultivate empathy.

Conclusion

Gregg Hurwitz’s writing and activism reflect a commitment to exploring the complexities of the human experience while fostering understanding across cultural divides. His short film Ask An Iranian: The Truth About the Middle East exemplifies this approach, utilizing personal narratives to challenge stereotypes and promote empathy. Through his work, Hurwitz underscores the importance of dialogue and critical engagement in addressing the pressing issues of our time. By inviting audiences to confront their assumptions and embrace the richness of diverse perspectives, he contributes to a more compassionate and connected society. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, Hurwitz’s work serves as an invaluable resource for fostering understanding and bridging divides.

Building Bridges

In an increasingly polarized society, the need for constructive dialogue and understanding has never been more pressing. Engaging in meaningful conversations across divides requires intentional effort and strategies that promote connection and mutual respect. Here are practical steps and strategies for fostering constructive dialogue and finding common ground.

Practical Advice for Engaging in Constructive Dialogue

Listen Actively: Active listening is a crucial component of effective dialogue. This means not just hearing the words spoken but genuinely trying to understand the speaker’s perspective. Show that you are engaged by maintaining eye contact, nodding, and asking clarifying questions. Reflect back what you’ve heard to confirm understanding, which can help the other person feel valued and respected.

Approach with Curiosity: Instead of approaching conversations with a defensive mindset or a desire to "win" the argument, adopt a curious attitude. Ask open-ended questions to encourage deeper exploration of the other person’s views. Phrasing questions like “Can you help me understand why you feel that way?” invites dialogue and fosters an environment where both parties can express their thoughts freely.

Set Ground Rules: Establishing ground rules for discussions can create a safe space for dialogue. This may include agreements on respectful communication, refraining from personal attacks, and allowing each person time to speak without interruption. By setting these boundaries, participants can focus on understanding each other rather than escalating conflict.

Share Personal Experiences: Personal stories can humanize discussions and create emotional connections. When you share your own experiences related to a topic, it opens the door for others to do the same. This sharing fosters empathy and helps individuals see the complexities behind differing viewpoints.

Stay Calm and Composed: Emotions can run high during discussions on contentious topics. It’s essential to remain calm and composed, even if the conversation becomes heated. If you feel yourself getting frustrated or angry, take a moment to breathe and collect your thoughts before responding. This can prevent escalation and help maintain a constructive atmosphere.

Strategies for Finding Common Ground

Identify Shared Values: Often, people on opposing sides of an issue share underlying values, even if they differ in their approaches or beliefs. Take time to identify these shared values and articulate them during discussions. For example, if discussing healthcare, both parties may value the importance of access to quality care. Recognizing these commonalities can create a foundation for more productive dialogue.

Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions: Instead of getting entrenched in specific positions, shift the focus to the underlying interests and needs that drive those positions. For example, if two individuals disagree on a policy issue, they can discuss their common interests—such as safety, security, or well-being. This approach can lead to creative solutions that address both parties’ concerns.

Emphasize Collaborative Problem-Solving: Rather than viewing the conversation as a confrontation, frame it as a collaborative effort to solve a problem. Encourage brainstorming and exploring possible compromises that take into account the interests of all parties. This collaborative mindset fosters creativity and can lead to innovative solutions that satisfy both sides.

Seek Out Diverse Perspectives: Actively seek opportunities to engage with people from different backgrounds and viewpoints. This could involve participating in community forums, joining discussion groups, or simply reaching out to acquaintances with differing beliefs. Exposure to diverse perspectives broadens understanding and helps identify common ground.

Practice Empathy: Empathy is a powerful tool in bridging divides. Make a conscious effort to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and consider their emotions and experiences. Acknowledging the feelings behind someone’s viewpoint can foster a more respectful and compassionate dialogue, making it easier to find common ground.

Conclusion

Building bridges across divides requires commitment, patience, and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. By adopting practical strategies such as active listening, approaching conversations with curiosity, and seeking shared values, individuals can foster connections that transcend ideological differences. In a world marked by polarization, these efforts are essential for cultivating understanding and empathy. As we engage in dialogue and work toward common ground, we can contribute to a more unified and compassionate society. Each conversation holds the potential to transform conflict into connection, paving the way for a brighter, more harmonious future.

Conclusion

In a world increasingly characterized by division and polarization, the importance of constructive dialogue cannot be overstated. Throughout this discussion, we have explored the complexities of manufactured polarity, the dangers of groupthink, and the critical role of empathy and understanding in fostering meaningful connections. By recognizing the factors that perpetuate division and actively working to counteract them, individuals can play a vital role in bridging the gaps that separate us.

Recap of Key Takeaways

Understanding Polarization: The role of social media, sensationalized news coverage, and the manipulation of information by bad actors contributes to the growing divide in society. Recognizing these influences is the first step toward fostering meaningful dialogue.

Avoiding Groupthink: The dangers of uncritically accepting ideologies highlight the need for critical thinking and nuance in discussions. Encouraging diverse perspectives and promoting individual responsibility in thought processes are essential for breaking free from the constraints of groupthink.

Engaging in Constructive Dialogue: Practical strategies such as active listening, curiosity, and empathy are vital for fostering constructive conversations. Setting ground rules and sharing personal experiences can create a safe space for dialogue and encourage open communication.

Finding Common Ground: Emphasizing shared values and interests can help individuals navigate contentious topics and work collaboratively towards solutions. By focusing on what unites us rather than what divides us, we can cultivate understanding and connection.

Call to Action

As we move forward in this polarized landscape, I encourage everyone to take an active role in engaging in constructive dialogue. Challenge yourself to seek out conversations with those who hold differing viewpoints, listen with an open mind, and share your own experiences. Remember that every conversation is an opportunity to learn, grow, and connect with others.

Let us commit to bridging the divide by fostering empathy and understanding in our interactions, both online and offline. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and compassionate society, where diverse perspectives are valued, and constructive dialogue thrives. Together, we have the power to transform polarization into connection and build bridges that unite us in our shared humanity.

[jewishandmore]

Good Faith Judaism

“Good faith partners don’t quote scripture at each other.”

Working with people from multiple faith backgrounds, I often say this and find general agreement among accomplices in justice work.

Jewish teachers regularly cite sacred sources, from the Five Books of Moses all the way through current writings. Many Jews quote texts all the time and do much more than say: “Look, I have a source to back up my argument.” We have thousands of years of established procedures for “d’rash-ing” or interpreting texts.

As a rabbinic colleague pointed out, we try not to do this “at” each other, so much as with one another. We aim to be guided by some agreed upon principles in the process. We don’t always get it right. We can be argumentative and hurtful and divisive as much as anyone else, but we do try to unite around some basic ideas, like these, which are only a sample:

- Respect and Dignity — as one family of humanity, hailing from the same universal source, we try to treat one another as mutual bearers of an infinite spark, a shard of divinity. When we teach, generally, and particularly when we use our sacred texts, we aim to uphold these principles, and our teachings ought not defy them.

- Compassion and Inclusion — kindness, soulfulness, a high regard for each other’s humanity and human needs. While there are many sources in our traditions that can be used to divide and exclude, we should aim higher.

- Learning and Tradition — while wisdom often starts in a source text, Jews have embraced an evolution and movement with the times that progresses our texts with us. We are people of many books, some of which have only been written yesterday.

Rabbi Amy Scheinerman teaches about these principles and and many others, calling them “meta-commandments”[1] — underlying guidelines for applying Jewish teachings in practice.

We try not to use our texts as a bludgeon against one another. Sharing wisdom from ancient sources fulfills another important Jewish principle — bringing us together in community. When we use our sacred texts to sow division and enmity, we fall into historical challenges that Jewish wisdom has cautioned us against for millennia. Jewish teachings often attribute the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in 70 CE, to “baseless hatred” between Jews, taking responsibility, perhaps unreasonably, for something that was clearly done to our ancestors by the Roman Empire.

Nearly seventy rabbis and rabbinical students from different affiliations recently joined together in an organization called Beit Kaplan, which is “a forum for the cultivation of a flourishing, dynamic Jewish civilization…With deep ties to Reconstructionist Judaism”[2].

Beit Kaplan rallied in support of students who left the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College last year because of the hostility directed at them as supporters of the State of Israel, self-proclaimed “liberal Zionists”. Beit Kaplan sponsored a gathering to hear the testimony of these former students on Monday, September 9, 2024.

On Friday, September 6, 2024, a rabbi and faculty member at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) wrote a regular email to rabbinical students and advised them to not attend the Beit Kaplan gathering “both for the sake of your own well-being, and to not give the event undue attention”. The rabbi continued to provide “Torah framing” for help in dealing with “the problems that pain us” seemingly raised by the Beit Kaplan event.

The rabbi invoked that week’s Torah reading, called Shoftim, (Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9), declared that the students who left RRC were “those who provide false testimony” who spoke “unethically” and cited the verses that call for such people to be swept from your midst (Deut. 19:19) and killed for their crimes without pity (Deut. 19:21). While tempering this harsh decree from scripture with the Talmud’s qualifications that punishments should be the monetary payment for damages, the rabbi summed up with this interpretation: “There is still a consequence, and the consequence does not need to be identical to the initial action. There is mercy mixed in with justice.” The rabbi concluded with a nod to loving-kindness as a sign of power and rigor in pursuing communal justice.

This brazen use of sacred texts to condemn former community-members, disparage them as unethical liars, and then call for their punishment in vague terms shocked me. This was the kind of scriptural argument that justified American white supremacy, imposed patriarchy and misogyny onto generations of women, and argued for the subjugation of the Jewish people for nearly 2,000 years. That a rabbi made these claims, offered no evidence nor any judicial process by which those they accused could be condemned, and then alluded to punishments from Biblical and Talmudic times without any real qualifications, horrified and saddened me.

This rabbi used our shared sacred texts as a bludgeon against former students and potential colleagues as part of a message to prevent people from engaging with one another. In contrast, I propose an embrace of shared values as a necessary precursor to an argument from sacred sources. What we are arguing for is as important as which sources we use to support that argument. Quoting from the same passages in last week’s Torah reading (Deuteronomy 16:20), “Equity, equity you are to pursue”, or “Justice, justice shall you pursue”[3], we do so understanding that equity, and justice may be repeated in this verse to remind us to take others’ perspectives into account. Justice requires community and overcoming distances between one another — it is a collaborative project. In this way, I offer a Biblical interpretation that I believe asks us to participate in a system of community values that elevate all of us to behave better with one another.

As a graduate of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and a proud student of the teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan that inspired the founding of RRC, I implore the faculty and leadership of RRC to reconsider the words of one of your own. Please join us in this season of return and reconciliation in shared work of repair. Please engage with us and those who have shared their difficulties with RRC in good faith.

Let us teach and learn our texts with one another, and not use them as weapons against each other.

 [1] I have heard Rabbi Scheinerman teach this under the phrase “meta-mitzvah”, here is one place in print:  Scheinerman, A. (2018, October). Hospice, Interfaith, and Halakha. https://collegecommons.huc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BullyPulpit_Rabbi_Amy_Scheinerman_Transcript_FINAL.pdf, Pages 4–5

[2] Beit Kaplan. (n.d.). The Rabbinic Partnership for Jewish Peoplehood. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.beitkaplan.org/

[3] The first translation is from: Fox, E. (1997). The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Schocken.

And the second is from: Jewish Publication Society Inc. (2009). JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. Jewish Publication Society of America.

[aeontimaeuscrux]

The Virtues of Deliberation (Continued):

[femalephilosopher]

Philosophy

Immersed in the realms of philosophy, my soul awakens to the allure of unraveling life’s most profound enigmas. With fervent curiosity, I delve into the labyrinth of existence, enticed by the mesmerizing intricacies that await my exploration. – Camille Love of Wisdom [Philos – Sophia] The word “philosophy” has its roots in ancient Greece, where it emerged from the combination of two Greek…

[worldwatcher3072]

Bridging the Divide:

Combating Partisan Polarization in American Politics

In the realm of American politics, a shadow looms large – a shadow cast by the growing chasm of partisan polarization. As our nation grapples with complex challenges and opportunities, the stark divide between political parties threatens to stifle progress and compromise. In this blog post, we delve into the depths of this issue and explore potential strategies to bridge the gap and combat the corrosive effects of partisan polarization.

The Roots of Partisan Polarization

Partisan polarization isn't a new phenomenon, but its intensity and impact have become increasingly evident in recent years. Rooted in a multitude of factors, including ideological differences, media echo chambers, and gerrymandered districts, this polarization has created an environment where collaboration takes a back seat to confrontation.

The Consequences of Polarization

The consequences of partisan polarization are far-reaching. Legislative gridlock, where policy-making grinds to a halt due to an inability to find common ground, has become all too familiar. Public trust in institutions erodes as citizens witness their elected officials engaged in seemingly endless ideological battles, often at the expense of meaningful governance. Moreover, polarization can hinder innovative solutions to pressing issues, leaving critical problems unresolved.

Combating Partisan Polarization: Strategies for Unity

While the challenge of partisan polarization is daunting, it is not insurmountable. Here are some strategies that could help bridge the divide and promote more constructive dialogue and cooperation:

Promote Civility and Respect: Leaders from both sides of the aisle must set an example by engaging in civil and respectful discourse. Constructive debates and disagreements can lead to better solutions, but they should be grounded in mutual respect and a commitment to finding common ground.

Encourage Cross-Party Collaboration: Establish platforms and initiatives that encourage members of different parties to work together on shared goals. Cross-party alliances can demonstrate the potential for compromise and foster a culture of cooperation.

Foster Media Literacy: Educating citizens about media literacy can help counter the echo chamber effect, where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. Encouraging critical thinking and a diverse range of news sources can lead to a more informed and well-rounded public discourse.

Address Gerrymandering: Redistricting reform can help mitigate the impact of gerrymandered districts, which often contribute to polarization by creating safe seats for one party or the other. Independent commissions and transparent processes can lead to more competitive elections and encourage candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

Promote Civic Engagement: Encouraging citizens to actively participate in the political process can help counter apathy and disengagement. When people are actively involved, they become more invested in finding common ground and advocating for solutions that benefit everyone.

A Shared Responsibility

The task of combating partisan polarization is not solely the responsibility of politicians or policymakers. It is a collective effort that requires the engagement of citizens, communities, and institutions across the nation. By recognizing the dangers of polarization and committing to fostering a more inclusive and collaborative political environment, we can work toward a future where the United States thrives through unity, understanding, and progress.

In conclusion, while the challenge of partisan polarization is significant, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. By embracing a spirit of cooperation, promoting civility, and fostering a culture of open dialogue, we can begin to heal the divisions that threaten our democracy. Let us remember that the strength of our nation lies not just in our differences, but in our ability to come together for the greater good.

[phantasmatoucan]

HOLLOW HEART

BONUS: AFTERMATH

BONUS 2: STUFF LEFT BEHIND THERE IS A BIT MORE ON THE DIALOGUE I MADE BUT COULDNT ADDED IT IN BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING TOO LONG AND DIDNT WANT TO BREAK MY WRIST AGAIN

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Constructive Criticism

Dale Carnegie's 9-step guide

Begin with praise and honest appreciation. Carnegie believes, 'Beginning with praise is like the dentist who begins his work with Novocain. The patient still gets a drilling but the Novocain is pain killing.'

Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly. Carnegie suggests that we substitute 'but' for 'and'. He uses an example, 'We're really proud of you for raising your grades this term, and by continuing the same efforts next term, your algebra grade can be up with all the others.' Here, we have called attention to the behaviour we wish to change indirectly, and the chances are the person will try and live up to our expectations.

Talk about your own mistakes before criticising the other person. If you do have to highlight someone's faults, you should do so humbly. If the person criticising begins by admitting the fact that they themselves are far from perfect it will be less difficult to listen to a recital of your own faults.

Ask questions instead of giving direct orders. By asking questions you often stimulate the creativity of others. Carnegie believes that, 'People are more likely to accept an order if they have had a part in the decision that caused the order to be issued.'

Let the other person save face. The importance of allowing someone to save face can't be underestimated. Too often people 'ride roughshod over the feelings of others, getting our own way, finding fault, issuing threats, criticising a child or an employee in front of others, without even considering the hurt to the other person's pride.' If we considered the other person’s feelings it would go a long way in alleviating the sting.

Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. We should take the opportunity to praise even the smallest improvement in ability. By doing so it inspires the other person to make a continued effort and to keep on improving. Carnegie writes, 'Abilities wither under criticism; they blossom under encouragement.'

Give the other person a reputation to live up to. If there is a certain area in which you wish someone to improve, Carnegie believes you should act as though that particular trait was already one of his or her outstanding characteristics. If you give them a reputation to live up to, they will make a determined effort rather than see you let down. 

Use encouragement, make the fault seem easy to correct. Be liberal with your encouragement, let the other person know that you believe in their ability to take the required action and that the necessary changes are easy to carry out. By doing so they will be more inclined to practise and they will not see the problem as insurmountable.

Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest. Ultimately, people are often motivated by personal gain. Concentrate on the benefits to the other person and be empathetic. Ask yourself what it is that the other person really wants and convey to them that they will personally benefit from taking action. 

Source ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[candletrails]

ok, I'm sorry, but:

1. Sol can make out with Sym while in a relationship with someone else (and wonder about what they're gonna say to them later)

2. Sym "dies" and is booted into a new body with no memories of he and Sol snogging

3. when Sol finds Sym right after he leaves his vat, he will try to kiss Sol (again, though he doesn't know it)

4. Sol can turn him down and say "sorry, but I'm already with someone"

5. you never get the option to even mention what happened to Sol's partner. it's just completely brushed off

like. Sol. honey. sweetheart. light of my life. what the hell

[the-way-astray]

why is everyone so shocked at how cringy the unraveled line is, though. like this is par for the course when it comes to keefe. i could pull like sixteen different lines from various books that are at this same level of cringe. this is what he consistently sounds like

[south-africa-official]

translations in order: pussy, shit, fuck, fuck off, fuck (verb), to hit/expression of anger.

non-afrikaans speakers vote based on vibe

[maybeophe]

I like to imagine that all of the Voices are spoken aloud through LQ, so the Princess just watches this guy cycle through various different speech patterns as he has full-on conversations with himself. And she just politely ignores everything said until it's spoken in LQ's actual voice (the player's choices).

[paruparuparuparu]

*It is not as different as I: For it seeks knowledge beyond what it already possesses, devouring all those who come into contact for answers to soothe its own troubled mind.*

-GORE AND DISTURBING IMAGERY WARNING-

Ok I know it isn’t Halloween, but since I’m seeing apocalyptic stuff (cough cough mlp infection cough cough) on my fyp, I decided to have a try at it. The only thing bad about this idea is that I might take a while to post actual art of it.😔

This was originally a concept sketch for another Au based on the Bishops’ purged forms, but I decided that I enjoyed the design for Shamura way too much to scrap it

Now, this Au first takes place in the Goat’s universe, specifically pre-betrayal where Shamura is assisting Narinder with expanding his domain. Since Narinder is still quite new to resurrection, the occasional cursed follower appears; which is similar to the cursed followers in the Lamb’s cult.

After the first couple of cursed followers appear, Shamura decides to look further into the cause of this disease. And who else to look to for information than the Plague God himself?

So, with along with Kallamar, they research into the potential cause of this phenomenon over the course of 70 years, reading through their old scrolls and ancient texts dating back to the War of Gods. So much information was known about it, so many puzzles, so much proof of its existence yet so little reason for it to exist.

They kept the infected in a dungeon, serving as an easy way to experiment on the undead(and a cruel method to punish dissenters). The infected soon went from 1 to 13 in the span of 14 years, and one that that was apparent was the odd way the disease grew in intelligence with each victim. So more were sacrificed to feed the infection, making Shamura’s curiosity grow more and more whilst Kallamar’s concern was at an all time high.

Eventually, after sacrificing a dissenter who had tried to free chained followers to the horde of infected, Kallamar had decided it was enough, saying the whole experiment was a mistake, and the disappearance of many followers was causing much trouble and doubt to appear in their cults. Shamura was reluctant, yet understanding of Kallamar’s concerns, suggesting to take a break for a few decades before returning back to their research.

Yet, before either of them could come to a decision, the dungeon containing the infected had been broken, leaving the two no choice but to defend themselves. Within the chaos in such a small corridor, Shamura had managed to get bit.

After the gory fight, was then and there Kallamar had decided to forcibly shut the project down for good to attend to Shamura. Within the first 2 weeks, Shamura had felt off, but overall they behaved quite normally. Next thing they knew, memories they held dear began to fade, being replaced by an unbearable feeling of emptiness. On the third week, they had the sudden urge to lash out at their siblings, and it was at this point they knew something was terribly wrong.

They go to visit Kallamar, demanding that he chain them in his dungeons. In shock, Kallamar declines their demand only to be met with a menacing glare, causing him to reluctantly agree in the end.

Within the dungeons, Shamura’s mind could make sense of the groans and cries of the infected, going into one of the cells as they use the power of their crown to chain themselves to the ground. They then order Kallamar to keep the experiment going, at his dismay.

And over the course of 2 months, Shamura documented their process of the infection and how unburdened their mind was becoming, while Kallamar was forced to watch his beloved sibling decay in front of his very eyes. And finally, Shamura had given in, no longer responding to any outside stimulus. And at this point, as pictured in the drawing, they are both trapped in the cell by their own chains and trapped inside of their own mind.

[felixir-of-moths]

Constructive comments are the best !

Someone left a very constructive feedback about the fact that my dialogues don't always have breaks, or indications about how the characters are standing / interacting. And that's true - I also do it in French but it's intended. In English, it's more because I'm scared of making things too heavy with prose, or because I have a lack of vocabulary.

It didn't occur to me that it can actually enrich the dialogues, give them more substance and depth, while easing the readers into visualizing the scene. So I'm really grateful for this comment !

I have now a nice objective for my future writing session \o/

The comment was left on 'Casting Error', a 🍋 stand-alone about power dynamics in BDSM, and how being sub/dom has nothing to do with being top/bottom ;)

Go read it and tell me if you agree !