For people who are working to help reduce animosities and hostilities across belief divides

[Karolina]

I'll reiterate an earlier idea: find ways to discuss core values.

I think most healthy people share a lot of core values. I think that if you have NOT taken explicit inventory of your core values, it's easy for religious teachings to lead you away from your core values. (Other things can lead you away as well, of course.)

This is something I've recently realized. Namely that while I assumed I shared all the basic values with the people at my place of worship, it's become more and more evident that I don't, essentially pushing me on another leg of my spiritual journey. But I've also found it impossible to find a group (or even an individual!) that shares all of my values. So that's something to mention I guess. Either way we need to be able to being our full selves to whatever interaction we're involved in and stay open to learning about differing perspectives.

 

[Karolina]

I’m picturing some people in all the religions, and people outside of all of them, who don’t feel divided from each other by the lines that other people are imagining between them, who look forward to a time when those lines will be forgotten by all people, and who are working to help that happen, in every part of their lives including in these forums.

Gracious, this is a tall order, isn't it? I'm actually finding more and more divisions WITHIN religions, so can we really hope to reach out across religions? I mean, I think we can if we reach a critical mass of people of good will who share the values of understanding, mutual respect, an open mind, and a desire to learn, and we get a lot of these people into positions of power within society. And then see to it that said power doesn't corrupt them.

You know, there are a few nations that come to mind that seem to be doing a pretty good job on terms of peace... Switzerland and the Nordic countries come to mind. Perhaps a study of what sets them apart and creates a society in which everyone agrees that the common good is actually a priority over individuality?

 

[Jim]

One kind of misuse that I’ve been seeing of a model is adversarial reactions to people disbelieving it or even questioning it.

Could you give an example of what you mean?

Sorry, I wrote a reply to that, but I never posted it. One example is the metaphor of a universal common ancestor in evolution theory.

I’m seeing the problem now as people using words and ways of thinking sometimes, in ways that facilitate drawing lines of alienation between people, and disparaging people’s character and capacities.

 

[Jim]

Update on ideas to try, for people who are working to help reduce animosities and hostilities:

- Imagine that a person’s religious or political label or identity doesn’t tell you anything about what they actually believe or don’t believe.

- Imagine that a person’s religious or political label or identity, and what they believe and don’t believe, don’t tell you anything about their character, capacities, interests, motives or intentions.

- Imagine that a person’s religious or political label or identity, and what they believe and don’t believe, don’t tell you anything about the possibilities for you in discussions with them.

- Don’t ever call any of your views or anyone else’s “science,” “scientific,” “what science says” or “unscientific. Don’t ever call your reasons for your way of thinking “evidence.” Don’t ever use the word “evidence” in explaining your reasons for not believing what other people say.

- Don’t ever call anything you believe “what God says,” or “what scripture says.”

- Try to notice when you’re disparaging the character or capacities of a person or a group or category of people, and stop doing it. That includes groups and categories defined by what people believe or don’t believe.

- Don’t associate animosities and hostilities towards religions and their followers with atheism.

- Don’t post until you can do it with genuinely friendly feelings towards everyone.

 

[Karolina]

I would also rephrase some of these like this: listen to others with an open curiosity, assuming you can and will learn something from the interaction if you only stay out of the way.

I also found it very helpful back in college when we had to prepare for a debate by arguing in favor of the side that we actually opposed. That was very eye opening.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I’m thinking that your work might have far more value than you realize, yourself.

I'm sorry, but that strikes me as remarkably patronizing.

 

[Jim]

I’ve been saying that one problem I see is people using differences in ways of thinking as reasons for drawing lines of alienation between themselves and others, and stigmatizing each other across those lines, but that’s only on the face of it. Behind that I see that alienation and that stigmatizing as part of human nature. I see another part of human nature that can and will tame those impulses, but that part of human nature is being widely stigmatized itself, and denied or repressed. Along with that, I see a moral vacuum in which any excuse will do, for people to indulge their worst impulses. I’ve been learning to just ignore those excuses.

I’ve been thinking of practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as my response to all current issues, but there might be other things for me to do, different for different issues. This thread is about possible responses to the issue of people drawing lines of alienation between themselves and others, and stigmatizing people across those lines.

At one point I was thinking of misunderstandings about the models that are used in the sciences as part of the problem of people opposing some religious beliefs and some of what people call “science” against each other. I started a discussion about models, not to try to stop people from misusing them but to help people avoid being intimidated and fooled by that.

 

[Jim]

One of the reasons that I’ve seen for people denouncing and scolding other people in the forums is to counteract misinformation, so I’ll discuss what I’ve done and what I might do about that. One thing I’ve done has been to start discussions about the tactics that I see being used, and how to recognize them and not be fooled or intimidated by them. Another ihas been to start discussions of my own to counteract the misinformation. Another has been to try to better understand what people were thinking and trying to do who were spreading the misinformation, and find better ways to do it. For example, when I saw misinformation about Islam and Muslims associated with alarms about Islam, I tried to understand better what people were concerned about and find better ways of responding to it, and I started some discussions about that.

Besides all that, I’m responding to that issue in the same way that I’m responding to other current issues: practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations.

 

[Jim]

Update on my thoughts about this:

I see part of the problems of cruelty and violence at all levels, from online feuding to global economic and military warfare, as people using differences in ways of thinking as reasons for drawing lines of alienation between themselves and others, and stigmatizing people across those lines. Looking more deeply, I think that drawing those lines and stigmatizing people is part of human nature. I also think that another part of human nature is a love for all of nature including all people everywhere, even if that is currently being widely denied and repressed. Part of my response to all that is practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. Another part of it is trying to free myself and help free others from all kinds of prejudices and delusions.

I keep wanting to respond in some way to what I see as people dragging the name and reputation of science through the mud of their feuding, trying to use it to stigmatize their adversaries, but then I think that might not do any good because that isn’t really the reason for the feuding. Then I think it might be helpful to people who are working to help reduce the hostilities. That’s the reason for my thread about history-of-life models, and the one about models in general.

 

[Jim]

I’ve been saying that some of my posts are for people who are working to help reduce animosities and hostilities across lines of alienation. I’m revising that. There might be a part of each person that wants to help do that. Some of my posts are for that part of each person.

 

[Jim]

Update: I’m practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. I’m thinking that might be the most consequential and beneficial way for me to respond to all current issues, economic, social and political. In these forums community service for me might include discussing some social issues that I see here, and how to respond to them.

 

[Jim]

I have a thought about how uniformity of thought is enforced in each faction. It’s by people in the faction continually seeing people outside of it being denounced, scolded, ridiculed and vilified by other people in the faction, for disagreeing with its ideology.

 

[Jim]

I’m thinking of how cruelty and violence of all kinds including domestic violence, the cruelty associated with cheap labor, and economic and military warfare, might be intertwined with verbal abuse in Internet discussions. Anything that anyone can do to help reduce that might help to reduce cruelty and violence offline.

I’m practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. I’m thinking those might be the most consequential ways for me to respond to all current issues, economic, social and political. At the same time there might be some other things to do, different for different issues. That might include verbal abuse online and offline.

Part of what I’ve been learning is how to recognize verbal abuse when I see it, and how to respond to it. One way that I’ve been learning to respond to it is by not responding to it, at all, not even indirectly. Another way is with friendly posts or private messages to targets of abuse. Maybe next could be to help other people learn to do that. There might need to be some way for people to be admonished when they’re behaving abusively. In order for that to do any good, it might need to come from friends.

 

[Jim]

I don’t see arguing and debating about views and beliefs as a problem. What I see as a problem is people arguing in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways, and worse, other people admiring that cruelty. I think that anything anyone does to help reduce that cruelty, deception and treachery online, besides being better for everyone in the discussions, will help reduce cruelty and violence offline, including for example the cruelty and violence in families, in the use of cheap labor, in global monopoly games, and even against animals.

Again, my first response is to practice and promote spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. Next, learning to recognize when people are arguing and debating in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways, and not to respond to that at all, not even to denounce it. Next, friendly messages to targets of the cruelty, in the forums or in PM. Next, friendly admonishment to friends when they argue and debate in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don’t see arguing and debating about views and beliefs as a problem. What I see as a problem is people arguing in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways, and worse, other people admiring that cruelty. I think that anything anyone does to help reduce that cruelty, deception and treachery online, besides being better for everyone in the discussions, will help reduce cruelty and violence offline, including for example the cruelty and violence in families, in the use of cheap labor, in global monopoly games, and even against animals.

Again, my first response is to practice and promote spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. Next, learning to recognize when people are arguing and debating in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways, and not to respond to that at all, not even to denounce it. Next, friendly messages to targets of the cruelty, in the forums or in PM. Next, friendly admonishment to friends when they argue and debate in cruel, deceptive and treacherous ways.

I understand Jim.

I have been following your statements for awhile. I think you have a lot of the right ideas. But, there comes a point where I think it's not correct to label many, many people as having tactics, etc. It becomes a form of prejudice. I mean take the Games section for example. People can label some of the exchanges of the men there in bad ways, but really it's more like friendly male competition, I think:

By calling people out as deceptive, etc, we are creating a form of "Guilty until proven innocent."

 

[Jim]

One thing I’ve been forgetting to mention in posts about cruel, deceptive and treacherous behavior in Internet discussions is continually improving my own practice of what I’m peaching, learning not to behave that way myself. Mostly what I’m doing for that now is learning not to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings towards everyone.

 

[Jim]

... but really it's more like friendly male competition, I think ...

Some of it might be that, but sometimes that’s just an excuse and camouflage for cruelty.

That relates to what I’ve been thinking about appearances. I’ve said that one way I’ve seen people being fooled, or intimidated into silence about their views, is by seeing other people being maligned, scolded, ridiculed and vilified, seemingly because of what they believe or don’t believe. Sometimes when people do that they say that it’s because of a person’s behavior, not because of their beliefs. Even if that’s true, if denunciations of a person’s behavior are intertwined with arguments against their beliefs, that can have the same effects on everyone as a person being vilified because of what they believe or don’t believe. Even if it isn’t coming from the same people, if a person is being vilified for their behavior, and their views are being criticized, in the same discussion at the same time, even if it isn’t coming from the same people, it can have the same effects as a person being vilified for what they believe or don’t believe. Especially when there are posts that really are vilifying the person for what they believe or don’t believe.

 

[Jim]

I’m discussing what I’ve been learning to do when I see cruel, deceptive and treacherous behavior in Internet discussions. I’m thinking that anything any can do to help reduce that behavior in Internet discussions might help reduce all kinds of cruelty and violence in the world around us. One way of responding to it is by not responding to it. Another way is with friendly messages to targets of it, in the forums or in PM. Another way might be admonishments to friends sometimes when they’re behaving that way. Another way is encouragement and support to other people who are learning to do all that.

One way of recognizing that behavior is when people are casting aspersions on a person’s motives, intentions, character and capacities. Another way of learning to recognize that behavior is by studying tactics that are used in bullying and in emotional and mental abuse.

 

[Jim]

When a person’s behavior is being denounced and their views are being criticized in the same discussion at the same time, even if it isn’t coming from the same people, I think that might have the same effects of fooling people, or intimidating them into silence about their views, as a person being maligned, scolded, ridiculed and vilified because of what they believe or don’t believe. For me that means not to criticize a person’s behavior in the same discussion at the same time where their views are being criticized, and not to discuss my disagreements with a person’s views in the same discussion at the same where their behavior is being criticized.

 

[Jim]

One reason I see behind cruelty and violence, online and offline, is people denying and repressing their own feelings, which might include a natural impulse to love and care for all of nature including all people everywhere. Another reason is a moral vacuum in which any excuse will do for people to indulge their worst impulses.