,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Thread: I had some thoughts on the rhetoric and practice of "dialogue," "engagement," and "growing together" in politics in light of recent events.
2. In general, I agree that the best way to convince people, or at the very least have them understand and respect a different point of view, is by talking to them rather than yelling or insulting them. But you'll find there are a lot of qualifications attached.
3. First, all conversations need some common ground, which can be difficult especially if one side demands another concede to a fundamental point.
4. For one example, my father once an invitation to a particular interfaith program because he would have had to accept a priori in the religious authority of the pope.
5. This gets magnified when certain opinions are equated with "denying someone's humanity." In these cases, there's no possibility for dialogue or understanding due to the framing (it doesn't matter if it's true)
6. For this reason, the calls for dialogue and understanding, however well-intended, are no less defined politically. Some people get the chance at dialogue and others don't. e.g. Omar vs King/Trump
7. Meaning, the question of who is and who is not deserving of a conversation is just as loaded as the discussion.
8. I think @schraubd got it right regarding the recent Leftist attacks on @jdforward. Jews should have a dialogue with Omar, but the Forward is supposed to be boycotted.
9. Personally, I don't think dialogue is meaningless, but in my experience, I'm skeptical about its effectiveness on a group level vs. individuals. @PopChassid demonstrated this in a brief exchange with @AOC over Corbyn.
10. I have no idea if I've ever influenced people on Twitter (by which I mean got them thinking differently) because Twitter is a terrible forum for this. There are simply too many diff types of people who interject w/mutually exclusive ideas (or just bad jokes)
11. In contrast, I know I've been able to influence people in *person* - both to the Left and Right of myself - because I could respond directly to what they were saying and adjust my arguments accordingly to be more convincing.
12. No community is a monolith. My POC and LGBT friends have very different opinions, as do friends of mine in other religions. I don't think I can have a dialogue with any of their global communities because everyone's needs are different
13. Even on an individual level, I've learned I can't talk to certain people about certain things, but that's less because they don't deserve it and more because I don't think I could be effective in changing their minds.
14. My point is that dialogue can be good and it can even be effective sometimes. But don't pretend for a moment that dialogue itself is neutral. The conditions of conversation themselves presume the legitimacy of certain ideas or certain people. It's always a judgment call. \fin
