Local spots

 What are the local gathering spots like where you live? 

In my community most shops and cafes are franchises: efficient and predictable, they nevertheless don't lend themselves to neighborliness like "third places" do. We need to connect with our neighbors in casual ways.

"Third places" are independent gathering spots having walls cluttered with notices of lost pets and local sports teams, noisy, full of personality, menus of local favorites, all looking like the neighborhood. 

America used to have more of these. "People mixed across generational and economic lines where you could overhear a conversation wildly different from your own, where children learned to behave in public, and where adults remembered the value of showing up and being present. They were unpretentious, inexpensive, and abundant. And because they belonged to their neighborhoods, they carried meaning."

Understanding and trusting neighbors is "social capital." We need it in America, and it's been declining. "Social capital does not regenerate itself—it is produced in spaces where people encounter one another with regularity and low stakes. When those encounters disappear, people stop learning how to share space with those unlike themselves, and difference begins to feel threatening rather than ordinary."

Ideas to enable more third places . . here.

from AEI

Controversy help

It's not easy to have a civil discussion with someone who really disagrees with you, where neither of you gets mad. So we often don't even attempt it.

Charlie Kirk did it, though. In fact, he went out of his way to do it. In fact, it was a huge part of his life. He invited students who thought he was wrong to come and talk with him. Sometimes they changed their minds, but at least they had the chance to interact with a respectful listener who knew what he was talking about. 

Try to do more of that in your conversations:

1. Clarify--ask your opponent to state his argument, ask him what he means by his terms (Greg Koukl stresses this step), offer a definition if he's struggling and ask him if it's fair
2. Find something you both agree on
3. Only then do you explain your own argument

He was trying to convince, not humiliate, the student.

from X post 

RIP Charlie

Yesterday Charlie Kirk was doing what he so often did and loved to do: dialoging with people who disagreed with him on a college campus. He would invite questions/challenges and then respond respectfully, with civility, with honest and frank answers. 

Thousands of fans came out to watch and hear the debate at Utah Valley University. One individual came with evil purpose in his mind and hate in his heart.

Charlie was murdered. At the age of 31, he leaves behind his wife and two babies.

Clarity re: LA

"Civil disobedience" has an honorable reputation as the expression of a sincere conscience.

It could describe the action of Rosa Parks, for instance, who defied a particular unjust local law . .  without violating other laws. Unfortunately, the term is often used today to describe a protest against certain laws while using lawless violence and looting. 

That's different. That's not civil disobedience. To violate the law against destroying your neighbor's property is not justified or legitimate. The Los Angeles rioting supposedly to protest immigration law was in no way civil, and in many cases not even the sincere expression of conscience.

Old year 2024

On this last day of the year 2024, there are probably many lists of 2024's memorable events and they will differ wildly depending on whose point of view was used. Here are a few events from a list I like:

• Spectacular catching of a 250-ton rocket in free fall, the first ever
• A NYC subway rider defended the lives of his fellow passengers of multiple races, then those passengers told the court that he was a hero
• A pro-football player stood up publicly for family and faith, then stood strong against being cancelled and earned a new contract
• A female university volleyball team took a stand against biologically male players

What a year this has been.

from Stream

Prof fired

Freedom to speak your opinion even when it disagrees with the powerful, one of the American freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, can't be assumed here in the U.S. anymore. Powerful people tell us that THEY hold the right to define truth.

Sadly, our colleges and universities have been bullying individuals for many years with regard to speech. A California professor with tenure was accused of immoral and unprofessional conduct and then fired in 2021. An official compared free speech advocates like him to "livestock that needed to be culled from the herd."

The prof said he was fired for speaking things the college didn't like, and filed a law suit.

 

 photo

The college claimed innocence but were willing to pay a hefty sum to avoid having to defend that claim in court. They settled for paying $2.4 million this summer.

Loss of free speech here in America and other places is what happens when those holding power don't want to go to the trouble of civil discussion with people who disagree. This example is the fourth one this week; the other examples of power denying freedom of speech were Venezuela (Tuesday), Britain (Wednesday), and Facebook (yesterday).

from Pen America

Vivek on debate

Ex-candidate for President Vivek Ramaswamy learned something about the value of the right kind of debate as a 12-year-old.

His dad brought him along to law classes, and then they would talk about it. Vivek reveals what he learned on those occasions in an interview on X.

"My dad would engage me in debate on those long drives home. He would lean a little left of center and then he would criticize what [certain judges] say, and then I would take the other side. It actually brought us closer together."

It's the friendliest way to learn to think things through without hostility.

"It teaches kids who know they have the love of their parents that you can disagree with someone even while having a high regard for them." Disagreement does not equal hate, an important thing to remember in today's climate. 

from this post on X

Awokening 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Woke values just don't sync with most Americans. We don't want to cancel everybody who disagrees with us and don't want to be cancelled if we're pretty sure men can't get pregnant.

Babylon Bee manages to help us laugh about it just a little👇 

from Babylon Bee

Speak up 2

Unlike the woman in yesterday's post, most of us will likely censor ourselves rather than speak up in public situations. We know we'll get opposition to our sincerely held convictions, because that's the cultural moment America is in. 

Fierce opposition is certain to be employed by the left against good and traditional American virtues. Issues of free speech and parental rights are landing in the court system because our constitution was designed and created to be the final, lawful defender of those rights. 

But maybe it doesn't have to go that far, maybe more people agree with these values than it seems. That's the view of this author, who thinks "a whopping 80% of Americans would find themselves nodding in agreement."

So let's try to engage, even with people we think may not agree with us. Keys to good conversations always apply: 1) listen to them, 2) try to understand their view, and 3) create a human connection. Some no-no's: don't shout them down or call them names.

Some people are open to civility.

Speak up 1

Last year a Christian mother of four children was elected to her Arizona school district's governing board. She started serving last January. She authentically brought her convictions with her to her new position in the community. When she spoke, she would read some verses from the Bible.

It shouldn't be forbidden to read a Bible verse. That should be obvious to any American, but the board barred her from it. She kept it up. The Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened "liability and financial strain" if the school board didn't find a way to stop her. She stopped reading verses.

It sounds like she was forcing the issue and it took courage. Her actions were called "unconstitutional." But that's just rhetoric without merit, because the constitution actually guarantees freedom to speak.

So she's going to sue the school district. It's sad that something like this has to end up in the court system. But the writers of the constitution put the principle of free speech in the Bill of Rights for this kind of situation. Read her lawyers' statement.

photo

from Life Site News

Tolerant 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

There's a question posed in yesterday's video, a question that provokes strong opinions.

"Any way you answer, someone's views are not going to be tolerated. There is no world in which the answer to this question accommodates and tolerates everyone and everything. The question which divides us is which public behaviors should be tolerated and which should not."

Old intolerance has been replaced with new intolerance. For example, 50 years ago a teacher might be fired for teaching A Communist Manifesto in school. Today a teacher could be fired for teaching the Bible in school. Did the parents of students choose this trade-off?

Should we have any standards at all? Who gets to decide what should be tolerated and what should not? 

Tolerant

Open-minded to everything, open to anything at all. Is that what it means to be tolerant today? That word is used a lot to describe how we all should be, what it takes to be a good person and a good citizen. 

But actually, not one single person is completely open to absolutely every thing. Each one of us is open to some things but not open to everything.

Today's American culture is intolerant of different things than Americans used to be. It's a question of what is good, what standards should we hold up. What things from our traditions should be preserved and what traditions should be changed? We've gone through this before.

DEI

A new office assistant was tasked with delivering mail to about 150 employees whom, of course, he didn't know yet. One day he delivered a box to a short, slender Korean woman with long black hair who wore glasses. An awkward interaction ensued, because it was the wrong person.

He should have delivered it to the right person, who also fit that description. A simple mistake by a new employee, right? Of course not, because the "mistake" was deeply racist. That's the default go-to interpretation of today's work place. 

He knew what it meant in that environment, and he was ashamed. After apologizing, he shuffled away, face bright red - a very bad moment for him and everyone else because it openly identified him as one of the racially guilty.

An employee of a different minority race who observed it saw the event in a different light. He wrote this account of it and sent it to the organization known as FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. 

image

from Fair for All

(cont'd tomorrow)

She eats there

Chick-Fil-A has good food. But if you eat there, it means you hate gay people. That was the assumption among some gay communities after 2012. Chairman Dan Cathy was discovered to - gasp - not support gay marriage, and thus was a homophobic bigot who hates gay people. Furthermore, anyone who goes there is a hater too.

"But I'm gay, and I still eat at Chick-Fil-A." So says Reid Newton, who appreciates both the chicken sandwiches and the gracious customer service. She reserves for herself the right to eat as many of their sandwiches as she pleases. And she thinks for herself.

"While I might not agree with the Cathy family’s outlook on marriage, I will defend their right to hold those beliefs, and I will insist on compassion and conversation as the best way to resolve our differences."

That's an attitude that I can admire. Disagreement is not hatred. She likes what Dan Cathy said in response to the uproar, "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect, and to serve great food with genuine hospitality.”

from FAIR

Clarify

Conversation is a pleasure for me and probably for you too. Maybe you enjoyed some good ones with family or friends over Thanksgiving weekend. Or maybe your conversations included some that should have been pleasant and meaningful but were frustrating and unpleasant.

In this day of polarizing points of view, making civil connections with people may require a little more effort so that anger and contempt don't wreck the relationship. 

photo

Alan Schlemon puts a lot of effort into good conversations. Misunderstanding each other can put us off track quickly, so he recommends this tactic: find out what they mean before you react to what they say.

It's a simple thing. Ask, "what do you mean by that?" Or put it in your own words. You want to give them the opportunity to explain their thought. It shows respect. Understanding will grow.

from str

Civility

A black man made a friend out of a Ku Klux Klan man. It happened naturally, because this man deliberately took the time to talk to him and listen to him.

"We spend too much time talking about each other, at each other, past each other - and not enough time talking with each other."

Inspiring.

I wish you well

The late George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, lost his bid for a second term in 1993 to Bill Clinton. 

After being president for four years, he walked into the oval office one last time to leave a beautiful note for his successor. You'll find no resentment in it, just kindness and civility.

Dear Bill,

When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I'm not a very good one to give advice; but just don't let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

Your success now is our country's success. I am rooting hard for you.

Good luck - 

George

Civil debate

In yesterday's posted video, Billy Graham and Woody Allen interact in a civil manner, listening to each other and interacting without rancor. Amy Wax, law professor at University of Pennsylvania law school, would like that.

She co-authored an article that shouldn't have triggered hate, but did.  There were letters, statements, petitions "hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling," much of it coming from her own law school.

"There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way."

How should disagreement be handled? "The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong." Without name-calling.

That would be civil discourse. That's what we need.

RIP Billy

Billy Graham of Montreat, North Carolina, preached to more people than anyone in history. But everything I've read since his death last week also emphasized his integrity. Consistently high standards earned him global respect.

He treated people well and kindly. For example: he and Woody Allen had very little in common in terms of worldview and personal life, but the two of them were able to be civil to each other. Enjoy watching two smart people of differing values interact respectfully and honestly:

Interpersonal

Pastor Mac shares wisdom for smoother interaction with other people. "Don't dream up conflict." Genuine conflict is unavoidable, but hopefully we can avoid dreamed-up conflict. If a conversation can clear the air, we won't have to suffer through more conflict than is necessary.