Read on Twitter
Imagine it’s 2024, Trump runs for presidency again, and he wins.
The Democrats, surprised by the results in a few counties, ask for a forensic audit of the voting machines but some get denied, “there’s no evidence”.
1/N
The Democrats, surprised by the results in a few counties, ask for a forensic audit of the voting machines but some get denied, “there’s no evidence”.
1/N
2/ You, a Democrat, don’t like the answer, because the other party spent the last 4 years talking about interference during the elections.
3/ You get told to respect the democratic process.
But you do already want to respect it! Perhaps, you even believe that your candidate did lose, but now you get suspicions because the Republicans are dismissing the claims of foul play rather than investigating them.
But you do already want to respect it! Perhaps, you even believe that your candidate did lose, but now you get suspicions because the Republicans are dismissing the claims of foul play rather than investigating them.
4/ So, you begin asking question on social media.
But your posts get marked as “disputed”.
But your posts get marked as “disputed”.
5/ At the beginning, you didn’t care too much about the result of the elections. But now, you see the fairness of the democratic process at stake.
How can you know that elections are fair, if claims of wrongdoing are dismissed?
You get angry.
How can you know that elections are fair, if claims of wrongdoing are dismissed?
You get angry.
6/ Republicans, on the other hand, think you’re a conspiracy theorist.
Of course elections were fair. There was no evidence of interference.
And most of the claims got investigated.
But you, a Democrat, don’t know that. You heard Republican representatives dismissing claims.
Of course elections were fair. There was no evidence of interference.
And most of the claims got investigated.
But you, a Democrat, don’t know that. You heard Republican representatives dismissing claims.
7/ You’re now polarized more than ever.
You used to have a “sportive rivalry” with the members of the other party. Different political opinions, but still fellow countrymen.
Now, though, you begin to see at least some of them as enemies of your country.
You used to have a “sportive rivalry” with the members of the other party. Different political opinions, but still fellow countrymen.
Now, though, you begin to see at least some of them as enemies of your country.
8/ Yesterday, your representative got censored.
The media platform said that it was done to de-escalate violence.
But you see it as a threat to free speech, and thus to democracy.
For them, it was a de-escalatory act. For you, it’s escalatory.
The media platform said that it was done to de-escalate violence.
But you see it as a threat to free speech, and thus to democracy.
For them, it was a de-escalatory act. For you, it’s escalatory.
10/ The Republicans of 2024 talk about healing the country, but you don’t understand. Healing begins from listening, and they’re not listening.
On the other hand, the Republicans don’t understand. They see the few Democrats that call for violence. Of course they won’t listen.
On the other hand, the Republicans don’t understand. They see the few Democrats that call for violence. Of course they won’t listen.
10/ No healing until your party and theirs takes seriously the others’ concerns.
11/ – – –
I hesitated to write this post. For one, I’m not American and I have no business to discuss American politics.
OTOH, I thought it could be of value, at least for some. I’ve heard a similar speech (google “A radical experiment on empathy”) and it was life-changing.
I hesitated to write this post. For one, I’m not American and I have no business to discuss American politics.
OTOH, I thought it could be of value, at least for some. I’ve heard a similar speech (google “A radical experiment on empathy”) and it was life-changing.
12/ So, I’ve decided to post a similar “see from the other person’s point of view” experiment.
I might have gotten some facts and interpretations wrong, but I hope the readers will focus on the core message and not on the details.
I’m listening.
I might have gotten some facts and interpretations wrong, but I hope the readers will focus on the core message and not on the details.
I’m listening.
13/ The point is not what happened.
The point is that if concerns are not taken seriously, what really happened won’t matter.
Only polarizing narratives will be left.
The point is that if concerns are not taken seriously, what really happened won’t matter.
Only polarizing narratives will be left.
14/ Also, I do not want to absolve anyone's responsibility.
The point is that on each side, there are people engaging earnestly and people engaging destructively.
If we treat one side as if it were made only of the latter, we'll get more of it. No one wins from that.
The point is that on each side, there are people engaging earnestly and people engaging destructively.
If we treat one side as if it were made only of the latter, we'll get more of it. No one wins from that.
15/ Another example. This – circumventing the chain of command to prevent hostilities – can be de-escalatory for one side and escalatory for the other.
Whatever your side, if any, can you feel both?
Necessary act of not, could it have been communicated better?
(ht @aledeniz)
Whatever your side, if any, can you feel both?
Necessary act of not, could it have been communicated better?
(ht @aledeniz)
16/ "Proves each side that we are enemies"
I would rather say, "gives each side reason to believe we are enemies, whereas the enemies are a very small subset of the other side"
But sadly, the message that gets received is indeed the former. https://twitter.com/adamapodaca13/status/1347789624186261505?s=20
I would rather say, "gives each side reason to believe we are enemies, whereas the enemies are a very small subset of the other side"
But sadly, the message that gets received is indeed the former. https://twitter.com/adamapodaca13/status/1347789624186261505?s=20
17/ I might be wrong, but I believe that what happens is that there are, say, 10 Republicans in bad faith & 90 in good one.
If we treat the 90 as if they were the 10, at the next time step there are 20 in bad faith.
And that applies to both sides.
(percentages chosen randomly)
If we treat the 90 as if they were the 10, at the next time step there are 20 in bad faith.
And that applies to both sides.
(percentages chosen randomly)
18/ How to de-escalate?
I like @edgardo_block's answer: empathy + taking out possible points of dispute.
For example:
– Listen
– Build a history of good faith
– Call out the rotten apples on your side
– Allow audits *without dismissing concerns first*
I like @edgardo_block's answer: empathy + taking out possible points of dispute.
For example:
– Listen
– Build a history of good faith
– Call out the rotten apples on your side
– Allow audits *without dismissing concerns first*
