For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:
“We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let’s have a conversation.”
“Okay, then here’s ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ.”
“Actually I’m here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you’re the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider.”
Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don’t bother because I’m not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think.”
I’m not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it’s a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there’s any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there’s thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.
I feel like that’s a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue.
The people in the comic (and in the comments here) are often trying to minimize the issue on which she is speaking, or co-opt the conversation for their own issues (typically forcing her and the original issue to the sidelines). They’re not adding context or having a discussion in good faith.
Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way
For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:
“We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let’s have a conversation.”
“Okay, then here’s ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ.”
“Actually I’m here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you’re the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider.”
Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don’t bother because I’m not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think.”
I’m not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it’s a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there’s any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there’s thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.
I feel like that’s a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue.
The people in the comic (and in the comments here) are often trying to minimize the issue on which she is speaking, or co-opt the conversation for their own issues (typically forcing her and the original issue to the sidelines). They’re not adding context or having a discussion in good faith.
There’s a big middle area you’re ignoring.