How I approach disagreements

• Published: 2025-01-07 17:30

For transparencies’ sake, and to hopefully help you understand how I’m approaching people:

Here’s my ‘prime directive’

I truly believe that every person does the best they can. Given what they understand, their skills and abilities, their personal resources available, and the situation at hand. Especially when the result is 💩.

Whenever discourse derails, I believe there’s been a misunderstanding between at least two people (because). Since I assume everyone in the VAULT agreed to be here to learn from and connect with others:

It’s the responsibility of everyone involved to resolve the misunderstanding. In good faith that misunderstandings are mutual and unavoidable part of communication (again: because).

To me, good faith is compromised as soon as

People start accusing or judging each other from the absolute, discuss about who is ‘objectively right’, and/or stop asking each other open-ended questions about their perspectives.

It happens to everyone of us every now and then. And I don’t want, nor can exclude myself from that. It’s human. Because.

At the same time, I give myself and others credit for trying. “Imho that’s bullshit” conveys that bit of self-awareness which makes me curious about how. Where “That’s bullshit” smells like a prayer from above to me. Detalis matter 🤷.

Unfortunately, some seem to ignore such details like ‘imho’, ‘i think’, ‘to me’. Instead, interpreting the message in a manner that maximizes the damage. And start responding defensively with accusations. In my book, abandoning good faith as a concept.

Where I’m drawing the line

Anyone involved, who repeatedly rejects and/or deflects their responsibility to resolve a misunderstanding in a socially acceptable way, is not a person I’d like to invite, learn from or disagree with again.

Thankfully, this rarely happens. In 5 years with +300+ members, I asked 5 people to leave.

What do I deem to be socially acceptable?

Any empathic, ‘good faith’-driven attempt refraining from adding insult to injury. Like open-minded and -ended questions as display of willingness to understand the others’ perspective. If something completely goes against one’s grain, not accepting something is always an option. If someone’s fuse is about to blow, asking for a break and leaving on a notice of eg wanting to take a break is fine, too.

Not acceptable to me:

Apathic responses: Leaving without further notice. Accusations, judgement, and preaching from the absolute. Adding more fuel to the fire, whilst asking for a break. Holding people hostage in a conversation. By polarizing for the sake of making a point ad infinitum.Or gish gallopping.

As a person, I can temporarily take almost anything as a glitch in the matrix. As a community host, I can’t subscribe to above longterm. No matter how ‘normal’ it is on Facebook, Twitter and so on.

I hold myself accountable to

Only write in ways I’d also address a person standing in front of me. And I trust everyone involved in this community to hold me accountable for this. In return, I hold others as accountable for their words and the agreement as myself.

To be as plain as possible

As a person whose taste in arts and music was profoundly influenced by black and queer culture, as a german shaped by post WWII ‘functioning’, and consumer who benefits from the products and resources of a connected world every day:

I rebel against narrow-minded conservatism. And can not compute the idea of integrating extreme conservative ideologies into a community discussing music that emerged as statement against them. 🤷

In the end, I believe that

One’s freedom of speech does NOT entitle to breach another one’s integrity.

Please understand that my resources are finite, too. I am responsible for how I invest them. And what I want to focus on. Monitoring my boundaries or those of others every day is not on my list. It’s the opposite of what I perceive as circle of safety.

And I’m grateful that on 99% of days in this community, I don’t have to.