Oo I love all of this - including- How well are your current methods working for convincing people? Said with curiosity and humility of course. Thank you 💕
I agree with all your points, and like Glenn, I'd appreciate your going deeper. For me, that means practical suggestions for helping others see civility, etc., as vital to achieving their goals. Dorsey
I didn't find Citizens' Climate Lobby because I was looking civility, healthy dialogue, and respectful disagreement. I found Citizens' Climate Lobby because I was terrified and mad about climate change and wanted to do something productive. I was lucky to have found the organization that I did, because now I do deeply care about civility, healthy dialogue, and respectful disagreement.
But I have to admit that if someone had tried to sell Citizens' Climate Lobby to me with those terms, I might not have joined. Instead, they connected with where I was at in terms of climate change and told me they believed the best way to better climate legislation was through building bridges with those we disagree with instead of only screaming at or ignoring them.
Would you kindly offer a few more solutions to the problem you so clearly identify - that many of attending these spaces and conferences etc are preaching in a choir and in fact further separating from the people who are not here ? It’s the problem of our time . You speak beautifully to it . You have scratched the surface lightly. Please go deeper. We need to recognize our failures as long time bridge builders and self proclaimed “depolarizers” (for which I am one. My ambitions have far exceeded my impact ). I’m at a loss.m and could use more of your solutions . Thanks Glenn Cort
Thank you, @Nathan, well said and very important. Bridge-building is foundational to being effective in all other advocacy efforts, and that is a stronger selling point to people outside of our movement. Regarding concrete suggestions for @Glenn and others, I can think of a few off the top of my head: Modeling bridging in our conversations with these folks, starting with listening to their perspectives and goals. Then asking questions of curiosity - how do they envision becoming successful? Does it include convincing people? How well are their current methods working for convincing people? If the roles were reversed, how well would those methods work for convincing them? If they feel they just need to gather enough power to enforce their goals, how do they imagine that will play out in the longer term? Again, if the roles were reversed (perhaps thinking of an issue that others advocate and they oppose) how would they react to that enforcement? And if they are open to hearing about it, have a few examples of common ground successes in advocacy, to highlight bridging as a successful strategy. (These might also be helpful to counter arguments like "those people won't listen to reason".) Thoughts?
I shall listen to it. Noble of you and others to be having these conversations and staying in the work - it’s not easy. Restoring universal moral taboos (as you say ) requires the widespread agreement to what is morally right and wrong - and herein lays the problem of course. Nobody likes the preaching and teaching part.. so it gets complicated. I recently came across Daniel yudkin and Beacon Project who is espousing “Potentialism” as a potential way of reaching all types of people : given down deep it’s hard to argue that we have great potential as human beings. Hope to compare notes with you. These guys (Beth and Doug ) at Together Across Differences have been doing a great service. Thank you.
This is an important and well-articulated challenge for everyone working in the bridging space. We have built meaningful capacity for dialogue, but too often we are offering it primarily to people already persuaded that dialogue matters.
The most powerful insight here is the shift from presenting bridging as a moral destination to presenting it as a practical tool for advancing the goals people already care about. Whether someone is advocating for immigration reform, workplace effectiveness, community safety, or a particular policy outcome, curiosity, relationship-building, and constructive communication are not distractions from the work—they are often the most effective way to move it forward.
If we can help people see bridging not as “be nicer to people you disagree with,” but as a pathway to greater influence, stronger coalitions, and more durable results, we have a far better chance of reaching beyond the opt-in bubble.
I think there's a very important message here which I largely agree with, but can I politely disagree with part of the framing?
I would argue that there IS a moral imperative to bridging, which is that there's a universal, moral red line that we cannot allow to be crossed. If people are expressing overt, hateful bigotry and endorsing violence, they are destructionists. That doesn't mean we cannot engage with them, but they must not be given the opportunity to actively burn down the bridges we're trying to build.
I wrote about this here recently, as part of my overall effort to restore our universal moral TABOOS in a principled way that allows for dialogue and reform and redemption but doesn't offer immunity to those that seek to destroy our society and harm others: https://elevin11.substack.com/p/the-arsonists-blueprint
With respect, I never said there wasn't a moral imperative, I said not to rely upon it.
I would also push back that this line is universal - does everyone see it as universal? Or do you feel that it *should* be universal?
More importantly, what does insisting upon this moral imperative do to make our work in the bridging space easier? Does it make the message more resonant? More compelling? Does your understanding of destructionism and what behaviors to exclude make the bridging space more manageable?
Your moral assertion may be right (I tend to be rather agnostic about these things), but to insist that people accept it can dramatically limit your reach. That's my point.
Sorry for misconstruing. In most instances, I think you're right that it's better to enter without relying on the moral imperative. I have been particularly focused on the extreme edge cases, on the people who violate our universal moral taboos (more on the universal part below) by expressing this overt hateful bigotry, and seeing various rationales for other people to uncritically associate with them. I believe we need principles and a baseline morality as a qualifier of sorts. Frankly, I think this already aligns to basic bridging guidelines, but I believe we need to make it more explicit that overt hateful bigotry and the endorsement of violence and terror are socially unacceptable and can't be considered as mere differences of opinion. That doesn't mean we can't dialogue with or "platform" these folks, but we have to make clear to them and others that their views violate an unassailable moral imperative.
Using an extreme example for a thought experiment, how would you apply this "meeting people where they are" to somebody like David Duke? FWIW, I'm a huge admirer of Daryl Davis (who I recently wrote about here https://elevin11.substack.com/p/hating-without-knowing), but I think we cannot offer a blank check to people with these egregiously immoral views - not that that's what you were arguing for. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Re: universal, >95% of Americans believe that political violence is wrong, so I think that's close enough to be deemed universal.
Thanks for engaging! It's all with respect, and I appreciate your views and pushback too!
What a noble pursuit! And I think it can work, especially when we put our relationships first, before our opinions.
I found COVID to be a very divisive issue, and whenever someone brought it up -- and I have friends in both vax and anti-vax camps -- I told them that I value my relationships more than people's opinions, and that I'd rather not discuss it, and don't think I lost any friends over it.
This isn't the same as what you're doing, but I still find that putting my relationships before opinions works for me. Maybe it's because I occupy a diverse social space with lots of different viewpoints. I also respect that we all have different points of view, and are entitled to them.
Oo I love all of this - including- How well are your current methods working for convincing people? Said with curiosity and humility of course. Thank you 💕
I agree with all your points, and like Glenn, I'd appreciate your going deeper. For me, that means practical suggestions for helping others see civility, etc., as vital to achieving their goals. Dorsey
We are working on a follow up substack that goes deeper! Thank you Dorsey!
I didn't find Citizens' Climate Lobby because I was looking civility, healthy dialogue, and respectful disagreement. I found Citizens' Climate Lobby because I was terrified and mad about climate change and wanted to do something productive. I was lucky to have found the organization that I did, because now I do deeply care about civility, healthy dialogue, and respectful disagreement.
But I have to admit that if someone had tried to sell Citizens' Climate Lobby to me with those terms, I might not have joined. Instead, they connected with where I was at in terms of climate change and told me they believed the best way to better climate legislation was through building bridges with those we disagree with instead of only screaming at or ignoring them.
Great point!
Would you kindly offer a few more solutions to the problem you so clearly identify - that many of attending these spaces and conferences etc are preaching in a choir and in fact further separating from the people who are not here ? It’s the problem of our time . You speak beautifully to it . You have scratched the surface lightly. Please go deeper. We need to recognize our failures as long time bridge builders and self proclaimed “depolarizers” (for which I am one. My ambitions have far exceeded my impact ). I’m at a loss.m and could use more of your solutions . Thanks Glenn Cort
Yes we are planning a follow up Substack that goes deeper- thank you
Thank you, @Nathan, well said and very important. Bridge-building is foundational to being effective in all other advocacy efforts, and that is a stronger selling point to people outside of our movement. Regarding concrete suggestions for @Glenn and others, I can think of a few off the top of my head: Modeling bridging in our conversations with these folks, starting with listening to their perspectives and goals. Then asking questions of curiosity - how do they envision becoming successful? Does it include convincing people? How well are their current methods working for convincing people? If the roles were reversed, how well would those methods work for convincing them? If they feel they just need to gather enough power to enforce their goals, how do they imagine that will play out in the longer term? Again, if the roles were reversed (perhaps thinking of an issue that others advocate and they oppose) how would they react to that enforcement? And if they are open to hearing about it, have a few examples of common ground successes in advocacy, to highlight bridging as a successful strategy. (These might also be helpful to counter arguments like "those people won't listen to reason".) Thoughts?
I shall listen to it. Noble of you and others to be having these conversations and staying in the work - it’s not easy. Restoring universal moral taboos (as you say ) requires the widespread agreement to what is morally right and wrong - and herein lays the problem of course. Nobody likes the preaching and teaching part.. so it gets complicated. I recently came across Daniel yudkin and Beacon Project who is espousing “Potentialism” as a potential way of reaching all types of people : given down deep it’s hard to argue that we have great potential as human beings. Hope to compare notes with you. These guys (Beth and Doug ) at Together Across Differences have been doing a great service. Thank you.
Thank you Glenn!
This is an important and well-articulated challenge for everyone working in the bridging space. We have built meaningful capacity for dialogue, but too often we are offering it primarily to people already persuaded that dialogue matters.
The most powerful insight here is the shift from presenting bridging as a moral destination to presenting it as a practical tool for advancing the goals people already care about. Whether someone is advocating for immigration reform, workplace effectiveness, community safety, or a particular policy outcome, curiosity, relationship-building, and constructive communication are not distractions from the work—they are often the most effective way to move it forward.
If we can help people see bridging not as “be nicer to people you disagree with,” but as a pathway to greater influence, stronger coalitions, and more durable results, we have a far better chance of reaching beyond the opt-in bubble.
I think there's a very important message here which I largely agree with, but can I politely disagree with part of the framing?
I would argue that there IS a moral imperative to bridging, which is that there's a universal, moral red line that we cannot allow to be crossed. If people are expressing overt, hateful bigotry and endorsing violence, they are destructionists. That doesn't mean we cannot engage with them, but they must not be given the opportunity to actively burn down the bridges we're trying to build.
I wrote about this here recently, as part of my overall effort to restore our universal moral TABOOS in a principled way that allows for dialogue and reform and redemption but doesn't offer immunity to those that seek to destroy our society and harm others: https://elevin11.substack.com/p/the-arsonists-blueprint
I was also on Wilk's Derate the Hate podcast recently, in case you're curious to hear me talk through this topic in more depth: https://wilkwilkinson.substack.com/p/holding-the-line-why-some-things
Feedback and pushback welcome!
With respect, I never said there wasn't a moral imperative, I said not to rely upon it.
I would also push back that this line is universal - does everyone see it as universal? Or do you feel that it *should* be universal?
More importantly, what does insisting upon this moral imperative do to make our work in the bridging space easier? Does it make the message more resonant? More compelling? Does your understanding of destructionism and what behaviors to exclude make the bridging space more manageable?
Your moral assertion may be right (I tend to be rather agnostic about these things), but to insist that people accept it can dramatically limit your reach. That's my point.
Sorry for misconstruing. In most instances, I think you're right that it's better to enter without relying on the moral imperative. I have been particularly focused on the extreme edge cases, on the people who violate our universal moral taboos (more on the universal part below) by expressing this overt hateful bigotry, and seeing various rationales for other people to uncritically associate with them. I believe we need principles and a baseline morality as a qualifier of sorts. Frankly, I think this already aligns to basic bridging guidelines, but I believe we need to make it more explicit that overt hateful bigotry and the endorsement of violence and terror are socially unacceptable and can't be considered as mere differences of opinion. That doesn't mean we can't dialogue with or "platform" these folks, but we have to make clear to them and others that their views violate an unassailable moral imperative.
Using an extreme example for a thought experiment, how would you apply this "meeting people where they are" to somebody like David Duke? FWIW, I'm a huge admirer of Daryl Davis (who I recently wrote about here https://elevin11.substack.com/p/hating-without-knowing), but I think we cannot offer a blank check to people with these egregiously immoral views - not that that's what you were arguing for. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Re: universal, >95% of Americans believe that political violence is wrong, so I think that's close enough to be deemed universal.
Thanks for engaging! It's all with respect, and I appreciate your views and pushback too!
P.S. I realized I shared the wrong link above. I just fixed it in that comment but sharing here as well in case you're interested: https://elevin11.substack.com/p/the-arsonists-blueprint
I will listen- thank you!
What a noble pursuit! And I think it can work, especially when we put our relationships first, before our opinions.
I found COVID to be a very divisive issue, and whenever someone brought it up -- and I have friends in both vax and anti-vax camps -- I told them that I value my relationships more than people's opinions, and that I'd rather not discuss it, and don't think I lost any friends over it.
This isn't the same as what you're doing, but I still find that putting my relationships before opinions works for me. Maybe it's because I occupy a diverse social space with lots of different viewpoints. I also respect that we all have different points of view, and are entitled to them.
Best of luck with your project, Nathan.