"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
--Joshua (War Games)
As kids, we witnessed (or participated in) the following sequence countless times.
-->One kids does/says something to provoke a negative or hostile response from another kid.
-->The second kid lets it get to him/her and retaliates with a counter response.
-->Back to the first kid who counters in turn...
-->And so it goes...
On the playground, the cycle usually breaks when fatigue sets in, attention spans drift, or someone gets a bloody nose.
The lesson should be similar to the one Joshua the WOPR learned. The sequence either never starts if no provacative action is initiated. Or the chain is broken if one of the recipients decides to not be provoked (often phrased today as 'offended') and walks away.
We know, of course, that most kids never learn this lesson because we see the same cycle played out daily in adult behavior. Recent events of the Ground Zero mosque followed by the Koran burning initiative can be viewed as part of an institutionalized sequence of provocative actions and countermeasures.
Both parties refuse to walk away. Instead, they continue to react and point to the other side's behavior as 'insensitve', 'crazy,' or 'juvenile.'
Laughably sad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
13 comments:
Did you steal my topic? :)
I think there's a difference between retaliating in-kind and speaking out against it. The first will perpetuate the cycle. The second, I believe is necessary. Silence on things you think are important could be seen as complicity. In fact, it could be complicity.
Why worry about how you're 'seen'?
If you walk away from a bully trying to provoke you, then you may be seen by some as weak, a coward, or a potential target.
But if you walk away, there can be no fight.
If you're the friend of someone being provoked by a bully and you shout back at the bully in protest, does that defuse the situation?
Seems to me that the opposite, escalation of the situation, is more likely.
In my mind bullies are intolerant of contrary opinion, domineering and rather cowardly.
~Conrad Black
Forgot about this -- sorry. I think it was a poor choice of words. I feel it's important to speak up on issues we think are important. Not burn books, not set off bombs, but to speak up for my deeply held beliefs.
I don't think that being a tolerant person means you have to act as if everything everyone does is ok. It means you stand up for tolerance and against intolerance.
Mr Jones is not firing on all cylinders and I think the only way we can overcome his brand of hatred is by speaking the truth to it.
And, yeah, if I see someone being mistreated, you bet I'll step in.
Perhaps I've missed it, but have you stepped in for the families/friends of WTC victims who feel they're being mistreated by the group who wants to build the facility near Ground Zero?
Just as on the playground, people see *their* side but not the other. Resolve on both sides strengthens with each side demanding that the other side back down.
Truly mature responses to these situations might include WTC families sending the mosque builders a bottle of congratulatory wine, or muslim leaders sending the koran burners a box of matches. A signal that provocative action will bring no counter. The chain breaks right there.
Instead, adults will be kids, it seems...
Matt, "my" side includes standing up for equality and I make no bones about it.
On the ground zero mosque issue, two comments.
1. It's a community center. It's not a mosque.
2. It is not a provocative action. It's a building.
The problem as I see it is that people are trying to equate things that are not even close to equal. Burning the sacred text of a religion despite the intervention of pretty much every leader of the free world and major religion is absolutely not the same thing as building a community center.
I am against Quran burning because the message of Mr Jones has consistently been that "Islam is the Devil." He is trying to send a message that Muslims are not welcome in his world. People who are opposed to the building of Park51 are saying the same thing. It wouldn't really make any sense for me to stick up for them now, would it?
The bottom line is this... we all make decisions about what we will or won't tolerate. Just because you believe that the proper reaction is disengagement, that doesn't make me a contributor to the problem or ethically inconsistent.
I believe in speaking out for what I believe. I don't believe in burning sacred texts, acts of terrorism or religious discrimination. I believe that the only way to diffuse these volatile situation is through dialog.
And in my defense, I'll mention that Mr Jones called off his book burning because of Muslims reaching out to him and him being open enough to listen. I still think he's an attention whore, but I give him credit for being open enough to the Muslim point of view.
One more thing then I'll leave you alone. Really.
I had MANY FB discussions yesterday with Muslims all over the world who were spouting off about how evil America is for burning the Quran. Over and over I pointed out that Jones does not speak for me or anyone else I know, and just as they don't want us to judge all Muslims by the act of a few people who warp Islam to fit their violent agenda, I don't think it's right to judge Americans based on 50 people.
And you know what? MANY people agreed with me. Many Muslims. I daresay I think some people started looking at it just a little bit differently. That's all it takes to change the world, in my opinion. In fact, I think it's the only way. Sometimes you've got to put yourself out there to make the changes.
'Burning the sacred text of a religion...is absolutely not the same thing as building a community center.'
Perhaps many who oppose the gz muslim center view this not as a building, but as trampling on sacred _____. (try your hand)
So both sides toe the line shouting down the other side. Escalating resolve adds more links to the chain that binds minds.
The playground lesson seems an elusive one...
Well, if those people who believe that stop shouting, there could be an actual dialog. I think that this project has been misrepresented in certain areas of the media. For example, calling it a Ground Zero Mosque, as is the common language used. It's not at Ground Zero and it's not a mosque. It's an abandoned Burlington Coat factory building. How far away from ground zero is far enough? And what about other businesses in the same perimeter, including a strip club and another mosque?
To me, this speaks to a fundamental belief at the core of some people -- that Islam is responsible for 9/11. That Islam is the enemy. While in the good ol' US we have the freedom to believe whatever we want, I think if people crack open their minds a bit they might learn that their beliefs are not grounded in reality.
So I don't really see this as a "playground" issue. I see this as a high stakes game that truly defines who we are. I don't know, maybe that's what the playground does too, but I feel like that expression trivializes the importance of the issue.
Of course you don't see it that way as you're wrapped up in it along w/ scores of others.
But the general process most certainly is one that kids use:
One entity says or does something provocative.
Another entity *decides* to be provoked and responds.
The first entity *decides* to be provoked and fires back.
The chain is formed because neither side has the maturity to let it go.
In a society w/ any degree of freedom there will always be provocative acts that appear distasteful to some. But as long as those acts have not infringed on other's property (broadly construed to include life and wherewithal to produce as well as physical property) then it is within the actor's rights to do what they want with their property--including building a building or burning a book.
People who decide to be provoked by such actions seek to infringe, directly or indirectly, on those rights.
And a chain of juvenlie behavior commences...
Matt, you speak up when you think it's important. You put your opinion out there every day in this blog. That's all I (and millions of others) are doing here. You are standing up for the truth as you see it. So am I. Just because your area of interest is financial markets and mine is social justice, it doesn't mean that I'm the kid and you're the grown up.
I never once advocated for infringing on Jones' rights. I am talking about what he should do, what I believe is morally correct. Of course he has the freedom to do what he wants and I have the freedom to say what I believe too.
I am absolutely not caught up in an escalating chain of violence. I am speaking of a way to diffuse it. Of course that doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm also not burning anyone's sacred text. I'm simply stating my opinion, just like you do.
My interest is the truth wherever it leads. Markets, social issues--it's all related. Why limit one's view to one sphere?
Voicing opinion is not my goal. Am trying to understand how things work. Normative views about what one thinks 'should' happen, based on religion, one's definition of 'justice,' etc. are interesting. But social behavior is governed by a bunch of axioms that are in play regardless of personal judgements of 'should.'
My objective is to gain better understanding of these governing rules and how they shape what 'is' (axiomatic) rather than what 'should be' (judgemental). Writing about it helps me figure out where my thinking needs work.
It has struck me that the recent WTC/koran dyad is well reflected by the 'playground model' which is really a model of escalating conflict driven by emotion and selective reasoning. History is riddled w/ them.
Models are useful when they explain existing behavior and predict future behavior.
Whether the behavior is termed 'kidlike' or not is not the important thing. The important thing is that there is a framework that helps explain what is happening, what will happen, and what needs to happen if the escalating cycle is to be broken.
Post a Comment