Babies Suck at Walking
Babies suck at walking - and teach us how to deal with bigotry, hatred, and the poor behavior of others.
Some of you are bothered by this article's title. Some of you are angry with me for writing it, and some are uncomfortable and are now crafting your post responses to tell me what a jerk I am. I know that. But it's true – babies DO suck at walking. They are just flat-out awful at it. Think back to it, and you'll see what I mean. Think of your child or that of a family member or a friend. Those little poop factories start rolling over, and before too long, they move into a sit-up and pull themselves up on a low table or a footstool. Then magically, one day, because you have their favorite toy or they love the sound of your voice – or perhaps guided by some otherworldly motivation, they reach for you, then slowly take that first step. That gangly, awkward, challenging, difficult, beautiful, blessed, inspired, and empowered first baby stomp toward you. Were you not within about two feet from their outstretched hands, their cute little chubby faces and diaper-clad bottoms would be down for the count as they fell to the floor.
Look, they just are. We can love our babies' cherubic faces, how they smell after a bath, the adorable shirt that someone gave us that says, "I'm a momma's boy," or "Girlz Rule." We can find their giggles adorable and find it so enriching when they reach for us and cling tightly, showing us their absolute trust and willingness to be vulnerable. And yet – we can all agree that babies are, by and large, the worst walkers on the planet.
Say it with me now, louder for the people in the back – once we get past the cuteness and excitement, babies are terrible at walking. Let's not kid ourselves; there's a laundry list of things babies are awful at.
Babies suck at talking, too – the no-word-having little gibberish mumblers.
They are horrendous at calculus.
No matter how hard they try, they don't understand Chandler's job on Friends.
If you leave them unattended, they wander right into danger.
Ask them to feed the dog while you're gone; they'll forget.
Terrible at holding down steady employment.
If you ask them to take out the trash, anything they can reach goes right into their mouths.
Babies are just the worst, right? And now that I've offended most of you – this is the moment when I ask you, dear reader, to press onward and read what other horrible things I've got to say
Not even one of you is shouting at your baby (hopefully, not at anyone's baby). Nobody should be demeaning that child. No one should be taunting the baby for its ineptitude at the things the little munchkin is trying. This isn't the time and place to yell, "Don't you bring that weak sauce in my house," at your 12-month-old. So, have you ever asked yourself why a baby in your life is permitted to try and fail at so much stuff without you becoming angry or labeling the kid damaged goods?
Admittedly, maybe I'm the only person on the planet who has said, "Babies suck at walking." To be fair, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that not a single parent or loved one has ever been angry at a child for trying and failing, for learning, and all of us continue to be encouraging to that baby. "Come to momma. Momma is your favorite" or "Come see your Uncle Tyler… I'm right here…come see me"- these are the common refrains heard from across every living room in the world. (However, if anyone NOT named Tyler is saying "Uncle Tyler," you may want to intervene as the child's parent and question with whom you are letting your child associate!).
The point is that you never run out of patience and energy, and that patience and energy manifest themselves as an encouragement to try again and to keep trusting that they can do it. We repeat words until the baby learns to say "Taco," "Momma," or "Sportsball." We repeat, reiterate, and re-engage with the behaviors and outcomes we want to see in our children. Why? Because here's the truth:
Babies suck at walking because babies are SUPPOSED to suck at walking.
I know that right now, you're shocked. You're like…wait, what?! Your jaw is probably dropped open, and you're thinking about how wise and learned Tyler is. Or, perhaps, like a sane person, you believe that you are upset that you read through 770 words to reach the point of this article, and now you're disappointed. Well, fear not, for this is just the preamble to my point.
Since you've suffered along thus far – with my long path to this inflection point and my odd sense of humor, here's what I'm going to offer up. The whole premise of the rest of this article is in one sentence. Here it is: We're all big babies in some aspects of our lives, and yelling at us to do better or be better or know better doesn't induce us to improve…it causes us shame and leads to anger and resentment. With that out of the way, let me continue.
I recently saw a situation online where people were shouting about how a person was the worst and deserved horrible things happening because they had said some insensitive and hurtful things about a transgender individual. Comments like, "these types of people will never change!"
When I was a child growing up in Western Kentucky, I was taught and told all sorts of odd (and demonstrably untrue) things about gay people. Gay men, in specific, were a big target of my education. I was told they were, "Just waiting around, those perverts!" It got much darker and much faster when I asked what they meant. Gay men were painted as hedonists, pedophiles, and rapists. They were, I was told, best to be rounded up and made an example of. While my parents never said things like this, and I found them (and still do) to be pretty understanding of the differences in people around the world, it didn't matter. When teachers, preachers, older members of the community, and just about everyone you respect opines similarly when the subject comes up – you learn quickly that the only answer is the one you're constantly bombarded with. "To be gay is to be evil." (I want to add an aside here that I believe a lot has changed in the places where I grew up over the last 30 or 40 years. While I think that more can be done, I don't see and hear stories of the rampant bigotry and racism that served as "teachable moments" in my growing up.)
As an adult, I look back on it now and see the parallels to the books I have read. I learned through books about how the same behaviors had occurred to black people, Jews, other minorities, so-called "Carpetbaggers," and any "negro sympathizers" (that's the nicest version of that term I ever heard) at the hands of hate groups. Ranging from the days of the Reconstruction Era that followed the American Civil War, the stories of how mob terror reigned and reined in non-whites, non-Christians, and those interested in change were overwhelming. As I reflect, I am reminded of lessons I learned in conversations with people who were present and involved in the Civil Rights movement.
I've learned that hate needs indoctrination, just like this longer-form blog post about how to divide people. It doesn't matter who or what we are taught to hate – we are not born to hate. However, we are wired for a recognition of our differences and gravitation toward those who look and act like us. This is true even as young children. I learned so many lessons that it'd taken my entire adult life (thus far) to unlearn. I have to find it in me to learn to meet people where they were, accept them where they are, and hold out hope for transformation in the future.
So, what do racists, bigots, hateful people, and hurtful behaviors connect back to babies that can't walk well? Great question.
Babies don't hold shame over their failures to talk or walk. There is no shame because there is an understanding that we don't expect a baby to go from goo goo's to complete sentences any more than we should expect a toddler to go from identifying the number 1 directly to finding the derivatives of functions. Likewise, we should not expect our baby to progress from pulling up to a table to issuing a challenge to Usain Bolt in a few weeks. We don't expect a baby to do these things – to span these gaps with such rapidity – and as a result, we do not hold them responsible for anything but to respond to our encouragement to keep trying, to keep exploring, and to keep learning.
As a response to our continued engagement, the baby continues to learn. They do this by mimicking the people around them. We, as the adults in this relationship, desire their independence, and we enjoy the excitement of celebrating milestones with them. So, as they learn and grow, we continue to encourage the baby to make progress using encouraging words and meaningful gestures. We clap when they try, reinforce the efforts when they struggle or fail, and watch for opportunities to cheer again until they get it. When they finally "get it," we celebrate like crazy.
Reflecting on my growing up, I had a mixed bag experience. I was around family and many friends who taught me a great deal about treating people like I wanted to be treated. I learned a lot about people from different ethnic backgrounds by growing up in schools with at least some significant diversity. I also experienced a great deal of bigotry from the people most well-positioned to teach me better lessons. In my early adulthood, I was exposed to people I didn't get to know when I was a child. I was fortunate to be exposed to places and people willing to share themselves with me. They told me stories of their childhood experiences, beliefs, hopes, and fears. What I learned from each of them was a chipping away of many of the untrue experiences of my childhood.
When I consider how we approach and address people who believe differently than we do in today's world, I am filled with sadness. That sadness comes from the "outrage culture" that seems to permeate our humanity. The older I am, the more I believe that nobody has ever been yelled into change. Oh, they've been shouted into silence and screamed into submission, but they are not changed. Instead of remorse that leads to change, what they are filled with is a shame that quickly morphs into bitterness.
The one thing I know about how to shake a child's confidence is to shift from encouragement to explore and to try and to, instead, make demands of them for perfection. That is to say that if you want to affect a baby's willingness to take their first steps, then the best thing you can do is to scream at them, belittle them, and actively work to take away opportunities to try to get it right. The issue I see is that we are doing the same thing to bigots that we would never do to babies. We cannot and should not expect a positive result from screaming at a baby any more than we should expect a positive outcome from an adult with hateful or bigoted beliefs.
Right now, you're arguing with me in your head already. You're thinking, "Tyler, these people aren't babies, and we should not have to baby them!" You're right. At least, in the way that you're probably thinking about this, you're correct. We don't need to put the next Klan member you meet in an adult diaper and a t-shirt that says, "Mommy's favorite big boy." (Though the image is amusing, right?!). What I mean is not this. I don't mean to paint the picture that they should be babied or that we should say, "Oh, I'm so proud of you," every time they don't call the waitress "sweetheart" or refer to their bank officer as "That uppity black fella at the bank." Far from it. That behavior should be called to attention.
Because they are grown people, they do not need to be coaxed or babied in those ways. But as we reflect on our growing up and the lessons learned, we understand that our loved ones cheered us to stand and walk because we had not yet done so. They were reinforcing a behavior they wanted – you to try until you succeed. They celebrated and cheered because they wanted us to see ourselves as a "walker." They did not feel they could compel you to stand by screaming at you, "Stand. If you don't stand, then you are horrible. You are a baby who sucks and is a failure, and we hate you. You're awful. You're supposed to be growing up, and this is some baby bulls**t! What's wrong with you, you dumb baby? You can't be a toddler if you won't toddle. And you can't toddle if you can't stand. Get to it…you know what, I'm done with you. You're beyond redemption – you're just a baby, and all you will ever be is a big baby!" And for a good reason – this is the action of a sociopath, not a loving parent.
They don't yell because they realize that you simply don't yet know what you don't know. You cannot be screamed into speeding up learning and re-imagining yourself as a walker, runner, or any other self-identity concept.
What is true of babies is that they are learning more about themselves and the world around them every moment of each day. What is true of those filled with or fueled by hatred is that they have learned that they are under threat and the world around them is unsafe. While the situation is different, the result is the same. Just like screaming at a baby is a surefire way to shut down growth and change, the same is true of adults who are locked in the lessons they learned in childhood or through some traumatic experience in their life.
So, what does it say about us if, rather than being invested in people to see them change, we shout them down and make demands for immediate existential transformation? Given the lack of success that the "shout 'em down" approach has shown thus far – how it has left us more divided and has not caused anyone I've ever met to change their beliefs, perhaps we should consider that our motivations may be selfish. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that our reasons come not from without but from within.
What does that mean? It means that our choice to demand instant transformation from others has more to do with alleviating our sense of self-righteousness than with any intent to see the world changed for the better. Beyond that, I suspect that the expansion of our outrage and our willingness to be outraged over more trivial offenses has to do with our need for narcissistic supply than with any altruistic virtue. I'm probably painting with a broad brush – as some part of this can quickly be learned behavior. It can be culturally acceptable behavior that has been learned as good when it serves neither to provide the outraged person with any lasting worth or value nor to afford the recipient any meaningful motivation to change. We may do it because it makes us feel good and not because it affects us much. In a nutshell – it's not about improving the world, transforming the person, or righting any wrong…instead it's just about making you feel better about yourself.
The scarier part of this approach is that I'm seeing two forms of "proxy outrage" becoming more common. In a condensed form, they look like this:
The first form of this outrage is the kind where we are outraged on behalf of someone else who is not outraged. It is akin to yelling at someone else's baby for failure to walk because "If they knew better, they would be yelling at you. I'm helping!"
The second form of this outrage is the type where anyone associated with or attempting to build any meaningful relationship with the offending person is, themselves, somehow adjudicated as guilty by the screaming individual.
This proxy outrage model is more frustrating for me to see in light of the story of Daryl Davis. A man – a musician with no formal training in social psychology and no exposure to therapeutic modalities - who has single-handedly helped over 200 members of the KKK, renounce their beliefs. In an interview for the Washington Post, Davis is quoted as saying, "The lesson learned is (that) ignorance breeds fear. If you don't keep that fear in check, that fear will breed hatred. If you don't keep hatred in check, it will breed destruction." We see evidence in Davis' story that a successful path forward in helping people renounce hate and bigotry lies in giving them opportunities to have positive (or even neutral) experiences with people, places, and things that cause them to fear and stimulate hatred. Candidly, this isn't a novel idea, as it forms the basis of exposure therapy used often by therapists in treating individuals with phobic disorders.
It is more apparent to me every day that if we wish to see people restored, the path forward is to give them plenty of modeling, opportunity, and a possibility of being restored.
If we wish to see people transformed, we must first take an interest in them. This does not mean that we must (or even should) pretend that their words or actions are not reprehensible, but that rather than abandoning them because of their "intransigence," we instead engage. Ask questions, get to know them – find out what they genuinely believe. It's possible that what we perceive as hate speech is merely ignorance. It is quite possible that we may learn of a traumatic experience that needs restoration and healing. Is this guaranteed? No. Some people are just willfully bigoted or hate-fueled – but likewise, this does not mean they cannot be reached or redeemed. Instead, it simply means that today is not the day, or perhaps you are not the right person to see that occur. If we want others to ask questions of us and to show interest in self-transformation, we must be willing to model the tolerance and willingness to engage that it seems is very important to change.
One of the realities of exposure therapy is that, for most phobic individuals, it requires a commitment to repeated experience. That means that we're unlikely to have a single experience where a hateful person is somehow wholly redeemed by a single conversation with a single person. Does it happen? Sure. Is it likely to occur for us? No. But it is sure not to occur if we gravitate to apathy and focus only on "doing us" or "staying in our lane." Still, it is also sure not to occur if we devolve into shouting down a bigot and reinforcing their mistaken belief that the world is opposed to (or dangerous for) people like them.
Lastly, we must do our best to help encourage people to realize that they are not beyond redemption and restoration. The critical aspect of this is knowing when the time is right. If someone feels like the only reason you're engaging with them is to change them, then the chances of seeing that change happen are nearly zero. It will poison the well of their openness to others even more. The best way to encourage people is to be open about our growth and our own experiences in change. We must be willing to talk about things we learned and had to unlearn openly. We need to be free to talk about how we are imperfect and transformed in others to help usher the way for people to feel free to change.
We must believe ourselves to be the pinnacle of virtue if we are willing to serve as judges, juries, and public executioners for others. It does not come from a place of empathy when we elect to shame and ostracize others, but instead from a place of self-righteousness. A genuine desire for change necessitates an effort to forge a real connection. It must come from a place where we recognize that we do not "catch hate" when we converse with someone who is filled with biased beliefs. Likewise, we do not become "evil by proxy" if we spend time or even strike up a friendship.
Acknowledging two points as I wrap up this blog post is essential.
The first point is that some people are so sure, confident, and broken as to be wholly committed to their hateful beliefs. They are recalcitrant and even arrogant in it. We may never be able to reach that person or make inroads to help them realize the effects of their beliefs and their words. However, we should never confuse the loudness of belief with the deepness of belief. As a friend of mine said to me once, "It's the baddest dog that barks the softest." If we are to hold fast to our beliefs about the coequality of people, then we must believe that all people are capable of learning and of change – just as each of us has done in our own lives. We must believe that wrongheaded beliefs do not make the individual unworthy of our efforts.
The second point is to know yourself. Suppose you have a history of trauma related to hate or bigotry. In that case, I encourage you to continue working on that but not engage with bigots or those with a hateful ideology. Perhaps now is not the time for you to attempt to build inroads with others – but I also encourage you not to surrender yourself to the belief that all people are reflective of the individual(s) that created the trauma in your life.
In closing, we must recognize our responsibilities in addressing hate, oppression, bigotry, and evil. We cannot become fueled by hatred to confront hatred. We must never permit ourselves to forget our imperfections and failures.
We must believe that what has been taught can be re-interpreted.
We must believe that what has been learned can be unlearned.
We must believe that they can change – because we have changed. This is not a call to accept evil. It's a whole strategy for confronting it. This should not be construed to become evangelical in some spiritual or religious concept. It is, instead, an encouragement to take a genuine curiosity in the presence of hateful individuals. Learn why, ask questions, and challenge falsehood, but never trespass the boundary between the person and their beliefs.
If we seek to make the world better, and the world is comprised of imperfect people, then we must not cast aside the people as we work to improve the world, or we become precisely what we profess to stand against.
If this article has been helpful, my only request is that you consider sharing it with others. We all grow and improve from broader and more significant conversation. I’d love to hear the thoughts and ideas that you may have. Feel free to drop them at the link below by joining the Facebook community. Let’s talk and see what we can learn together.
If you’re able to help us with our mission to share the stories of positive action in communities, in writing meaningful content to help change how we interact, and to help provide us with the ability to donate, we are a state and federally-recognized non-profit LLC currently in-process for 501(c)(3) certification. We would genuinely appreciate any amount that you can donate. No one involved in this work takes (or will ever take) any income from this, which means that 100% of any donation goes to helping members of the community to continue to advance their community work.
Divided We Fall
I've been thinking a lot lately about how you divide people. I know that's a weird thing to think about from a community focused on bringing people together, but sometimes, considering the alternative perspective or the other side of the coin is advantageous. In the process of considering how to grow and increase meaningful conversation, it only makes sense to consider the actions that break apart and put an end to those discussions. In trying to boil the ocean down, I've come up with five "steps" that are critical in dividing people, and I’m sharing them here.
Step 1: "You are different"
To be clear, I believe it's completely okay to acknowledge that we are different--because the truth is that we all are. None of us have shared the same experiences, feelings, emotions, and outcomes, and not one of us is wired precisely the same. So, none of us will process any event similarly or hold identical opinions about a situation. Being different is in NO way wrong or inherently divisive toward the world.
If I say that this is step one and then outline how good and normal it is to be different, how can I say that this is the first step in dividing us? Intent and Effect.
When we are children, our parents and caregivers tell us things. Our friends give us nicknames or help us form a sense of identity and purpose. We find and foster meaning and an understanding of relationships from these formative moments. While I hope that these experiences with parents, teachers, and members of your community are positive and encouraging, the truth is that they aren't always. I can wish that nicknames were uplifting or positive in forming a healthy self-identity, but they don't always work out that way. Sometimes the message that we get is not encouraging or uplifting. Sometimes that message is, "You are different."
That statement has the potential to be interpreted in a few different ways:
A healthy celebration of uniqueness: "You are different" and unique, and the things that make you so are part of why I think you are great, and I want to spend time around you, learn from you, and for you to learn from me – because the world is better because different folks are in it.
Fear-based persecution of your difference: "You are different" and different from us is scary and evil. If you think differently, you might believe differently, and nobody is permitted to do so and be a part of us. So give that up or be isolated and ostracized forever.
A pride-based introduction to bias in difference: "You are different," and that is better than everyone else who is, in any meaningful way, not just like you. We should (and the world should) celebrate you and those like you, and anyone who thinks or acts differently than you should recognize their second-class status in comparison.
What often matters most is the context and the motivations behind it being said to us – either as children or adults. Someone saying so can be looking to encourage you just to be yourself, or the intent can be much more nefarious – an attempt to create groupthink, "me vs. thee" thinking, or even the foundations of overt hate of others.
Based on our interpretation of their intent, the same statements can yield different effects on us as people. Much the same way as the intent affects the framing and motivations by those who tell you that you're different or unique, the same can be said for the outcomes of the recipient. As an example of some toxic effects, here are a few that show up at the party:
"The entitled individual": We all know them, and to be honest, we all know that we struggle to like them. At their worst, you realize that they see you as a role player in their life, but they expect you to see them as your leading actor.
"The insufferable a-hole": This is an extreme version of the entitled person phenomenon. They hold expectations of all others to treat them in a particular way or to see them in a specific fashion, but they are unwilling to meet the same needs in the opposing direction. They, therefore, see goodness or rightness as an asymmetrical relationship.
"The intolerably prejudiced": This is the most frustratingly public form resulting from a message that you are different. We are frequently shown that after hearing the idea that they are different, an individual begins to translate that to mean – "and therefore better." As a result, anything unlike them is to be feared, avoided, and rejected.
These things don't only show up in our childhood either. Plenty of adults begin as well-adjusted people only to have a single event or a situation motivate them to go down this path. And it can be an unsavory and unhealthy path – one where something theoretically neutral (or even positive) becomes toxic to the individual and, ultimately, begins a cascade toward division.
The reality is that we don't have to create division artificially. The law of unintended consequences can do some of that on its own – and interpretation by the recipient and intentionally by the giver can do the rest. Some people are better than others in terms of skills, education, fitness for purpose, etc. What is essential to recognize is that this is not a rejection or an indictment of that sort of "you are different." It is, instead, a recognition that any celebration of those differences which leads someone to a conclusion that they (or people like them) are de facto better people than others who are different is the foundational first step toward the destruction of a united society.
Step 2: The Us vs. Them 5k Fun Run
Once we've established that you (and by proxy, people like you and people who agree with you) are better than others through our differences, real progress toward division can occur. These differences can be in appearance, education, experiences, political beliefs, fashion, or lifestyle. This may also be derived from past experiences that were negative (or positive), which played a lasting role in your memories of people, such as those who will fall into some category that seems disdainful to you.
If you haven't yet noticed, catch that the notion that you are different was, in Phase 1, primarily related to the attributes of the person, has now transcended into things as inconsequential as opinions, clothing, and collegiate alma mater. Don't miss that, and don't miss out on how important it is – as the desire to set oneself (or one's "people") ahead of others grows more substantial, the points of differentiation will devolve into ever-dumber constructs.
There is an ongoing outcome in this, beyond just the expanded stupidity of the reasons that people begin to see themselves as different and, therefore, better. The ongoing increase in how this group is "better" – that is, the more refined the belief set begins to be -- the more inoculated against difference this group becomes. Like the world's worst M&M, the shell keeps getting thicker and more resistant to exterior evidence and pressure of wrong-headedness as time goes on. People in an insular environment where they surround themselves with only messaging that they agree with become more concrete in their certainty of what they believe – about how they relate to themselves, how they relate to others, and how they relate to the world.
When concrete decisions have been made about "what we believe," a funny thing happens. The importance of what we believe gives way, it's as if it becomes old hat, and as a result, the focus of the person or the group around them pivots from "what we believe" into something very different – "what we oppose." If we think it through logically, it makes sense. We can only stand around reciting what we believe for so long before it becomes mundane and repetitive. Furthermore, stating what we believe to be accurate about ourselves and the world does not highlight our superiority over those who hold different beliefs or have different personalities, appearances, etc.
So, what is it that changes? We must pivot to a new conclusion to take the next step in the division. Once we know who "us" are, the next natural step is to define who "them" is. This group must be the group that is out--or rather, on the outs. They must look different than we do, believe differently than we do, speak differently than we do, or think differently than we do. Because, after all – if "we" represent the right and true answer to what defines different and better, how can anyone else be coequal with us when they disagree? Once we get the first "them" defined, it's been my experience that it doesn't take long to find more and to separate yourself from nearly everyone who isn't…well, you.
By establishing an "us" and at least one "them," we have determined that others are different and inferred that they are, therefore, less than us. We begin the process of dehumanization. There is at least some clinical research looking directly into how your opinion of another person primarily drives your empathy toward them. In a nutshell, we dehumanize the people we disagree with – so long as that disagreement is derived from some fundamental them-ism. This is the first stage in which you begin to identify and understand the hatred for those different from us. This may not mean that you didn't feel that feeling before, but it was without focus and a broader conclusion or sensation. Now, however, that focus is a laser beam.
Step 3: Fill the Stadium With Your Fans
So what's next after you have a self-identity wrapped up in superiority of thought, appearance, education, or intellect? As we begin with the notion of "different and better" that is wrapped up in ourselves as individuals, then we either:
Recruit and convince the people around us of our way of thinking or;
Separate ourselves from anyone who disagrees with our perspectives.
I've been around sports just about my whole life. As the son of a football coach and having grown up around a family of sports fans, I've experienced the noise at a stadium. Those moments where a whole group of people rallies around a player or an entire team, those instances where the fans are cheering as much against the opponent as they are for the home team – they can be deafening, where you must shout at the top of your lungs just to be heard by the person standing next to you. If there is one thing I know, the voice of one person screaming will never surpass the volume achieved by a group of people screaming with equal enthusiasm.
To create more significant division amongst people, we must first achieve a large group of "them" whom we stand against. We successfully did that in Phase 2. In this phase, as we have defined the "us" and a broad "them," the next step is amplifying the sound by broadening our reach. There are ultimately a few ways that we can do this.
Our first option is to leverage existing community groups. Like a slow effect from a parasitic invasion, we need only show up, establish relationships, and guide the group in the direction we want them to follow. Given the absence of leaders in the world these days and the pursuit of cults of personality, it only stands to reason that confidence and certainty will help sway the community until it aligns tightly with your different and better version. By then, it will have eschewed all individuals in the "them" category and begun to look more like a hate group than a community group. We see this happen in churches, social clubs, and hobby clubs within towns or areas.
Another way that these occur is through the leveraging of social media. At first blush, you'd think that the exposure and the gnarly prejudices being displayed would be a gigantic red flag to others. You may believe that they would quickly be uncovered, but what's interesting is that in their infancy, social media-based "us vs. them" communities look a great deal like support groups and interest groups and a lot less like anti-________ communities. The scariest part of communities like this is that they are accessible to anyone using that platform and can quickly grow to vast numbers. While that's annoying at face value, the scary part of communities that create divisiveness is that as they grow larger, they get louder. It becomes much easier for its members to convince themselves of rightness – and more challenging to help them see their errors.
Lastly, there are cases where someone may be a student of history. In those cases, they can often find ancient or historical communities upon which to draw inspiration and narrative—finding people who think and believe like you is easier when there is a legacy or story. The person trying to elevate themselves and sew dissent and division does not need to write the whole book, only the last chapter.
While I'm sure there are more ways to do this, I'm not immediately aware of any offhand.
Ultimately, the effect is the same – like thousands of people packing a stadium on any given gameday to cheer on their favorite team, the impact of confident certainty in one's rightness is that it tends to garner attention when placed in public view, and the size of the community shouting against all the people groups, beliefs, ideas, candidates, and anything else that they believe to be wrong or harmful.
Step 4: This One Goes to Eleven – Fabricate Outrage
Once a large group of people shouts down anyone different than the "us" that has been established, the next step in creating division is to begin to express outrage. There are a few ways that this can happen.
Historical allegories and stories play a huge role here, just as they did in the previous step. In addition to establishing a drumbeat for your new community of loyal followers, the historical model involves the identification of past examples of disagreement, discord, or dispute between the "us" and the "them" communities. From there, the moral outrage can amplify.
Secondarily, though perhaps more easily achieved, there is the notion of substitutionary thinking of others. We begin by recasting our differences into a conflation with moral failure. We start to perceive that anyone who disagrees with us is not only wrong contextually but that they are wrong existentially. If you do not think like me, look like me, pray like me, act like me, or agree with me, then it can only follow that you need re-education and explanation. More darkly and much later, when you realize that you cannot explain away differences in people, you are left only with vilification and (in truly tragic cases) a need to destroy them.
Lastly, there are ways to link concepts together. In negotiation, there is the concept of "building the golden bridge." This is the idea that we should help our partners in negotiation to cease seeing the engagement as adversarial but rather that we are working toward a common goal. Alarmingly, people who are wired to see themselves as better and more right or righteous tend to take a similar approach to similarly minded individuals. They look for the similarities in groups of people they respect and find ways to engage and align so that others begin to amplify their message and lend it whatever legitimacy the other party has in the public view.
Ultimately, I've opted only to provide concise versions of these approaches (primarily for brevity but also because they are dark, and I don't want to dwell there in my mind). To desire the removal of an entire group of people or to support the suppression of equality amongst those who are different from us, we must first seek to make them lesser. Not only less in the sense of being poorer, less intelligent, or of another mind, but also in their entitlement to what Thomas Jefferson described as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we are to snuff those freedoms out through our shouting and (later) our actions, we must first convince ourselves that the fundamental differences are the same as failures of morality or righteousness. We must be right, they must be wrong, and that wrongness must be so significant, so pervasive, and so untenable that a remarkable transformation occurs.
The process of dehumanization requires substitution:
We must swap out forgiveness and acceptance for swift and sure vengeance.
We must replace contentedness with bitterness, joy with jealousy, and peace with dis-ease.
We must see divisions where we once sought similarities.
In his treatise Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, Friedrich Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
There is no doubt that when we begin to be critical toward those we see as monsters – that is, as half-human or troglodyte – there is no doubt that persecution will soon follow. And when no one is left from the group persecuted, the bloodlust for self-righteous and self-referential removal remains. To keep the fires of hatred alive inside of us, we must continually have an enemy. We must have a rallying cry, and to be the "virtuous right," there must also be a "scandalous wrong."
Simply said, "Haters gonna hate." (Thanks, Taylor Swift).
Nietzsche's point, though, goes to the heart of that matter. To fight against something or someone else, we must be intentional – we must first search ourselves to know if it is a cause worth fighting and a cost worth paying. Nobody returns from a battle the same person that they were that morning. Likewise, as you study the darkness inside of you that it must take to find the hatred within you to shout down, demean, and dehumanize another human, you must also allow the darkness to peer into you - to take root in you. We need not inherently like Nietzsche's beliefs or observations to recognize that to be true. We see it playing out all around us. For a more direct example, author James A. Baldwin wrote in Notes of a Native Son, "Our dehumanization of the Negro is inseparable from the dehumanization of ourselves: the loss of our own identity is the price we pay for our annulment of his."
In other words, we must crank up the volume and act in ways equally as offensive, vicious, and animalistic as those we seek to throttle to control and dispose of them. Not of the individuals alone - but their thoughts, hopes, perspectives, and futures.
We must crank the volume wide open on the hate amplifier and permit it to fill our spirit. We must become so committed to shouting away any conflicting viewpoint or upsetting idea that we become fully insular. In an awkwardly excellent turn of phrase, a friend of mine said to me once, "Silos are only useful for storing grain, hearing your echo, or smelling your farts." Siloed thinking – the sort that amplifies one voice above all others and carries it back to us as if our voice replaces that of all others – it is the tipping point for division.
Transformation occurs at this point, just as it has across the three previous steps. We move from hearing to believing, from believing to saying, and from saying to shouting. The following steps forward are the final transformative steps. The ones by which the divide deepens and widens.
Step 5: Attempt to Enforce Your Beliefs on Others
As the shouts continue, and the anger inside of a group burns with an ever-intensifying glow, there is a moment when the spark touches cloth, and the whole thing goes up into flames. Thoughts lead to actions. As espoused in the Buddhist aphorism:
We are what we think.
All that we are arises from our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We do nothing that is not first heard and thought and believed.
How do we get to a point where we harm others with impunity?
How can we heal and restore if we continue to tear ourselves apart?
How will we heal when the answer to righteous anger is unrighteous action?
Those are questions that I've wrestled with for more hours than I'd care to confess. I suspect that the answer is in the notion that the answer lies in the statement, "All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world."
When words fail to call down sufficient thunder to shape the world as we see fit, we must act as haters of heterogeneity of thought, belief, and action. If we cannot win the war of words and the battle of intellect, then we must pivot to action. Like some jilted ex who shouts, "Look what you made me do," moments after assaulting another person, we act with a reckless and destructive certainty that comes from the belief that our rightness of thought justifies our wrongness in action. Ironically, we become genuinely divided due to the efforts of those who seek to reconcile by action.
The silos of insulated thinking and reasoning have long since stripped us of any contrary thought or different perspective, and we become capable of doing nearly anything we can self-justify or rationalize. When anything goes, and anything can be justified with illogical belief, we have no hope of restoration, and division becomes the backdrop against which we act out the fall.
In Closing
This blog isn't intended to engender ideas of Orwell's Thought Police. It is also not intended as a treatise on avoiding discussion, sequestering opinions, or fomenting division. Not really. It is, instead, a look at how I have watched these divisions occur in families, churches, civic clubs, communities, countries, and our world. As most readers can probably tell, the various points in which I shift to the position of "we" or "us" as it pertains to fomenting division are merely an attempt to "play the devil's advocate" for narrative or explanatory reasons. I do not seek out division or find arbitrary points of distinction problematic. On the contrary, I seek them out. I love to hear from people who disagree with me; even when I defend my position assertively, that does not mean I do not learn.
Let me go further. I strongly support the notion that we should hold different views and ideas. My perspective and my opinion are only that. They are mine. I cannot know or experience your life any more than you can mine. Without transparent and open conversation, however, I cannot hope to ever understand it better or change my opinion and perspective. Living, working, and thinking in a vacuum is not, in any way, advantageous for society.
If we seek to be restored and to stop the drift toward division and hatred, some things must happen. Some of those things may be uncomfortable for us, and some of those things may be downright painful.
We must seek to reject the leveraging of our differences as a weapon against us and instead choose to see them as part of the fabric that knits us together as a society.
We must learn to celebrate our differences, to support our varied opinions, ideas, cultures, ethnicities, and experiences.
We must learn that our first response to ignorance should be compassion and an attempt to educate through our actions and our lives.
We must learn to turn to, rather than away from, one another in times of confusion and to hold a position of vulnerability, honesty, and assurance that we can ask questions of one another.
We must be honest about our experiences and predisposed beliefs and be open to growth and change.
We must be willing to forgive others when evidence suggests that they have changed.
We must be open to holding two conflicting ideas in our heads.
Ultimately, we must choose love and a belief in the ties that bind us all together as people. People are not shamed and shouted into changing their thoughts. They are educated and exposed to contradictory evidence. They are shown the error of their ways through how we conduct ourselves in times of confrontation, times of difficulty, and times of discord.
I won't get it all correct. Neither will you. This blog is probably lacking in a number of significant areas, and even now, I’m guessing that you feel like you’d love to tell me how I can improve. Please do! However, even if we don’t work to improve this article, the truth is that we have a much better chance of improving ourselves and our communities together than any of us do alone.
If this article has been helpful, my only request is that you consider sharing it with others. We all grow and improve from broader and more significant conversation. I’d love to hear the thoughts and ideas that you may have. Feel free to drop them at the link below by joining the Facebook community. Let’s talk and see what we can learn together.
If you’re able to help us with our mission to share the stories of positive action in communities, in writing meaningful content to help change how we interact, and to help provide us with the ability to donate, we are a state and federally-recognized non-profit LLC currently in-process for 501(c)(3) certification. We would genuinely appreciate any amount that you can donate. No one involved in this work takes (or will ever take) any income from this, which means that 100% of any donation goes to helping members of the community to continue to advance their community work.
It’s Okay To Be Mad About It
Despite what you may believe - things don’t have to be their worst before you speak out against frustrations, injustice, disregard, hurts, needs, wants, fears, and dreams.
I can't tell you the amount of time that I've spent in my life wrestling with my emotions regarding things to which I've been exposed. And I can't even fully explain the breadth of feelings that well up when I think of those moments when situations occur in my presence that feel wrong. Where would I start?
Perhaps the first time I discovered that a family member was physically abusing someone I was dating?
Or when a friend came to my house and told me it was the first time he had a meal in two days?
Maybe the time that I became a whistleblower for gender discrimination in a company in which I was formerly employed.
The point is this - I've lived a relatively charmed life. Has it been perfect? Absolutely not - however, I've been lucky in that I haven't experienced the worst parts of what life can throw at us. Not everyone is as fortunate as I have been. Chances are you've likely experienced things that caused you to rally to the side of the injured, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the broken, and those needing help. Perhaps we didn't always act, or maybe we tried to step in and couldn't do anything to help. We are imperfect people (your fearless author chief amongst them!), and what's important to note is that we will never get everything right in this life. Nonetheless, I digress.
Onward to what's been on my mind lately, I recently saw a post on Facebook that seemed to shame people for complaining or being upset about their present circumstances. Suggesting instead that because someone else has (or had) it worse, it was somehow "bad" to feel upset or to verbalize that rubbed me the wrong way. The amount of these sorts of things that I see is beginning to disappoint me because they come across with the message, "You cannot admit or confess that you are struggling or that you have a bad outcome in your life so long as anyone else has or has ever had it worse." It's an odd form of victim blaming or…something. I can't put a name to it. There's a concept in argument…err, umm, excuse me, in "debate" called whataboutism. Until recently, I didn't know that it had a term. However, we've all experienced it repeatedly in our lives. The most recent example that I can come up with (and I promise I loathe to bring politics into this) is how quickly former US President Donald Trump responded to the search and seizure of confidential documents he had stored at his home. Initially, he said that there weren't many, had all been declassified, and that it was inconsequential compared to the 300,000,000 pages of documents his predecessor had taken when he left.
I'm not here to serve as the arbiter of truth - especially since I don't own a gavel or a robe. My point in using that example is to show how quickly it became a shift from what I did wrong to what someone else did that was more wrong. That's what these pseudo-spiritual and pseudo-meaningful statements are doing to us. They are denying our right to see our situation as offensive or untenable or worthy of addressing because someone else has had it worse. As I started jotting down notes for this article, a few things popped into my mind, and I'm going to bullet point them here.
I suppose by this logic that non-landowners, non-whites, and women should have made sure to remain thankful for what they had and trust those people who possessed the power to vote to always do right by them?
In this vein of reasoning, those black Americans who were dealing with Jim Crow laws and the sadly ironic term "Separate but Equal" should have been wholly content because "well, they could have decided to be unequal!" (pro tip - it was always anything but equal, if you disagree with that, please see the exit to your right).
When you consider it at the extremes, you start to see the logic breakdown. This is why (sometimes) the worst examples are the best examples.
Do I think we often complain because our situations aren't what we like but are usually precisely what we've made them for? I believe this is the case in some instances. However, I also think there are cases where we have every right to be upset, angry, complain, and rebel against what we see transpiring. That is to say, transpiring in us, to us, or around us. Beyond right, I think that if a person sees themselves as a moral or good person, we transcend beyond the "right" to respond and into the realm of the "obligation."
The issue is that to silence an individual by suggesting that they do not have the right to their perceptions, feelings, frustrations, and experiences through guilt and shame is the foundation of quieting a storm. It is the precursor to preventing groups and the basis of disbursing movements before they even get underway. At least for a while. To deny someone their agency—their right to feel as they do, and to ignore our obligation to explore (with others, as well as within ourselves) the experiences and reasons why we may feel that way is the foundation for sustained unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the status quo. If we do nothing to diffuse that pressure, if we do nothing to build that bridge of communication and trust by encouraging people to speak their experiences and emotions openly and be receptive to hearing them, then we trade discomfort for dissent. Shaming genuine feelings promotes further division and discord in the long run. And to some degree, it feels that we are presently reaping what we have sewn in that respect worldwide.
So let me tell you that I'm upset. I'm mad. I'm cranky. I'm tired of it. However you choose to phrase it, I'm it. I'm tired of being pushed into seeing people for what they are rather than who they are. I'm angry at being encouraged to look the other way from the hurts and the wounds of others because it bothers people when I point it out. I'm getting cranky about being dictated to about what it means to be a "real ________" or that I am not _________ because I am friends with this individual or support that person.
My message here is that you don't get to define me, and you damn sure don't get to control me. Furthermore, if you continue to try to do so, please know that you can ostracize me or reject me all you want - but I'm still right here. I'm not trying to earn your approval, and to be honest; I don't even want it. Why should I care so much about you if you think so little of me? I'm trying to improve the person I am, my life, and the world I have mutually inherited alongside everyone living today. And I have an extreme suspicion that there are a lot of people out there who deal with the same feelings. The feelings of not belonging, the feelings of wanting to help but not knowing how, the need to connect with people who share a common interest in the commonality of humanity.
I want to see the world changed for the better. I want to know that my legacy on this planet, in whatever time I have remaining, is that I was NOT willing to sit down when I should be standing. I want to rest easy with some certainty that because I acted when others only gawked, the lives of others were improved. I want and am committed to forging relationships so comfortable that we can talk about our vulnerabilities, our points of contention, and our things that "ought not to be" without fear of rejection as a person, even when we disagree.
In closing, know this.
You are loved, though I may not yet personally know you.
You are supported, even if we disagree.
You are not beyond repair; you are not alone.
The whole mission of Fundamentally Different is that we will transform the world by being comfortable with our differences, differences of opinion, differences of experiences, and differences in ability. We must begin by being willing to engage, to listen, and not be silenced by the suggestions that it is unfit or "bad" for us to speak up against legitimate issues - individual or systemic. We'll never get it perfect, but that's what puts the "fun" in fundamental. We can laugh about the imperfections; we can celebrate the opportunities to learn and grow as people, understand more about humanity, and rebuild and repair the things that need it, whether they are people, places, or policies.
We must not remain a house divided. Not about the matters of humanity and compassion. If I must stand alone on this point, I will. While I hope I don't have to, it's a hill I'll gladly die on so that my daughter and the people in my sphere of influence will know the world as a better and more caring place. A place where wounds can heal, a place where homes can be rebuilt or restored, a place where relationships can be built and mended, a place where respect is not earned, and love is not conditional, a place where hope is not reserved for those with the means to afford it.
The truth is that I’d love to have you to contribute and be a part of what we’re building at Fundamentally Different and there are a few ways to do it. The first is that you can join us on Facebook to engage in community conversation. The second is to send over an email if you know of someone that would be great to interview for the Fundamentally Different Show on YouTube. You can do that by sending an email to tyler@fundamentallydifferent.org. Of course you can also donate to help us buy equipment and fund the ongoing efforts to improve the world by clicking the Donate button on this page.
- Tyler
We Are The Difference
This is the conclusion that has culminated in the creation of the Fundamentally Different YouTube channel and online community. We don’t need to look terribly far around us to see the negative. There are broken communities, broken people, dysfunctional discourse, anger, dissatisfaction, and violence surrounding nearly everyone. Sometimes closer and sometimes further away—but never far from our eyeballs every night on the evening news.
Fundamentally Different is the culmination of an idea that I’ve had for years now. The idea that if we’re going to be overwhelmed with images that make us hate ourselves, to disbelieve in our ability to change and to transform…if we’re going to be bombarded with videos and messages that tell us to distrust our neighbor, to hate those who are differed. If we’re going to be assaulted hourly with negative, then we had better darn sure be active in seeking out the positive.
Data from clinical studies tell us that we need multiples of positive encounters and interactions to counteract the effect of a single negative occurrence. And common sense tells us that we’re often so busy, so overwhelmed, or so worried that we seldom hit the mark. As a consequence, that sense of the world as a negative and foreboding place; that feeling that you’re stuck and incapable of making meaningful change; the notion that people are disconnected and angry begins to slowly pervade our thinking.
Fundamentally Different is founded on the notion that if we are part of the problem, then we must be the agents of change. If we are the problem, we can also be the difference. We believe in you, we believe in your communities, and we believe in the people that comprise this planet.