🙌 I’M A SPIRITUAL PERSON…AND A SCIENTIFIC PERSON! 🙌
It doesn’t have to be one OR the other; it can be one AND the other. ↔️
I don’t expect my spiritual friends to understand the complexities of science and the search for objective truth. 🧬
But nor do I expect my scientific friends to understand the usefulness of stories and metaphorical truths to help someone live a better quality of life. ❤️
The problem I see happening is when each side assumes malicious intent of the other. Each side assumes they are searching for the same definition of “truth”. 👍
𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧, 𝐈 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭. 👎
They both have very different epistemologies and methodologies for how they seek “truth”. 😅
↔️ Science is focused on precision; spirituality is very broad.
↔️ Science uses quantitative measurement; spirituality embraces the abstract.
↔️ Science is focused on objectivity; spirituality is focused on subjectivity.
Unfortunately, each side’s misunderstandings of each other puts them both at odds. This miscommunication has both sides end up talking over each other. 🔀
It’s why it’s so easy for each side to label the other side as the “villain”. 👿
📌 When the spiritual individual misunderstands science and cites studies for which a scientist could easily deduct to be “junk” or “pseudoscience”.
📌 When the scientific individual misunderstands spirituality and thinks the ideas that are taught are useless because they can’t be measured quantitatively.
📌 When the spiritual individual labels scientists and the breakthroughs they discover as “satanic” and “unnatural”.
📌 When the scientific individual labels spirituality and the rituals within these communities as “delusional” and “woo woo”.
In other words, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝟐 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡.
𝐖𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞.
Let me add: I’m NOT saying I treat these fields as having equal usefulness. I’m NOT taking the middle ground here and saying both sides are 50-50. I strongly disagree with that stance. ❌
I have my own personal views and stances towards each field, but that’s not what this post is about.
My point with writing this post is the same point I’ve made in so many of my other posts: 𝒅𝒐 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒘 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓. 👶
Am I saying a scientist or spiritual teacher cannot question authority figures or experts outside their dedicated fields? Of course not! That’s how we learn and understand from the experts in their fields. It’s important we ask questions! 💯
Hell, I’m not an “expert” in either field and I’m still writing this post! 😜
But what I am advocating for is an open communication between the fields, to bring the best of both worlds to the table while at the same time understanding and respecting where the fields are going to irreconcilably differ.
⚠️ BUT THIS ISN’T LIMITED TO SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY! ⚠️
This can also be applied to the political sphere, when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, “the Left” and “the Right”.
Van Jones argued in his recent book “Beyond the Messy Truth” one of the biggest problems facing our modern politics is that political parties are no longer uniting under the ideals of Conservatism or Liberalism, to bring out the best of their parties. Instead, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. 🤬
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt provided a similar argument in his book “The Coddling of the American Mind” but in the context of college campuses. He cites instances where college students have forcibly interrupted and shouted down guest speakers they personally deemed “offensive”. 🤬
In one instance, a college professor disagreed with students about one of their social causes. Literally, student protesters surrounded him, screamed at him when he asked for a civil discussion, and demanded he resign from the university.
To put it simply:
🌟 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙. 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙. 𝘾𝙮𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙪𝙨, 𝙗𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙖𝙪𝙡𝙩, 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩.
𝘼𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙬𝙞𝙣. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮’𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 🌟
And I won’t pretend I’m immune from falling into these mindsets either! 🙋♂️
I’m not here to claim moral superiority with this post. Just like anyone else, I need to remind myself not to fall into these traps at times too! 💯
It’s why I don’t blame you if you fall into them either. 👍
🙌 BUT…IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY! 🙌
𝙄’𝙢 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 “𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙢𝙮”. 🌟
It may be good for one’s online branding and business marketing to create polarization and division in the short-term, but it sure as hell isn’t good for humanity’s sake in the long-term. 💯
It’s why we ALL need to be very careful about the environments we surround ourselves in, the people we choose to surround ourselves with, and what we choose to feed our minds on a daily basis. 🧠
It’s not just about maintaining a healthy physical body but also about maintaining a healthy mental mind.
𝑭𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒋𝒖𝒏𝒌 𝒇𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒂 𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒔, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚. 𝑭𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒋𝒖𝒏𝒌 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒂 𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒔, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒅. 🌟
Did you know Van Jones is close friends with Newt Gingrich? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦. Van Jones is a Democrat and Newt a Republican.
Van Jones notes in his book they disagree more than they ever agree politically. 😅
But despite that, they’re good friends! 😲
Why? Newt once shared with him this piece of wisdom:
“𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 ‘90% 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒎𝒚’ 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 ‘10% 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅’ – 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆.” 🌟
It’s why I think Jonathan Haidt was also right, in the same tradition, when he said the greatest wisdom you can find is in the minds of your opponents. Your “villains”. The people you’re emotionally tempted label in your mind as “pure evil”. 👿
⚠️ BUT…YOU AND I BOTH HAVE TO BE OPEN TO HEARING THEM OUT! ⚠️
A few months ago, I listened to a Joe Rogan podcast where he interviewed Daryl Davis. Daryl is an African American musician who is known not just for his amazing talent on the piano but also for converting over 200 people OUT of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan. 😱
On the podcast he went in-depth about how this all started. But the biggest detail which stuck out to me hearing his story was in how simple his solution was in reaching out to Klan members! 💡
🌟 𝑯𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒄𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍, 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎. 𝑯𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒐𝒇. 🌟
He learned what the Klan believed about African Americans, and he (again, respectfully) challenged their ideas. He invited many of them over to his house for dinner! And in turn, they even invited him to their Klan meetings! 😅
It wasn’t long after that one of the top Klan members handed Daryl his Klan robe and said he was leaving the organization. 😱
𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟭 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟬 𝗞𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻!
And you know what, the solution Daryl provided in this situation was not so different from the story of Megan Phelps-Roper either! 🙌
Megan was a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group widely known for their extremist views towards homosexuals (“God hates f**s”).
From birth, Megan was raised in the Church as her grandfather was the founder. Because of her upbringing, she was raised to see a very limited view of the world around her. 👀
𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬.
It was only when she created a Twitter account to promote her Church was she exposed to alternative viewpoints. Anonymous people she had never met were now pointing out logical inconsistencies in her tweets.
One of those people in particular was a lawyer she debated and eventually became good friends with. 🔗
But the difference between him and other people who simply tweeted insults at her?
🌟 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝘿𝙖𝙧𝙮𝙡, 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙝𝙚𝙧. 🌟
Eventually she started to doubt what she was raised to believe. She eventually went to her folks for clarity, but with the new perspectives she had been introduced to she did not receive a satisfactory answer. 🤯
Eventually she left the church along with her sister…and her family shunned her. Today she shares her personal story with others, to provide an inside view when it comes to religious extremism. 🗣️
As for that lawyer she once debated…they’re now married! 💍
🙌 WHAT DO ALL THESE STORIES HAVE IN COMMON? 🙌
🌟 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇-𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒌𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔. 🌟
🌟 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒇 𝒘𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒑 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍. 𝑵𝒐 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒕. 🌟
🌟 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒏 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒚𝒆𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒐 𝒔𝒐. 🌟
These all may sound like common sense. But how many people do you see using this common sense on a daily basis?
How about yourself? 😉
Sounds like it’s back to basics, right?!
❤️ BUT I GET IT! ❤️
Seriously, I do!
Your need to “be right” is the same reason I want to “be right”. 🙌
𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬. 🌟
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬, 𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧?! 𝐈 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭! 🌟
𝐓𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐈’𝐦 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐲𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐈 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬. 🌟
𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐈 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞. 🌟
But there’s 1 big problem:
𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥, 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐰. 🌟
So, I get it…it’s not easy! It wasn’t easy for me either! ❤️
🙌 BUT…THERE ARE SOLUTIONS! 🙌
These are solutions we need to start addressing sooner than later, so much as we are going to live together and not die together.
🌟 𝙒𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 7.5 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙤𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤. 🌟
🌟 𝙒𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙨 𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙪𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣’𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚.🌟
🌟 𝙒𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙪𝙗𝙩. 𝙏𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙘𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙤𝙛𝙛 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘. 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮’𝙧𝙚 𝙖 “𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧”. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙝 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙡𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡, 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨. 𝙔𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚! 🌟
So, who’s with me in being the change we wish to see? 🙋♂️
It doesn’t mean you won’t make mistakes. I can tell you I’ve made plenty myself! What matters is you acknowledge those mistakes and continue to improve upon them. 👍
If I’ve not convinced you yet to come along on this journey, perhaps I can share with you advice directly from Megan Phelps-Roper herself on how we can better communicate with others…
“🙌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭.
My friends on Twitter realized that even when my words were aggressive and offensive, I sincerely believed I was doing the right thing.
Assuming ill motives almost instantly cuts us off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. 🌟
We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind, and we get stuck on that first wave of anger, and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it. But when we assume good or neutral intent, we give our minds a much stronger framework for dialogue.
🙌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.
When we engage people across ideological divides, asking questions helps us map the disconnect between our differing points of view. That’s important because we can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is actually coming from and because it gives them an opportunity to point out flaws in our positions.
But asking questions serves another purpose; it signals to someone that they’re being heard. 🌟
When my friends on Twitter stopped accusing and started asking questions, I almost automatically mirrored them. Their questions gave me room to speak, but they also gave me permission to ask them questions and to truly hear their responses. It fundamentally changed the dynamic of our conversation.
🙌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐦.
This takes practice and patience, but it’s powerful. At Westboro, I learned not to care how my manner of speaking affected others. I thought my rightness justified my rudeness — harsh tones, raised voices, insults, interruptions — but that strategy is ultimately counterproductive. Dialing up the volume and the snark is natural in stressful situations, but it tends to bring the conversation to an unsatisfactory, explosive end.
When my husband was still just an anonymous Twitter acquaintance, our discussions frequently became hard and pointed, but we always refused to escalate. Instead, he would change the subject. He would tell a joke or recommend a book or gently excuse himself from the conversation. We knew the discussion wasn’t over, just paused for a time to bring us back to an even keel.
People often lament that digital communication makes us less civil, but this is one advantage that online conversations have over in-person ones. We have a buffer of time and space between us and the people whose ideas we find so frustrating. We can use that buffer. Instead of lashing out, we can pause, breathe, change the subject or walk away, and then come back to it when we’re ready.
🙌 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲…𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
This might seem obvious, but one side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is or should be obvious and self-evident, that we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good that if someone doesn’t get it, it’s their problem — that it’s not my job to educate them.
But if it were that simple, we would all see things the same way. 🌟
As kind as my friends on Twitter were, if they hadn’t actually made their arguments, it would’ve been so much harder for me to see the world in a different way. We are all a product of our upbringing, and our beliefs reflect our experiences. We can’t expect others to spontaneously change their own minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
🌟 𝐌𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 — 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐨𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.” 🌟
❤️ SO…HOW ABOUT IT?! ❤️