Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Woke, a f daily
Speaker 1: with Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the Brooklyn Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm excited about today's Woke Wednesday conversation with our in
Speaker 1: house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel. Last week, if you remember,
Speaker 1: we were engaging in conversation around couples therapy and how
Speaker 1: we as a society have lost the ability to have conversation.
Speaker 1: It's not modeled, right. We often talk about diplomacy as
Speaker 1: we refer to our actions abroad, but we're not talking
Speaker 1: about how the two parties, Democrats and Republicans come to
Speaker 1: the table. But we're also not talking about how we
Speaker 1: have uncomfortable conversations ones that you know, we may not
Speaker 1: come to an agreement at the end, but it gets
Speaker 1: us somewhere. It has us understand each other better. And
Speaker 1: at a time when our country is becoming increasingly polarized
Speaker 1: by the millisecond, it's really important for us to start
Speaker 1: to figure out, well, what do we do next? If
Speaker 1: you have the Republican Party, for instance, that has decided
Speaker 1: through the RNC that a coup attempt is normal political
Speaker 1: discourse and so they're not going to pay attention to
Speaker 1: anything moving forward if that's their thing. And then you
Speaker 1: have democrats believing that what they can offer is just
Speaker 1: you know, sympathy, empathy. Let me try and be your
Speaker 1: best friend from across the aisle. Let me flatter you
Speaker 1: with talking about what an honorable person you are. And
Speaker 1: if that doesn't work, then what will? And I think
Speaker 1: oftentimes we actually place too much responsibility on our representatives,
Speaker 1: on celebrities, on people that are bigger than we are,
Speaker 1: because we think that they should be better. But the
Speaker 1: fact is, have you seen anybody over the course of
Speaker 1: the last two years, four years, five years for that matter,
Speaker 1: showcasing modeling for the world how we engage in difficult conversation. No,
Speaker 1: what we are seeing is just if white people are uncomfortable,
Speaker 1: then we need to shut down every bit of conversation
Speaker 1: that has to do with America's real origination story, right,
Speaker 1: real origin story. That if white people are uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: trans children playing on sports teams, then we need to
Speaker 1: eliminate trans kids from being able to play on sports teams.
Speaker 1: That instead of us figuring out how we get to
Speaker 1: some place of mutual respect, mutual understanding, that we have
Speaker 1: just decided to just give up. And what's really important
Speaker 1: right now, I think in this conversation that Jonathan and
Speaker 1: I have to sided to engage in, frankly, is modeling
Speaker 1: what isn't being taught right and how we come to
Speaker 1: the table. And I'm not saying that this is going
Speaker 1: to work with people who don't believe in reason, right
Speaker 1: who don't want to have reasonable conversation, or really that
Speaker 1: you don't want to engage in in conversation with them.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, if we're going
Speaker 1: to coexist in society, then we are going to have
Speaker 1: to find a way to get through to one another.
Speaker 1: It isn't your you know, the rabbit of right wing
Speaker 1: isn't going to be able to lock up silence every
Speaker 1: single person in this country that is a dissenter. I
Speaker 1: know that that is what they would like to do,
Speaker 1: and that is their you know, neo nazi, fascist, you
Speaker 1: know fantasy, But that's not going to happen. On my side,
Speaker 1: the progressive side, I'm coming to the realization that we're
Speaker 1: never going to eradicate white supremacy, that it is too
Speaker 1: embedded in the fabric and the function of this society
Speaker 1: that we need to instead of having conversations about eradication, right,
Speaker 1: that there needs to be more conversation around education and
Speaker 1: what it means to protect ourselves. And I don't mean
Speaker 1: just the talk that black parents and brown parents need
Speaker 1: to have with their young children in order to make
Speaker 1: sure that they stay safe in school and stay safe
Speaker 1: on the streets, and stay safe while they're driving from
Speaker 1: white predators, whether they have a badge or not. That
Speaker 1: there needs to be more than that, right, And so
Speaker 1: we are living in really precarious, frustrating, aggressive, polarizing, exhausting times.
Speaker 1: Giving up isn't an option, right, So then what do
Speaker 1: we do? So my conversation today coming up next with Jonathan,
Speaker 1: we're going to attle right how you have conversations. He's
Speaker 1: going to offer one tactic right that you all can
Speaker 1: practice this week, this weekend, whether it be with family members,
Speaker 1: your significant others, children, your boss, your colleagues, and figuring
Speaker 1: out how we move past stalemate situations or the desire
Speaker 1: to just be right right and get to a better place.
Speaker 1: And I can offer this. You know, before I was divorced,
Speaker 1: my ex wife and I also went through couples therapy
Speaker 1: and this was years prior to the divorce taking place,
Speaker 1: and I found it helpful. I found the techniques helpful
Speaker 1: not only in hearing her, but also being able to
Speaker 1: apply those couple therapy tactics in terms of mirroring what
Speaker 1: people are saying. Am I getting this right? Allowing people
Speaker 1: to speak for uninterrupted, really listening, not listening for a retort,
Speaker 1: but listening so that then you can mirror back and
Speaker 1: reflect back what you think you heard the person say,
Speaker 1: and then allow them the ability to be able to say, no,
Speaker 1: that actually isn't what I said. What I said was X,
Speaker 1: and then again going back, Okay, I'm absorbing that is
Speaker 1: this is what I heard you say? Is this correct? Yes? Okay?
Speaker 1: And then you move from there and you build the
Speaker 1: conversation from there. And I found it very helpful to
Speaker 1: use not only in my personal life outside of the
Speaker 1: confines of my marriage, but also in my professional life,
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, what is it
Speaker 1: that people really want? What do humans want? We want
Speaker 1: to know that we are heard, We want to know
Speaker 1: that we are seen, We want to know that we
Speaker 1: are valued. Right, those are like the three basics that
Speaker 1: if you can get to that place, like when we
Speaker 1: talk about equity, when we talk about creating space at
Speaker 1: the table for other people's voices. It is because people
Speaker 1: of color, black people, Latin X people, Asian, the Pacific
Speaker 1: Islanders folks, API folks, we have been invisibilized right from
Speaker 1: the American story. We have been invisibilized from the narrative,
Speaker 1: and that is mirrored back to us in the content
Speaker 1: that we consume on a myriad of platforms. Also coming
Speaker 1: down from Hollywood, who is the leading part, who is
Speaker 1: the leading man, quote unquote, who's the leading woman, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: who is labeled the sexiest person alive, the most beautiful?
Speaker 1: We have started to see bits and pieces of progress,
Speaker 1: right like we saw in our politics with the election
Speaker 1: of Obama, but then the regression and the backlash that
Speaker 1: we're experiencing now. To hearken back to Jim Crow years,
Speaker 1: it's the same thing that we see in a in
Speaker 1: an aesthetic way. Years ago, we were having a conversation
Speaker 1: around the Oscars thanks to April Rain tweeting out hashtag
Speaker 1: oscar so White for the Academy to have some self
Speaker 1: examination as to what it is that they are awarding,
Speaker 1: right like, who is judging, who is doing the judging,
Speaker 1: what does the criteria look like, and then come to
Speaker 1: find out that, of course a majority of the form press,
Speaker 1: the Foreign Association are white men above the age of
Speaker 1: sixty years old. So you think that they're going to
Speaker 1: be looking at black and brown content creators, directors, producers,
Speaker 1: artists and saying that they value that. No, they're fucking
Speaker 1: not so there. Sometimes it is necessary for us to
Speaker 1: do a call out right, to call attention to how
Speaker 1: discrimination works, right, how invisibilizing groups of people work, how
Speaker 1: gaslighting works. But then there are other times when we
Speaker 1: want to do a call in where we want to
Speaker 1: bring people to the table to be able to have
Speaker 1: to raise consciousness, to also raise vibrational levels right, so
Speaker 1: that we can get to a place where I don't
Speaker 1: want to just assume the worst out of you. But
Speaker 1: I also need you, whether you are a voting member
Speaker 1: of the Academy, whether you are a jobs recruiter or
Speaker 1: a college recruiter, I need you to be a lot
Speaker 1: more intentional. I need you to create rubrics and to
Speaker 1: create a more expanded idea of what acceptance right looks
Speaker 1: like and recognize that there is value in diversity, not
Speaker 1: just for the quote unquote aesthetic of rainbowing things up
Speaker 1: right on its face, but not creating the scaffolding and
Speaker 1: the culture that will support diverse people and voices and perspectives.
Speaker 1: Because again, what is it that people want, regardless of
Speaker 1: their race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, gender identity, and beyond. They
Speaker 1: want to be seen, they want to be heard, and
Speaker 1: they want to be valued. Right, So can we agree
Speaker 1: to those three things, and then can we then have
Speaker 1: open debate and conversation about the ways in which we
Speaker 1: have set up a society that disallows those diverse voices
Speaker 1: to have the same effect, weight, and engagement in our
Speaker 1: mainstream discourse, regardless of what the topics are. So I
Speaker 1: feel that in you, in these conversations that Jonathan and
Speaker 1: I are having now and are hoping to model for
Speaker 1: all of you, that instead of just marinating in the misery,
Speaker 1: instead of just ticking off the latest headlines of things
Speaker 1: that are wrong, that what we are beginning to realize
Speaker 1: is that at the core of what is wrong is
Speaker 1: our lack of communication with one another. And then when
Speaker 1: they are added in forces that are at play that
Speaker 1: are working purposefully to keep everyone isolated, angry, and operating
Speaker 1: on one hundred and above right, that there is monetary
Speaker 1: value in that, right, that people are making money off
Speaker 1: of your rage, making money off of your pain and
Speaker 1: your grief. Right, those are real conversations to be had
Speaker 1: because you know, Jonathan will say in our interview that
Speaker 1: the algorithm is the algorithms that we are all confined within,
Speaker 1: whether you're using Facebook or Instagram or TikTok or what
Speaker 1: have you. The algorithms are set up so that the
Speaker 1: anger you become, right, the more that you're seeing content
Speaker 1: that subscribes to that emotion. That that's what keeps people
Speaker 1: on the devices, on the platforms and readily engaged. And
Speaker 1: there is no desire to offer proof to something else. Right,
Speaker 1: So I think that, folks, it's really truly important for
Speaker 1: us to recognize that we are trapped in a cycle
Speaker 1: of trauma, right, that living in America these days, the
Speaker 1: past half a decade has been incredibly fucking traumatizing, and
Speaker 1: that there is no pressure that is being released. It
Speaker 1: is just continuing to circulate and grow and grow and
Speaker 1: grow and metastasize. And so if our leaders, right, if
Speaker 1: our representatives are not going to model good behavior, are
Speaker 1: not going to model appropriate discourse, discourse that moves us through,
Speaker 1: not around issues right, not pretending that everything is is
Speaker 1: willy nilly and perfect, but that actually seeks to expand
Speaker 1: our understanding and move us through. If that's not being modeled,
Speaker 1: then we need to figure out what else it is
Speaker 1: that we are going to do. Because things are not
Speaker 1: going to get better by us pretending that they are better.
Speaker 1: They're not going to get better by us banning our
Speaker 1: way to neutrality. So what else is there? And I
Speaker 1: think that these are going to be increasingly important conversations
Speaker 1: that Jonathan and I are going to be having, and
Speaker 1: we will bring other people in to the conversation to
Speaker 1: see how these tactics can actually work in the political sphere,
Speaker 1: and hopefully we can begin in this small way to
Speaker 1: start to offer solutions rather than just teasing out more
Speaker 1: of the problems. So that's something that I am excited
Speaker 1: about and I'm looking forward to. And after you listen
Speaker 1: to this week's Woke Wednesday interview with Jonathan, do tell
Speaker 1: me in the comments section about whether or not you
Speaker 1: think that these tactics will or will not work if
Speaker 1: you're open to trying them, and then sharing whether you
Speaker 1: DM me or tweet at both Jonathan and I or
Speaker 1: sharing the comment section again with others about trying some
Speaker 1: of these things out and seeing how they land, and
Speaker 1: again giving ourselves some grace and those around us to
Speaker 1: understanding this is not a a quick fix, right. This
Speaker 1: actually requires a lot more work and intentionality on all
Speaker 1: of our parts. And I think that that is an
Speaker 1: important space for us to be in and to consider
Speaker 1: to be in, because if we don't start taking these issues,
Speaker 1: these problems that we're facing, bit by bit, if we're
Speaker 1: not making them bite size, then we're going to choke, right,
Speaker 1: and it's just going to feel like too much. So, folks,
Speaker 1: coming up next is my conversation with our friend woke
Speaker 1: Wednesday guest doctor Jonathan Metzel. Folks, you know that whenever
Speaker 1: we have the opportunity to talk with our in house
Speaker 1: doctor every single week, doctor Jonathan Metzel, we are always
Speaker 1: very excited and appreciative of your time. You know, last week, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I was really I left our conversation feeling really good,
Speaker 1: which has not been the case when we are always
Speaker 1: going down the rabbit hole of you know, really emotionally
Speaker 1: charged topics like gun violence, like COVID, and so I
Speaker 1: wanted to pick up on where we left off last week,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about conversation and the art of conversation
Speaker 1: and how the point is like, if we're let's say
Speaker 1: we're talking about foreign affairs in the United States, we
Speaker 1: are talking about diplomacy, Where does diplomacy come from? It
Speaker 1: comes from conversation? Last week at the end of at
Speaker 1: the end of last week, you had the Republican the
Speaker 1: Republican Party issue a proclamation through the RNC that said
Speaker 1: that January sixth, according to them, was normal political discourse. Right.
Speaker 1: So if that is what we are dealing with, right,
Speaker 1: a party that believes that breaking into the Capitol building,
Speaker 1: harming people violence is normal political discourse, how do we
Speaker 1: get back? How do we even engage Jonathan in a
Speaker 1: way where we are going to talk to one another
Speaker 1: when this is what they are identifying as the norm.
Speaker 1: What I liked about our conversation last week was that
Speaker 1: we used couple's therapy as a metaphor, which I think
Speaker 1: is a useful metaphor because a lot of times in
Speaker 1: couples therapy, what you learn is instead of somebody says
Speaker 1: something that you don't agree with, and instead of saying
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that you say, let me hear,
Speaker 1: let me hear what I let let me try to
Speaker 1: articulate what I hear you saying, or you know that
Speaker 1: you're not talking somebody out of something they're saying. Instead,
Speaker 1: you're trying to say, let me see if I can
Speaker 1: understand why you feel that way, Let me see if
Speaker 1: I can articulate that. Tell me if I get this right.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of the basis of conflict negotiation related
Speaker 1: conversation a lot of times is the idea that you
Speaker 1: can basically acknowledge somebody else's point of view, even if
Speaker 1: it's something you completely don't agree with. At least the
Speaker 1: starter is like, yeah, you know, tell me more, Tell
Speaker 1: me more about why you don't trust modern medicine. Tell
Speaker 1: me why you think something I mean, think of someone you.
Speaker 1: Tell me why you think ivermectin might be helpful, like
Speaker 1: something we just you know, wouldn't maybe not agree with automatically,
Speaker 1: but but instead we get into this point where we're
Speaker 1: doing exactly a thing you're not supposed to do in
Speaker 1: couples therapy, which is you talk you try to talk
Speaker 1: somebody out of, try to talk somebody out of a
Speaker 1: position that they feel really deeply about and when you
Speaker 1: think about like the frameworks in which American political discourse happens,
Speaker 1: or just everyday discourse, how many places are there where
Speaker 1: you can even have that kind of conversation, which is
Speaker 1: really hard conversation. The whole the whole world is set
Speaker 1: up to not have that conversation. So Twitter now has
Speaker 1: a down button where you can just block out conversations
Speaker 1: that you find disagreeable. Schools on many sides are trying
Speaker 1: to eliminate content they find um, you know, um um displeasure, yeah,
Speaker 1: and so um and so um you know. So in
Speaker 1: a way, we're losing the skill set to do that, right,
Speaker 1: I mean so in a way. Part of the issue
Speaker 1: is how can you recreate just the structure of the
Speaker 1: framework of those conversations and where is it that that
Speaker 1: kind of conversation is even possible right now? And the
Speaker 1: other hand, there is there are huge financial interests in
Speaker 1: making it seem like we're so different that we could
Speaker 1: never talk to each other. So the algorithms on Twitter
Speaker 1: that monetize hate and disagreement and discord, for example, don't
Speaker 1: want us to be saying, oh, I can see like
Speaker 1: oh I'm a democrat, but I can see how Republicans
Speaker 1: have some good points or gosh, maybe we were you know,
Speaker 1: maybe let's think about the mask mandates or the lockdowns.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe there was a better way to do
Speaker 1: that or something like that. Let's have a conversation about that.
Speaker 1: But when but when the all the money and the
Speaker 1: power is going towards the extremes, it's hard to do that.
Speaker 1: So you really have to almost check your your responses, right,
Speaker 1: because there are things that we just automatically when politics
Speaker 1: becomes identity, we just have an automatic peptic response to
Speaker 1: like this is our tribe and that's their tribe and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. So I think step one, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking of the famous psychiatric joke is the light bulb
Speaker 1: has to want to change, or you know, something like that.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if we're there yet, but I
Speaker 1: would say step one is to reimagine the structures in
Speaker 1: which we can even have conversations, because there's no room
Speaker 1: to understand different points of view, and to be honest,
Speaker 1: a lot of points that we don't agree with. I mean,
Speaker 1: the other issue is disagreeing with somebody a different point
Speaker 1: of view is not automatically fatal. But that's the way
Speaker 1: it feels right now, given the high stakes of politics
Speaker 1: and the ways people are pushed, So how do you
Speaker 1: work back from that? But I think that's that's number one,
Speaker 1: is actually thinking about that framework of how can we
Speaker 1: have that conversation where we can say and then I
Speaker 1: just think for me for myself, like, think of all
Speaker 1: the times I've not had that response about masks, about vaccines,
Speaker 1: about everything else. Like, so we end up getting pushed
Speaker 1: into defending very very extreme positions in response to these provocations.
Speaker 1: But that's you know, the descantises of the world, that's
Speaker 1: what they want, like, they want us to seem so polarized.
Speaker 1: And so I guess the point I'm trying to make
Speaker 1: is we need a strategy for polarization itself that actually
Speaker 1: sees ending polarization as the end goal. But it's hard
Speaker 1: because we're in a winner take all, zero sum political
Speaker 1: system where the stakes of even trying to compromise or
Speaker 1: are really high. You've said a couple of things that
Speaker 1: I that I want to unpack, and so what So
Speaker 1: one the first thing is, Jennathan, let's talk about couples therapy, right,
Speaker 1: and the premise of couples therapy because what I think
Speaker 1: that what I think is important here is that the
Speaker 1: premise of couples therapy isn't for one side to win, right.
Speaker 1: The goal of couples therapy is not two people deciding
Speaker 1: that they're going to go in and then one of
Speaker 1: them is going to leave and they're going to be right,
Speaker 1: what is the goal of couples like, tell us what
Speaker 1: is the goal of that type of mirroring in terms of, Oh,
Speaker 1: I see what you're you know what I hear you
Speaker 1: trying to say? Because these are like, these are important
Speaker 1: tools that unless you go to couples therapy, you're actually
Speaker 1: not being taught in any type of way to have
Speaker 1: constructive conversations, right. And but the funny thing is is
Speaker 1: that conversation is the foundation of every relationship, right, whether
Speaker 1: it is romantic or platonic, intimate, you know, levels of
Speaker 1: intimacy or not. It's a foundation of everything. And so
Speaker 1: what is the goal when you're entering and you're learning
Speaker 1: that type of mirroring and constructive conversation. Well, it's interesting
Speaker 1: I'm a spokespersoner for this, like as a single American, right,
Speaker 1: But I will say that I in my training, I
Speaker 1: learned a lot of useful principles that hopefully we'll be
Speaker 1: useful for somebody else or maybe me at some other
Speaker 1: point in my life. But I would say that I
Speaker 1: think one of the base, one of the most important
Speaker 1: concepts is that when people feel discounted, they escalate. And
Speaker 1: I think that's the main thing. Is when somebody feels dismissed,
Speaker 1: they escalate, and then it pushes them into more extreme positions.
Speaker 1: And so the trick is to hear somebody else right,
Speaker 1: even if you don't agree with what they're saying, you
Speaker 1: gain so much by acknowledging their perspective because in a
Speaker 1: way it lets them then say, okay, well I agree
Speaker 1: with this, I don't agree with this. Where think of
Speaker 1: all the times that we say, man, that's dumb or
Speaker 1: I disagree or whatever. It's hard because in the heat
Speaker 1: of the moment, as we know, it's super hard. But
Speaker 1: the main concept is instead of automatic dismissal, which pushes
Speaker 1: into these polarization moments. I was saying before, my favorite
Speaker 1: exercise from this, which I think is also a useful
Speaker 1: political political political size is two people sit down at
Speaker 1: the end of a day. One person speaks about discomfort.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, let's not have any discomfort, um, but whatever,
Speaker 1: something that's on their minds, something that's bothered them. They
Speaker 1: speak for five minutes the other person and it can
Speaker 1: be very critical and can be whatever the other person
Speaker 1: instead of trying to you can never try to talk
Speaker 1: to that person out of it. The other person says,
Speaker 1: let me hear let me let me repeat for three
Speaker 1: minutes what I hear what I think you said. Let
Speaker 1: me here's my understanding of what I think you said.
Speaker 1: Tell me if I got this right. I hear you
Speaker 1: saying blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And then
Speaker 1: you try to only sly genuinely, because almost having their
Speaker 1: perspective come out of your mouth is a kind of
Speaker 1: empathy building exercise. And then the person can then respond
Speaker 1: and say, Okay, there's this, there's this. Then the other
Speaker 1: person does the exact same thing, and then you think
Speaker 1: about ways to kind of resolve it. So that's kind
Speaker 1: of standard conflict resolution is let me, let me, let
Speaker 1: me tell you what I think I hear you saying.
Speaker 1: In a way. No, it's hard when when when the
Speaker 1: when the goal is provocation, I mean, you know, the
Speaker 1: when the goals provocation, the goal is to not have
Speaker 1: those kind of conversations, is to have people have automatic
Speaker 1: knee jerk responses. I mean, there's no one better at
Speaker 1: circumventing this process than Trump. I mean, if you I
Speaker 1: was thinking about it this morning, like Trump saw a
Speaker 1: guy on TV talking about a critique of critical race theory,
Speaker 1: and in his like lizard brain, he realized, Oh, here's
Speaker 1: the wedge issue that we're going to fight this fight on.
Speaker 1: So Trump called the anti CRT guy to wherever his dungeon,
Speaker 1: and um, and that's what, that's what, that's what started
Speaker 1: this whole thing. And so he kind of has a
Speaker 1: nose for picking out the thing that makes the other
Speaker 1: person the most defensive. Um. And so in a way,
Speaker 1: the issues that were being fed on a plate are
Speaker 1: the ones that are that are the ones that are
Speaker 1: that are not make it the hardest to have those conversations.
Speaker 1: But I still think the skill set is the same
Speaker 1: in a way. You know, I still think that the
Speaker 1: skill set the minute they say we're against CRT and
Speaker 1: our fight is what we're defending CRT, we're already on
Speaker 1: their terrain in a way, and even and vice versa. Also,
Speaker 1: so again I just think we're on terrain where these
Speaker 1: kind of conversations are really difficult. But I can say,
Speaker 1: I mean, I would invite all of our listeners across
Speaker 1: the country and across the globe to try that out
Speaker 1: for a week and just see how it leads to
Speaker 1: different endpoints, and believe it or not, it actually works
Speaker 1: in many cases, you know. So one of the things
Speaker 1: that I want to ask you too, So you say, right,
Speaker 1: you open up and you say, like, people want to
Speaker 1: be heard, right, They want to feel like what they
Speaker 1: are saying matters. No one wants to be invisibilized, right,
Speaker 1: and yet Jonathan, and they want to have their feelings
Speaker 1: centered in some type of way. Let me offer like
Speaker 1: my calculus here, which is that all that we've ever
Speaker 1: centered in this country is white people's feelings and white
Speaker 1: people's needs. Right, And so it is mirrored back to
Speaker 1: you via Hollywood, It's mirrored back to you via cable news.
Speaker 1: You know, it's mirrored back to you in terms of, oh,
Speaker 1: we have to go and talk to the blue collar voter,
Speaker 1: or let's understand the Trump voter. Nobody ever wanted to
Speaker 1: I don't think that anybody has ever wanted to understand
Speaker 1: a democratic voter or ever wanted to understand a black
Speaker 1: voter or a lat To next voter. But we create
Speaker 1: these dynamics to have these town halls. We look for
Speaker 1: reasons to say why white people are aggrieved, to point
Speaker 1: to anything other than racism, right when we know that
Speaker 1: that's actually the reason. And so my question is if
Speaker 1: the if we know those things to be true, then
Speaker 1: how is it that we have dialogue with people who
Speaker 1: I believe their narrative is already centered? Right, their story
Speaker 1: is all ready told over and over again. So how
Speaker 1: do you come to a place where one person, right,
Speaker 1: black and brown people and folks from other marginalized communities
Speaker 1: have never had their story, their narrative anything ever centered.
Speaker 1: And that's the moment that we're in right now, why
Speaker 1: we're seeing so much pushback. And yet you have this
Speaker 1: group over here that's just like, oh well, what about
Speaker 1: me and like and my white tears? How do you like?
Speaker 1: And I say, I'm being flippant, but you you get
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, Like, everybody wants to be heard, but
Speaker 1: there's one group that has always historically been centered and heard.
Speaker 1: How do you move past that? Is? What is your advice?
Speaker 1: I should say in or the steps in how we
Speaker 1: would begin to move to move through that. I don't
Speaker 1: want to say move past it, but actually attempt to
Speaker 1: move through that. Well, let me let me ask a
Speaker 1: question first, which is, when I was talking about the
Speaker 1: couple's therapy stuff, did you assume that I was talking
Speaker 1: about sensitive white people. No, but that's where I wanted
Speaker 1: to go. Yeah, because I actually think so. I think
Speaker 1: there are two ways to answer that question. One is,
Speaker 1: I actually think it's a it's a good political strategy.
Speaker 1: Right if they provoke on critical race theory and we
Speaker 1: fight back defending critical race theory, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: we're on their ground. And so from a political standpoint,
Speaker 1: even if you don't, I just think that from as
Speaker 1: a strategic standpoint to it. It's also we get into
Speaker 1: these fights where we're just discounting what people are saying
Speaker 1: and we're always playing defense. And so I think in
Speaker 1: part what I'm trying to say is not just about
Speaker 1: interpersonal dams. It's also like thinking about a political way
Speaker 1: to fight back that is in part about imagine you're
Speaker 1: not trying to defeat the other side, you're trying to
Speaker 1: sell them a used car or something like that, which
Speaker 1: right now is very valuable. You would kind of try
Speaker 1: to understand what motivates them and then articulate back what
Speaker 1: motivates them in ways that makes them feel less defensive
Speaker 1: and things like that, and we don't we don't do
Speaker 1: that politically very often. I would say, Now, of course,
Speaker 1: this whole conversation is about inequity, and certainly I feel
Speaker 1: like the people who have the most to learn. I'm
Speaker 1: not actually talking about protecting the feelings of white Americans,
Speaker 1: although I think there are a lot of people. I mean,
Speaker 1: my own book, Dying of Whiteness was critical of like
Speaker 1: the empathy approach of let's just touch people's feelings. That's
Speaker 1: not what I'm saying, But I will say that if
Speaker 1: if this is a skill that like mainstream white America
Speaker 1: could learn, this would also be a great a great moment.
Speaker 1: Like I just wrote a book. I just wrote the
Speaker 1: forward for this great book, Viral Underclass that's going to
Speaker 1: come out next year, that talked about inequity during the pandemic.
Speaker 1: And one of the points I was making during the
Speaker 1: pen during that was when when COVID first hit um,
Speaker 1: it was really clear that that the pandemic was exacerbating
Speaker 1: pre existing in equity, and the people who were the
Speaker 1: most at risk were the people who were the most
Speaker 1: at risk the week before the pandemic hit. Also, and
Speaker 1: as we as we recognize that black and Hispanic people
Speaker 1: were dying from COVID UM, what if the answer of
Speaker 1: white America would have been, we are dying. Americans are dying,
Speaker 1: and we need to tell us what we can do
Speaker 1: to help better so that we are all safer. Something
Speaker 1: like that, like something that was an inclusive narrative, tell
Speaker 1: us what we can do to make this better so
Speaker 1: that we can all be safer. If Trump would have
Speaker 1: even I mean it's unimaginable mouth those words, he would
Speaker 1: still leave president, you know, and not to do all
Speaker 1: these kind of things. So in other words, like polarization
Speaker 1: feels natural, but it's such the wrong response. Imagine if
Speaker 1: if at that time it would have been, like, man,
Speaker 1: I'm acknowledging that, you know, in the first two months
Speaker 1: of covid people who are who can't social distance and
Speaker 1: can't um can't do other things like they So I
Speaker 1: just I just think that the role of empathy and
Speaker 1: political discourse like that would actually be much more effective
Speaker 1: in a particular way. So that's kind of a long
Speaker 1: and rambling point except to say that I think it's
Speaker 1: just a I mean, part of this exercise is to
Speaker 1: recognize just how acutely we go right into the polarizing narrative.
Speaker 1: But I do think ultimately this is a skill White
Speaker 1: America needs to learn. So tell me. You said folks
Speaker 1: should go home and try this this this week. What
Speaker 1: are some of the things. What are some of the
Speaker 1: redirects that we can offer that folks can practice in
Speaker 1: conversation with their loved ones, their bosses, whomever. That would help.
Speaker 1: That would not be about getting to a right or wrong,
Speaker 1: but getting into more conversations. So what are some of
Speaker 1: those phrases? Well, one thing would be like, let me
Speaker 1: let me tell you what I think I hear you saying,
Speaker 1: and tell me if I'm getting this wrong. Something like that,
Speaker 1: like I'm taking seriously what you're saying. Let me let
Speaker 1: me just tell you what I hear you saying, and
Speaker 1: you can tell me if I'm getting this right or not.
Speaker 1: What I hear you saying is and then be honest,
Speaker 1: like I hear you saying that you think vaccines are
Speaker 1: ineffective and they haven't been effectively tested, and we should
Speaker 1: have more testing to keep the country safe, but not
Speaker 1: rush out there in mandate a vaccine for everybody, but instead,
Speaker 1: you know, something like I'm just giving an example I
Speaker 1: agree with, but but you know you don't have to
Speaker 1: use like mandate or anti vax or something like that.
Speaker 1: But I think that I think for me, the most
Speaker 1: useful one is let me let me tell you what
Speaker 1: I I think I hear you saying, and tell me
Speaker 1: if I'm if I'm getting this wrong, and then let
Speaker 1: the person respond after you articulate that. To me, that's better.
Speaker 1: I mean there are ways. They're kind of like very
Speaker 1: ineffective ways of doing this, Like I've heard people who
Speaker 1: aren't good at it say stuff like thank you for
Speaker 1: sharing that, and like, you know, you want to hit
Speaker 1: that person in the half of a frying pan because
Speaker 1: that's like you condescending a hole. Um. But I think
Speaker 1: if you, if you can, just if you can start
Speaker 1: with let me let me tell you what I think
Speaker 1: I hear you saying, and tell me if I if
Speaker 1: I if I'm getting that wrong. What you're doing is
Speaker 1: number one, you're taking it seriously enough to think about
Speaker 1: it and articulate it, and then you're also giving that
Speaker 1: other person editorial leeway to correct you. And so those
Speaker 1: are two important moves to try to de escalate. And
Speaker 1: again it doesn't I mean sometimes you just disagree about things, sure,
Speaker 1: but I mean this is that is a really you know,
Speaker 1: it is a helpful tool. It is a It is
Speaker 1: a helpful way to just try it out and see
Speaker 1: if you if you continue to hit a wall or
Speaker 1: if it if it opens up a different avenue for
Speaker 1: there to be more conversation, more understanding. And I think
Speaker 1: that if folks were to attempt to try that again
Speaker 1: with your family, your friends, your boss, you know, your
Speaker 1: colleague that you may be having a difficult time with,
Speaker 1: I think that you may find that you you get
Speaker 1: to a more agreeable or amenable place. I won't say agreeable,
Speaker 1: but you may get to a more amenable place. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can try it on social media also, you know,
Speaker 1: it's um like think about the places that are the
Speaker 1: most polarized. Um, you know, it's fun. Like I put
Speaker 1: up some snark this morning. It was really gratifying to
Speaker 1: get like five hundred people who retweeted and liked my snark.
Speaker 1: Like we live on it, We live in a snark.
Speaker 1: We were living on snark and shade fumes right now
Speaker 1: when we agree when we try it, but I mean
Speaker 1: try it on social media also, like um, instead of
Speaker 1: doing their stupid disagree button that just started today. UM,
Speaker 1: Like try that. Tried that with disagreeable opinions and see
Speaker 1: where you know. I think there's a there's a new
Speaker 1: framework for new algorithms that I think we're just not considering.
Speaker 1: And I think we're in a really bad place because
Speaker 1: we're so radically, we're so radically losing the ability to
Speaker 1: talk to each other and it's getting to a point
Speaker 1: of ridiculousness. I mean, I was saying this morning, like
Speaker 1: when you're when you're trying to ban things that make
Speaker 1: people uncomfortable, like what Florida is doing right now in
Speaker 1: the schools, like you actually lose the ability to talk
Speaker 1: about discomfort. And I was just thinking, like I went
Speaker 1: to medical school, Like part of the goal as a
Speaker 1: doctor is you walk into the rooms of all different
Speaker 1: kinds of patients and you were talking about all different
Speaker 1: kinds of really complex life issues. And if you can't
Speaker 1: talk about discomfort, about a diagnosis, about a treatment, about
Speaker 1: you know, social class or race, or anything like that,
Speaker 1: you really you're going to be a really shitty doctor.
Speaker 1: And that's true for a lot of different things. And
Speaker 1: so in a way, what they're trying to do is
Speaker 1: like ratchet it up by by making it hard to
Speaker 1: talk about discomfort. And I think in a way we
Speaker 1: need to embrace, like what are the ways to talk
Speaker 1: about discomfort in a way that is enabling and not canceling.
Speaker 1: I think that's really where we should be going. Jonathan,
Speaker 1: as always, this is a very enlightening conversation and I
Speaker 1: love these and I look forward to continuing more. And Folks,
Speaker 1: if you do try out some of the tactics that
Speaker 1: Jonathan has offered up today, let me know in the
Speaker 1: comment section or on social media. You can get at
Speaker 1: the both of us and find us on Twitter and
Speaker 1: let us know if and how it is working for you.
Speaker 1: Jonathan as always, appreciate you, thank you, and I one
Speaker 1: last thing I want to say about this is, you know,
Speaker 1: they're the divisions, like right now, the divisions are like
Speaker 1: Republican or Democrat. But as things fracture, then it's like
Speaker 1: dividing among us right in a way. And so these
Speaker 1: things kind of fractured down so fighting back against divisiveness
Speaker 1: and discord and polarization is going to become a skill
Speaker 1: that's going to become even more important as the stakes
Speaker 1: get higher. So I think it's super important that we
Speaker 1: have these conversations. Fantastic, thank you, so as I'm going
Speaker 1: to be doing, dear friends at the end of each
Speaker 1: and every show, just allowing us some space and some
Speaker 1: time to reflect. There is a group that I follow,
Speaker 1: and I've discussed them before on here called the NAP
Speaker 1: Ministry that was begun by visual artist and um and
Speaker 1: minister right in many ways, uh Tricia Hershey, black woman
Speaker 1: who has realized the radical nature of black people reclaiming
Speaker 1: rest right and moving outside of this grind culture and
Speaker 1: right now on her instagram, uh, the NAP Ministry um
Speaker 1: and and she is a person that has done, you know,
Speaker 1: years of research in this field, and you know, in
Speaker 1: seminary on her Instagram she lays out for new people
Speaker 1: that are following her now about her own rest practice
Speaker 1: and why it is important and that within this space
Speaker 1: that we allow ourselves to nap, that we open up
Speaker 1: our dream portal. They were actually able to create and
Speaker 1: just imagine and rest rest our minds, rest our bodies right,
Speaker 1: and that while she has created this ministry based on
Speaker 1: her research, that she did not create this platform as
Speaker 1: a space to debate. And she offered something that I
Speaker 1: thought was really important, particularly for me, right, a person
Speaker 1: that uses social media as a way. Initially it was
Speaker 1: supposed to be about an exchange of ideas. It wasn't
Speaker 1: supposed to be an echo chamber. And she said that
Speaker 1: she created the Now ministry based on her research and
Speaker 1: what she has understood over the last twenty years, and
Speaker 1: that if you don't agree with her, that's fine, go
Speaker 1: out go create your own create your own ministry, create
Speaker 1: your own podcast and blog, you know, and build your flock.
Speaker 1: But like I'm not here to debate with you, and
Speaker 1: like you, you know, you believe that because I am
Speaker 1: a black woman, that you have readily access to me,
Speaker 1: and that I should show up right to whatever verbal
Speaker 1: duel that you want to have at any given time
Speaker 1: because you're hiding behind a screen. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think that it is really important for us to remember
Speaker 1: that we have choices when it comes to how and
Speaker 1: when and if we choose to engage with people, and
Speaker 1: that opting out of argument is not running away it's
Speaker 1: saying that I'd rather use my energy and my resources
Speaker 1: and my vibration for something else. Why am I going
Speaker 1: to waste hours on Twitter or on Instagram going back
Speaker 1: and forth with what could potentially be a bot and
Speaker 1: wasting so much energy and expending so much rage and
Speaker 1: just spinning, spinning, spinning, when frankly I could just opt out,
Speaker 1: and I said, you know, it really got me thinking
Speaker 1: about our very argumentative culture. Now you know me, you
Speaker 1: come and watch me hopefully on Instagram Live every Wednesday
Speaker 1: at three thirty pm Eastern when I do Woke Wednesday
Speaker 1: on Instagram, and it is an opportunity for me to
Speaker 1: get out my rage and frustration for thirty minutes and
Speaker 1: a space for you all collectively to build community and
Speaker 1: to have conversation in real time with like minded people.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's important. But then there are
Speaker 1: times when I get on Twitter where people want to
Speaker 1: tell me that I'm not woke and you know, I
Speaker 1: should shut up and this, that and the other thing.
Speaker 1: And I have moved from the place of feeling like
Speaker 1: I needed to respond to every single naysayer, whether it's
Speaker 1: somebody who puts a comment on a piece that I've
Speaker 1: written at Zora Magazine and they're just like, you're writing
Speaker 1: is trash. Well, sure, I could go in and decide
Speaker 1: to waste and expend energy that I could be using
Speaker 1: to create, or I could be using to rest and
Speaker 1: go back and forth with you, But why go write
Speaker 1: your own piece, Go do your own analysis, create your
Speaker 1: own following right, her message on the NAP ministry reminded
Speaker 1: me that it is within my power and within my
Speaker 1: purview to opt in or opt out of whatever does
Speaker 1: not serve me. And I think that we all need
Speaker 1: those reminders, particularly now. You do not have to respond
Speaker 1: to that text, return that call, return that tweet, respond
Speaker 1: to that comment that is going to lead to nowhere.
Speaker 1: You can instead choose to opt out and that is
Speaker 1: your power and just say no, which is a complete sentence.
Speaker 1: So that's a little bit of zen and reset and
Speaker 1: rest today. We don't have to engage. It is our choice.
Speaker 1: So remember that as always, dear friends, Power to the
Speaker 1: people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
Speaker 1: stay woke as fuck.