Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

SF Gay Men's Chorus receives death threats after InfoWars article

Assistant Editor
Thursday Jul 8, 2021
 
The offices of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus, housed at its National LGBTQ Arts Center in San Francisco, closed out of an "abundance of caution" following harsh criticism of its video by InfoWars, a right-wing site run by Alex Jones. Photo: Jeff Zaruba  

The office of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus is closed "out of an abundance of caution" after members started receiving a barrage of negative messages, including death threats, in response to a mischaracterization of a song the group posted to YouTube, its executive director said Thursday.

Chris Verdugo, a gay man who is the executive director of the chorus, told the Bay Area Reporter July 8 that the website InfoWars — run by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — called the song "A Message from the Gay Community" "pedophilic" in an online article July 7. That apparently unleashed the vitriol. 

"The threat that stuck in my head," Verdugo said of the harassing messages he fielded, "was, 'We're gonna put lead in your head.' That was quite frightening."

These threats are utterly unacceptable.  

Unfortunately, the creators of the song have done this sort of thing before.  See here (from the New York Times) :

Quote

Given enough intellectual muscle, any outré story can probably be pounded into a musical. For evidence, look no further than “Sweeney Todd,” “Fun Home” and “Hamilton,” three great shows of forbiddingly unlikely origin.

But the authors of “The Boy Who Danced on Air” have taken the challenge of difficult source material too far. Their troubling new musical, which opened Thursday in an Abingdon Theater Company production, was inspired by “The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan,” a 2010 documentary about, well, pedophilia.

Sure, the practice of bacha bazi — “boy play” in the Dari language of Afghanistan — includes much more than that. As Tim Rosser (who wrote the show’s music) and Charlie Sohne (who wrote the book and lyrics) explain in a program note, it is also an “ancient tradition where wealthy men buy boys from poorer families” and “train them to dance.” So the sexual abuse, which the show does not ignore, is seen in the context of historical precedent and local culture, much as those who defend it ask us to see genital cutting. Imagine that musical.

(Emphasis added.)

Kinda hard to characterize the New York Times as "right wing."

Quote

This one is about Paiman, a boy of 16, who was only 10 when he was sold to Jahandar, a married man then about 40. Jahandar explains that Paiman’s father “didn’t want you as much as I do.” But now that Paiman is sprouting peach fuzz, tradition decrees that their liaison must be severed. Jahandar arranges to marry him off: a prospect that each of them, in different ways, dreads.

The ick factor here is dangerously high, a problem that the production, directed by Tony Speciale, labors hard to mitigate through aesthetics. We see the preteenage Paiman only in silhouettes projected on the fabric of a tent, which allows for clever distortions of scale. (The lighting design is by Wen-Ling Liao.) The sexual content is similarly euphemized, in dances charmingly choreographed by Nejla Yatkin and in a few shirtless cuddles that suggest romance more than predation.

(Emphases added.)

I think we see the same "mitigation" efforts in the song/video.  Cheerfulness and smiles.  The use of sexual euphemism ("WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / FOR YOUR CHILDREN").  

Quote

It would be enough of an achievement to make this story, which also involves forced cross-dressing and a great deal of violence, palatable. (“Kid Victory,” another recent musical involving pedophilia, faced a similar challenge.) But Mr. Rosser and Mr. Sohne were even more ambitious: They have two more stories to tell. In one, Paiman develops a crush on another dancing boy, Feda, who dreams of escaping to seek fame as a singer in the big city. (That would be Chaghcharan.) Paiman wants to go with him but must first overcome his fear of leaving (or being punished by) Jahandar. A love ballad (“When I Have a Boy of My Own”) ends the first act with a kiss.

26BOYWHODANCED2-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&aut
Troy Iwata, left, and Nikhil Saboo play boys sold into servitude and abuse in Afghanistan.Credit...Sara Krulwich/The New York Times

If the fellow on the left, Troy Iwata, looks familiar, it's because he's the main guy singing in the SFGMC video.

Quote

I wish the creative team had been content to tell just that story: a familiar one in outline, certainly, but rich in unusual details. And the pedophilia story, though awkwardly handled, at least raises gripping issues. But the third story is entirely misbegotten. Taking a stab at political relevance, it features Jahandar stewing over the broken promises of the lately ended American intervention in his country. This leads to the show’s over-the-top, and then over-the-over-the-top, tragic ending.

That Mr. Rosser and Mr. Sohne, both in their early 30s, are able to make this material sing at all is almost alarming. It takes talent, yes, but also a certain amount of glibness to give the adult men lyrics like “Year by year the boy learns his place” and to turn Jahandar’s turbulent interior monologues into credible song. Still, the music — high-end theatrical pop adorned with melisma and other Silk Road accents — rewards the ear and is well orchestrated by the composer for a small combo including the lutelike Afghan rubab. What’s more, it is beautifully sung by cast members obviously hired for their voices. And, it must be said, for their looks.

(Emphases added.)

From another decidedly-not-right-wing article about the musical (emphases added) :

Quote

This musical is deeply insulting to Afghans as a whole, but also reinforces immensely painful stereotypes about queer and trans Afghans, a severely marginalized community. The wrongful association of pedophilia with queerness is nothing new but a heteropatriarchal violent agenda that has historically attempted to dehumanize queer movements across the world. The musical inadvertently adds to this agenda. Since the early days of the US military occupation of Afghanistan, from occupying forces to foreign journalists, travel bloggers and researchers have attempted to associate bacha bazi with Afghan queerness, damaging queer liberation in Afghanistan and in its diasporas.
...

Sohne was given the Kleban Prize, which awarded him $100,000, for this musical. To rectify this egregious decision, we demand the Kleban Foundation dedicate $50,000 to the Afghan arts and $50,000 to a research fund dedicated to supporting Afghan victims of sexual violence, decided in consultation with signatories of this release. It is abhorrent that white Americans profit off a deeply harmful portrayal of Afghan culture while Afghan artists — both in Afghanistan and abroad — are systemically and routinely rejected for grants, jobs, and opportunities. The Kleban Foundation can now rectify this mistake by apologizing to our community and using its resources to support Afghans telling stories about Afghanistan.

We further demand from Diversionary Theater that the musical not be aired anymore, and all future showings of the musical be suspended. The soundtrack ought to be removed from all streaming websites, including Spotify, as well. 

We also demand a formal apology from Sohne, Rosser, and others involved for their creation of the musical, for glorifying sexual exploitation, and for perpetuating false and harmful narratives about Afghan culture. 

Signed,
Afghan Diaspora for Equality and Progress (ADEP)
The Samovar Network (TSN)
Afghan-American Community Organization (AACO)
George Mason University Afghan Student Union
Afghans of North America
Afghan Student Association at UC Berkeley
Afghans Reviving Culture and Heritage (ARCH)
The Khansultant & Co.
Stony Brook University Afghan Student Organization
Afghan Student Association at UC San Diego

So I guess the cadre of folks on this board advocating for and defending the "message" of the "we're coming for your children" song will now be contacting the above signatories and telling them how they have just minsunderstood the Rosser/Sohne musical, and also insult their intelligence and character for objecting to it.

This article, interviewing two of the leads in the play, seem to further justify things:

Quote

In The Boy Who Danced on Air Jonathan Raviv and Troy Iwata play unlikely lovers, given their characters are bound by an ancient tradition that combines slavery, dance and pedophilia. Raviv plays Jahandar, an Afghan man who practices bacha bazi, which sees him procure the services of teenaged Paiman (played by Iwata) who dances for him and fulfills the sexual needs forbidden for men to have with unmarried women, in exchange for dance training and a life of limited “privilege” within the rules of their society. Rather than shock us with sensationalism, the show’s creators, Tim Rosser and Charlie Sohne, have crafted a complex piece which forces us to deal with cultural differences without the “benefit” of having a white savior to guide us through.

The musical challenges audience members without forgoing the parameters of the medium, meaning it works perfectly as a musical, and as an anthropological study. Given the characters in the play see the world in a unique way, notions of homosexuality and love have nothing to do with anything we associate them with, giving the actors the opportunity to explore a relationship between two men in which eroticism and brutality live side by side. Rather than allowing us to pass judgment on the characters, the musical humanizes them to the point where we can’t do anything else but see parts of us in them, an achievement that makes us embrace it, rather than try to escape it.

(Emphases added.)

"An achievement that makes us embrace it."  "It" refers to . . . what? 

Quote

The show was great, but it was quite an experience to sit through. What made you want to play these characters?

Jonathan Raviv: I’ve actually been with the production since its first read-through at NAMT in 2013. First, as a performer to be able to sing the beautiful music is a gift, Tim Rosser and Charlie Sohne, wrote beautiful lyrics and music. Second, I love that brings awareness to a topic most people don’t know exists. A lot of the criticism of the piece, if I can call it that, is that it’s difficult, that it’s a difficult subject matter, but that’s precisely why I think that we as people of privilege need to sit through this and watch it. Selfishly I also wanted to play a character who does evil things, and how he justifies them, it’s a great challenge as an actor, but it’s also important to understand what motivates people to do bad things. Charlie wrote a piece that doesn’t make the villain an evil person, you understand his pain and why/how he can justify the things he does.

To his credit, the actor seems to acknowledge that the play is depicting "evil things."  The concern, I think, is that the depiction appears to have glorified and romanticized those evil things.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

That’s interesting. Two of my companions married people from the mission that were 15-16 while they were serving. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

And no threat to subvert parents in the raising of their children, either.

Yeah, Pogi was really reaching with this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So did they pull the video because they were ashamed or because of the predictable death threats?

Seems like the latter.

Absent the threats, I suspect they would have kept it up.  So taking it down was apparently not a matter of principle and acknowledgment of error in judgment (as Rosser/Sohne did in response to criticisms of their musical).

Thanks,

-smac

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

I doubt that there will be a bunch of gay men walking the streets distributing pamphlets and preaching the virtues of gayness door to door.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s interesting. Two of my companions married people from the mission that were 15-16 while they were serving. 

So what's your point? You don't agree with my statement? Are you actually saying you see no difference between similarly-aged romances (what, the Elders were 19? 20?) and adult men threatening (albeit in a satirical fashion) to come for your children

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt that there will be a bunch of gay men walking the streets distributing pamphlets and preaching the virtues of gayness door to door.

I doubt that too. But what do you think of my statement to pogi?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And no threat to subvert parents in the raising of their children, either.

Yeah, Pogi was really reaching with this.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's amazing (see SU & Nehor's most recent comments to my post) to see contortions and distortions in order to avoid acknowledging a difference. I made a well-intentioned comment to pogi's post, and looke what we get in return. SU has friends who fell in love with girls on the mission and he thinks that advances a point. Good grief. 

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

If the concern is subverting the will of the parents, then I don't see how it makes a difference who the messenger is.  Peer-to-peer, we have learned, is simply more effective.  They are directed by adults to do so, after all.  I have even heard scriptures used in lessons to justify it:

Quote

 

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 12

 

It is organized and directed by the church with the adults training the youth on how to convert children - despite the wishes of their parents.    We do also have them invite non-member youth to activities where adults, and often missionaries, have direct influence in planting seeds of conversion.  Historically, adults have directly targeted children with baseball baptisms and other missionary efforts.  We have learned through our efforts that it is much more effective for peers to do the converting rather than adults.  We are simply more advanced in our efforts.  We even have pass-along cards and e-cards created by adults and targeted to youth, along with other media and videos. 

I also don't think there are adult gay men going door to door and directly converting children.  It is done through concert series like Love Out Loud etc. (which the church supported by the way), and media (which parents are free to educate their children about and restrict in their home).   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

So what's your point? You don't agree with my statement? Are you actually saying you see no difference between similarly-aged romances (what, the Elders were 19? 20?) and adult men threatening (albeit in a satirical fashion) to come for your children

Adult men literally came for children on the one hand. On the other hand a group of adult men bragged about winning the culture war with a message of tolerance and fairness. Sure there is a difference. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Adult men literally came for children on the one hand. On the other hand a group of adult men bragged about winning the culture war with a message of tolerance and fairness. Sure there is a difference. 

Ah, you move the goal posts. Remember, I did not have much of a problem with the song as I could see the point they were trying to make. My comment was in response to pogi (he has since responded with a reasoned retort and without the need to cite examples of Elders falling in love - many thanks to him). If you don't see a difference between an overt, systemic push by adult men to convert your children and similarly-aged romance-conversions then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not scared, either.

Replete with double entendre.

What are your thoughts about the creators of the song, Sohne and Rosser, having done this sort of thing before?  Did they not learn anything from that experience?

And here:

"Right wingers" didn't commission a musical that played on this trope (associating "paedophilia with queerness").  Sohne and Rosser did that on their own.  And now, with this song/video, they have done it again.  

Some of this may come down to timing.  As I understand, the song is actually a few years old, and has been performed many times by the SFGMC.  

Right.  Satire.  We get it.

The thing is, Sohne and Rosser have done this sort of thing before.  They wrote an entire musical that was construed by those depicted in it as "romanticising child sexual abuse and child rape."  They apologized, shut down the production, took the vids off YouTube and streaming services, and condemned the "trope" (associating "paedophilia with queerness") that they previously used in their musical to give the audience "a laugh."

Something similar happened here, I think.  The SFGMC wanted to give their audience "a laugh" by taunting parents, threatening to subvert them and come after their children (using a pretty emphatic double entendre).

Sohne and Rosser took down their musical.  They didn't accuse the criticisms of having hateful motives.  They apologized and condemned the trope they had played on for laughs.

In contrast, the SFGMC is doubling down.  Accusing those who are criticizing their sone of having hateful motives.  And no apology or retraction of the trope they played on for laughs.

Also, I dispute that the concerns and criticisms are "right-wing" in nature.  I think there are plenty of people across the political spectrum who disliked the song/video.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there a link to the prior work? Maybe I missed it. My first thought is there is a difference between a musical, replete with a storyline, and a satirical song that doesn’t really have a storyline. Also, if their prior work was as denigrating to gays as you are implying, then maybe they learned a lesson and decided to do better. I’ll reserve judgement until I have more info about it. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

As long as the thumbs down does not cause comments to be deleted, I'd say that at least it kind of puts people on record for their views.

Yes, but can't you pretty much predict who is going to do a thumbs down to just about any comment?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

If the concern is subverting the will of the parents, then I don't see how it makes a difference who the messenger is.  Peer-to-peer, we have learned, is simply more effective.  They are directed by adults to do so, after all.  I have even heard scriptures used in lessons to justify it:

It is organized and directed by the church with the adults training the youth on how to convert children - despite the wishes of their parents.    We do also have them invite non-member youth to activities where adults, and often missionaries, have direct influence in planting seeds of conversion.  Historically, adults have directly targeted children with baseball baptisms and other missionary efforts.  We have learned through our efforts that it is much more effective for peers to do the converting rather than adults.  We are simply more advanced in our efforts.  We even have pass-along cards and e-cards created by adults and targeted to youth, along with other media and videos. 

I also don't think there are adults gay men going around and directly converting children to be more friendly and tolerant of gay people.  It is done through concert series like Love Out Loud etc. (which the church supported by the way), and media (which parents are free to educate their children about and restrict in their home).   

I still see a significant difference. Yes, everything our youth do is so much at the behest of the programs adults have set up. Granted. The difference that makes the difference IMO is that contemporaries are doing the direct proselyting for the most part and not the adults. If I knew the Church were setting up programs to send only adult men into the schools, playgrounds, movie theatres, etc. to make our children converts, I would have an issue with that as well. It happens though that I don't see that happening nor am I taking seriously the men's choir song as planning to do it either.  

Link to comment

A news article quoted Chris Verdugo as saying:

"Verdugo admits that he did not expect the chorus would be unleashing such a storm with its post. "It's a lightning rod," he acknowledged, of the risks of referencing anything gay and child-related in the same breath. But, he says, the performance "came from a very innocent place. We weren’t trying to antagonize anyone … we never thought it would — and perhaps that’s on us."

I believe him, despite Nehor's claims that the song was obviously meant to make specific people angry.  But yeah, they probably should have known that singing about converting children to agree with the choir's beliefs on homosexuality, against the wishes of their parents, wasn't going to go over very well with the people they were singing about.

Not that that justifies death threats or threats of harm in any way.  

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes, but can't you pretty much predict who is going to do a thumbs down to just about any comment?

Sometimes, but sometimes not.

You may be right, on the whole, a downside could also be that people participate more by voting as a replacement for dialogue.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes, but can't you pretty much predict who is going to do a thumbs down to just about any comment?

I wondered about that too. On the balance, I think it is still a good idea as there may be folks who you would typically expect to agree with you, who might on any given occasion not agree with you and be able to easily let you know. Having allies give me a thumbs down would give me pause. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A news article quoted Chris Verdugo as saying:

"Verdugo admits that he did not expect the chorus would be unleashing such a storm with its post. "It's a lightning rod," he acknowledged, of the risks of referencing anything gay and child-related in the same breath. But, he says, the performance "came from a very innocent place. We weren’t trying to antagonize anyone … we never thought it would — and perhaps that’s on us."

I believe him, despite Nehor's claims that the song was obviously meant to make specific people angry.  But yeah, they probably should have known that singing about converting children to agree with the choir's beliefs on homosexuality, against the wishes of their parents, wasn't going to go over very well with the people they were singing about.

Not that that justifies death threats or threats of harm in any way.  

 

Yes. This. His acknowledgement makes me feel bad for the choir. As a colllective, I have to believe the message was well-intentioned. Perhaps they went overboard though they do not have the market on going overboard. ; ) I hope this does not sully whatever goodwill there is between the Church and this particular choir. : ( And yes, death threats and the like are discouraging, infuriating, and prone to leaving one despondent about mankind. : (

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

wait, who is pushing adult males out into the search of youth to convert??  Are you suggesting that the gay community does that?  I think you are confusing the missionary program with a choir.

Can you tell me the difference between the Gay Men's Chorus singing about their beliefs and desire to teach tolerance and love vs. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing songs pushing their message?  The Church does EXACTLY the same thing.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you view the clip, it’s easy to see that calling this a “joint venture” overstates by quite a bit what it actually was. 

I’ve been present with the choir on two extended tours, and I know that its typical and traditional practice is to invite a surprise “guest conductor” to lead the choir and orchestra in the last song of the concert. This typically is some person who is prominent and well-respected in the particular venue where the choir is performing at the time. Often as not, it is a person who is not even musically trained; it’s an honorary invitation, as it were. For example, when the choir performed in New York City, the “guest conductor” was U. S. Sen. Chuck Schumer. 

On this occasion in San Francisco, the “guest conductor” was the director of the Gay Men’s Chorus. His participation was limited to that last song of the concert, and it was just he who appeared on stage, not his chorus. 

Calling it a “joint venture” gives the impression that the choir and chorus performed together for all or much of the concert. That didn’t happen, from what I can tell. 

I’m not trying to disparage or discount what did happen, or say it wasn’t momentous; it was in some respects. I’m just saying let’s not overstate it beyond what it actually was. 

Here's an article that further explores the event:  https://latterdaysaintmusicians.com/the-tabernacle-choir-at-temple-square/the-mormon-tabernacle-choir-and-the-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-blend-their-voices-to-build-musical-bridges-of-understanding-and-unity

At the risk of drowning everyone in irony, here are some excerpts (bolding and underlining mine):

Quote

Chris Pettallano is a member of the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus – which features some 300 voices — and has been touring and recording for nearly four decades. He grew up Mormon and a musician and recalls listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He told the Deseret News, “I believe music is universal … so this opportunity is a blessing. I am not surprised that music can bring two different communities together.”
...
Reflecting on the experience of conducting the choir during the afternoon rehearsal, Dr. Seelig said, “I had a blast; who gets to do that?” He referred to the afternoon as “a milestone for these two organizations that we did not think would be coming for maybe 10 or 20 years.” He also called the Mormon Tabernacle Choir “the greatest choir in the world, hands down.” Speaking about the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, the world’s oldest gay men’s chorus, which he conducts, Dr. Seelig remarked, “We are the granddaddy of the LGBT choral moment, what we do is build bridges.

Irony.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

The difference that makes the difference IMO is that contemporaries are doing the direct proselyting for the most part and not the adults.

I agree there is a difference there in strategy/delivery, but it still subverts the parents - which is the concern being voiced.  In that regard, I still don't see a difference.

The major difference is that one method is much more effective and the other is much less effective.  We have learned through experience that peer conversion is more effective.  Perhaps we should be grateful they haven't figured that out yet ;)

Honestly though,  I think they have, and that is largely how this movement has evolved - peer-to-peer, and certainly with media influence (which we do in the church as well).  I really don't see any direct adult to child conversion efforts going on and we shouldn't take the lyrics literally in that regard.

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

If I knew the Church were setting up programs to send only adult men into the schools, playgrounds, movie theatres, etc. to make our children converts, I would have an issue with that as well. It happens though that I don't see that happening nor am I taking seriously the men's choir song as planning to do it either.  

Agreed!

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
9 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know that we can solve the worlds problems, but I do think we could improve dialogue in this forum.  These kinds of threads are designed to be incinerate and divisive.  A big first step would be to not start threads designed to disparage a certain group or belief..  I mean what is the point of this thread?  How does it apply to Church beliefs?  Have you seen many sincere inquiries trying to understand a different point of view? By their very nature, they are more soap box diatribes each side pointing fingers at the other.  And yes, they do open up deep wounds.  

I feel like often posts are made to score points rather than bring understanding.  I question the whole thumbs up grading idea.  And I hate the new thumbs down option.  That just makes things more vicious.  I personally refuse to use it.  

Jsut my thoughts.  I would love to hear what others have to say.

I've thought about that and I have wondered how to help do that.  I've even tried doing it to an extent, but I've realized I was missing pieces.  

What you are talking about and what I have thought about Covey would call win-win.  So I started trying to do this specific posters on occasion, but have come to realize that in order for both sides to win the both sides need to know and understand and agree to the "rules".  And with so many people on a message board how do you do that?

But after you wrote this I thought maybe it is worth a try.  I wondered could I start a thread with ground rules and tell anyone that they are welcome to post as long as they follow them?  Can that work?  Maybe.  What if we took it to pms?  Probably.

Then I thought, "what would we discuss?" And then if we are going to do this it has to be a topic where we can both win (and understand what it means to win.)

An example in the real world is workers wanting to be paid more and a company wanting to make a profit. If the workers get paid more, but that causes the company to go out of business then it is a loss for both.  If the company makes a profit, but then they lose workers who cannot afford to stay it is a loss for both.  So they need to figure out a winning solution that pays the workers more and the company makes a profit.

So what is a topic we can have rules for (even if not formal) where there is something for both sides to win? And that's where I get stuck, but it's only been less than 24 hours so I'm not giving up.  

I hope I have explained my thinking so at least someone might get a bit of it.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've thought about that and I have wondered how to help do that.  I've even tried doing it to an extent, but I've realized I was missing pieces.  

What you are talking about and what I have thought about Covey would call win-win.  So I started trying to do this specific posters on occasion, but have come to realize that in order for both sides to win the both sides need to know and understand and agree to the "rules".  And with so many people on a message board how do you do that?

But after you wrote this I thought maybe it is worth a try.  I wondered could I start a thread with ground rules and tell anyone that they are welcome to post as long as they follow them?  Can that work?  Maybe.  What if we took it to pms?  Probably.

Then I thought, "what would we discuss?" And then if we are going to do this it has to be a topic where we can both win (and understand what it means to win.)

An example in the real world is workers wanting to be paid more and a company wanting to make a profit. If the workers get paid more, but that causes the company to go out of business then it is a loss for both.  If the company makes a profit, but then they lose workers who cannot afford to stay it is a loss for both.  So they need to figure out a winning solution that pays the workers more and the company makes a profit.

So what is a topic we can have rules for (even if not formal) where there is something for both sides to win? And that's where I get stuck, but it's only been less than 24 hours so I'm not giving up.  

I hope I have explained my thinking so at least someone might get a bit of it.

A good start.  Maybe others could make suggestions.  

Maybe start a thread listing the 3 best things people like about this forum and the 3 things they dislike the most, with the ground rule that no one comments on the answers like Bernard is doing.  I think more ideas will come out and the thread will not get bogged down in some downward spiral about specific issues.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...