Laz, I don't see the point in again going over who did what to whom. My point here is simple.
E posted that two "facts" could occur concurrently. I thought that was a big step in the right direction so I jumped on the opportunity her opening gave me. One of the problems in this incident, IMO, has been the black hat/white hat mentality--that those on one's side are perfect and those on the other side are evil. That's why I saw E's point as an important opening. That multiple "truths" can exist concurrently, some of them favorable to your side and some of them not, is important in conflict resolution. I have not been arguing for or against any of those truths. I have my opinions on most of them, but I'm not arguing my opinions or trying to convince anyone of any of them. I am simply trying to get everyone to accept what E seemed to be accepting, which is that multiple truths can exist concurrently. When people accept that, they are more mellow and understanding and in better condition to deal with an issue constructively.
For example, the gang thing, since that's what your response was about. Whether or not there was a gang isn't as important in conflict resolution as everyone recognizing that some people might reasonably perceive a gang and react accordingly. They may be mistaken, but the reaction isn't either ludicrous or evil. There was at least enough evidence of gang activity for someone who had that as a hobby horse to reasonably perceive one in this event. Was it an overreaction? Maybe. Was it mistaken? Maybe. The point is that it wasn't "ludicrous." If everyone can just accept that it wasn't ludicrous, we've made progress. We can discuss in a non-confrontational way what those who saw a gang did with that perspective and how that affected things. Or we can be mellow and just chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Either way, that's progress.
This black hat/white hat thing has got to stop. IMO, no one in this comes out smelling like a rose. The sooner everyone accepts that, the sooner folks can deal with this constructively. Before you get all exercised about it, no, that's not the same as saying that everyone was equally at fault or that everyone owes everyone else an apology. It only means that people are different and everyone makes mistakes and not everyone is evil. |
