With yesterday's announcement behind me, I'm going to do a series of posts about how our farm and family view diversity, tolerance, inclusion and dialogue.  I'm shocked by what people say on social media and by how people handle disagreement.  I fear we've moved into a broadening adoption of vitriol and verbal extortion.

             With that in mind, what are the rules for conversation?  I would suggest three things have to happen in order for meaningful dialogue to occur:

             1.  Civility.  No vulgarity, profanity, or screaming.  This includes throwing things, yelling in my face and speaking in a way that would make grandma blush.  This includes decorum and keeping private conversations private, not blurring the public and private demarcation.  Blabbing every thought and every word from every conversation is barbaric; screaming and vulgarity are barbaric.  I've been accused of "not listening" to others; I have no ethical or moral requirement to engage with uncivil speech or action.

             2.  Respect.  This means we engage as equals, each appreciative of the others' thoughts and mindful that the other person's ideas are as sensible to him or her as mine are to me.  Perhaps the critical element here is refusing to judge motive.  I've had many conversations with my ecology-minded friends about Monsanto, for example.  If you've followed my posts, you know that I defend Monsanto's motives as sincere and honorable.  While I couldn't disagree more with Monsanto's belief systems and activities, I do not think folks there have evil intent.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is absolutely true.  So while I want someone else to assume good faith in me, I must assume that in others.

             3.  Constructive.  In my high school and college career as a professional debater, one of the most profound lessons I learned was that when we took the affirmative side, requiring change to something, it wasn't enough to indict the system.  We could not and would win the debate unless we offered a workable solution to the problem.  Tearing down is easy.   Destruction is easy.  The hard part is a workable replacement.  A conversation requires a constructive element, not just vituperative destruction.  On our farm, we call this "thinking through" an issue.  If both parties are not equally focused on viable solutions, we can't have a discussion about the problem.

             When we feel strongly about things, it takes a lot of discipline, mentally and emotionally, to adhere to these standards. Ranting and flailing may make news headlines, but they do not build bridges or offer solutions.  Unless a conversation is civil, respectful, and constructive, it's not a conversation at all.  It could be bullying, extortion, ideological hostage taking--call it what you will, but it's not a conversation.

             Anyone who thinks I'm off base here should try violating any of these rules with an animal.  Try your pet or a horse or a cow.  If animals respond to these rules, surely humans do too.  Some people believe the foolish notion that farmers who raise livestock and slaughter them have a propensity toward violence.  In fact, those of us who spend a lot of time with animals develop a deep and abiding appreciation for rules of interaction.  The difference between city kids and farm kids around our animals is profound.  Talk softly; move gently; give them time to adjust to you; don't invade their space.  I'm always amazed at how differently a child interacts with chicks in our brooder the second visit versus the first visit.  If you want your kids to learn how to positively interact with people, bring them out to our farm and play with the chicks.

             Have you struggled to converse with someone refusing to adhere to these rules of dialogue?